|
| POLITICAL WRAP | |
August 25, 2000 |
|
|
Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant and National Review editor Rich Lowry analyze the dead heat race between Al Gore and George W. Bush.
|
|
|
||||||||||
| A changed presidential race | |||||||||||
| Tom, has the chemistry of this race really changed?
MARGARET WARNER: You mean starting with the Lieberman pick. TOM OLIPHANT: From Lieberman through about Wednesday of this week. I haven't seen a shift like that since my baby year of 1968 when Richard Nixon finally vaulted ahead for the first time. Bush, gaffes aside, we haven't really heard from yet. I don't think the country hears him right now. But in terms of the chemistry changing, absolutely, and in a major way. He is in people's living rooms right now with a fairly attentive audience willing to listen to him. And that is the biggest change of all. MARGARET WARNER: How do you see it?
But they also, I think -- I hate to say it -- liked that bodice-ripping kiss which was an extremely important symbolic statement on the vice president's part. So he's solidified his base and he has now created a huge lead among women when he was tied or behind Bush. And that's what has driven his bounce in this period. |
![]() |
||||||||||
| The story behind the numbers | |||||||||||
| MARGARET WARNER: How do you see what's happened inside the
numbers? It's women?
MARGARET WARNER: But, I mean, this isn't new from Al Gore, a populous message and also an emphasis on specifics. Why is it working better now? RICH LOWRY: Well, I think all year long the two characteristics that have been most important to voters is not any issue. It's character and leadership. And through that kiss, he solidified his image, characterize because there is no... not to get too graphic, but there is no possible way to starkly demonstrate that you're different than President Clinton than passionately kissing your wife in front of millions of people. And two, just the tone of his speech: This is what I believe. This is who I am, you might not like it, you might think boring, but I am going to fight. I don't care. I am going to fight. Those are words from strong leader. And we saw Gore has trailed Bush in that leadership area all year long, by huge margins. He has made up that ground, and that's because of his fighting stance.
TOM OLIPHANT: Well, again, what's interesting is that there is nothing in Gore's language. I mean, this is how he came at Bradley last fall - it was the same basic idea. "Fight" was the key word there. In Governor Bush's case though, I don't think he has recognized something very basic about presidential campaigns. And that is when the conventions are over, and the general election starts, the campaign starts, the campaign is like a stage where you never know when somebody is going to hit the lights. And in the aftermath of this convention with Gore having done well, with a lot of attention focused on him, with his personality at least appealing enough so people were willing to listen to him, people looked in on Governor Bush and they couldn't hear anything. And then I don't think they've been hearing anything since he left Philadelphia. The position of the campaign has been that this is personal, not business -- that it's about character and leadership style. That is not the conception of the campaign from the Democratic side. But in a general election at this point, people start to want more, even Ronald Reagan understood that 20 years ago and gave them more at this time. He needs to give people more. RICH LOWRY: Well, it's interesting because the distinctions between the two campaigns are not just on substance. There's a real difference of tone and sensibility. Bush is the Zen candidate. Take it easy, take deep breaths, we'll all get along, no more fighting and bickering in Washington, just this bipartisanship peace zone we're going to enter into. And Gore is the "Fight Club" candidate. He says I'm going to bruise some people; I'm going to bruise these Republican who want to take away your clean water; I'm going to bruise these nasty corporate interests. So it will be very interesting to see which sensibilities sell better with the public.
MARGARET WARNER: But, at home we don't fight. RICH LOWRY: He's a lover and a fighter. TOM OLIPHANT: The pre-convention Al Gore would have probably referred to that as a risky osculation scheme. |
![]() |
||||||||||
| The pulled RNC ad | |||||||||||
| MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now, explain what happened to
this RNC ad this week that was sent to 350 stations and then at Bush's
direction was pulled. What was that all about?
MARGARET WARNER: And just to explain -- this is an ad that showed a Gore interview from a couple of years ago and that some of the Bush campaign felt it was misleading because it suggests that it referred to the Lewinsky - TOM OLIPHANT: It came very close to running. When you ship an ad, you're coming to the edge. And it reflected a judgment that Gore -- the assessment of Gore as a person had changed, getting back to chemistry for a second - and that if you don't affect that change- MARGARET WARNER: Quickly.
MARGARET WARNER: What do you mean defensive ad? TOM OLIPHANT: Well, it's like I'm not going to cut your Social Security benefits. We will have a program that will bring prescription drug coverage to all seniors. It is a kind of response, without directly saying so. |
![]() |
||||||||||
| Will Gore's populism work? | |||||||||||
| RICH LOWRY: Let me go back to the Gore populism. I do think
in the short-term it has helped him with his image but in the long-term
I can't believe it's a winner for him because this kind of rhetoric runs
directly counter to the most important demographic change in this country,
which is the rise of mass investment. And most people in this country
aren't fearful and worried about powerful corporate interests. They own
pieces of powerful corporate interests, whether they're pharmaceuticals
or whether they're Microsoft or whatever. So I think in the long run,
this is a loser message for Gore, and we saw an indication of it this
week where he had Joe Lieberman asked by the Wall Street Journal,
so are you guys anti-business? He says, no, no, no, this is just rhetorical
flourishes and rhetorical excesses. And that was a stumble on the part
of the Gore campaign that didn't get highlighted enough by the press.
TOM OLIPHANT: Except for a factual point. I don't share the common view that this is populist. I don't think it meets the historical definition or description of it. I think it's much more like what came a couple of decades after that that we called progressivism, which is more in the nature of reform that counterbalances special-interest power in the country. You can find by a two to one margin Americans feeling that special interests run the government. And so to that extent, the extent that he is more like a Teddy Roosevelt or a Hiram Johnson of California or even a Woodrow Wilson, domestically, Gore appears to a middle-class perspective rather than a populist one. MARGARET WARNER: All right. Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Thanks. |
|||||||||||
| |||||
|
|||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||