ABBA EBAN, the Israeli diplomat, used to skewer the Palestinians by saying they “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” The same could be said about George W. Bush’s presidential campaign, at least as it coasts through the weeks before the Republican convention at the end of July.
Bush himself believes the time is not right to wage a major effort against Al Gore. The nation, Bush feels, is indifferent to the presidential race now and will become more so until a few weeks before the convention. So he’s content to sit on a tie with Gore until the final two or three months. The problem with this approach: Bush is passing up opportunities to gain on Gore, opportunities Gore would seize if roles were reversed.
Bush doesn’t have to take cheap shots. Nor should he try to attract attention by laying out his entire agenda or expressing every fleeting thought he has about a George W. presidency. Bush already understands voters are increasingly turned off by politicians who are in their face day after day. But he does need to be visible and interesting, and one way to do that is to inject himself into major news events. Bush doesn’t have to create front-page news, only jump at the chance to comment trenchantly on it.
For example, when a federal judge ruled on the Microsoft case last week and the stock market tanked, Bush missed an opportunity. He said he didn’t want to get involved in an ongoing legal matter. For one thing, he has supporters on both sides of the case. His campaign’s information technology advisory council includes James Barksdale, the former boss of Netscape and a fierce Microsoft foe, and officials from Microsoft. Besides, a campaign aide said, Microsoft notified the campaign that Bush’s hands-off attitude was fine with the company. No doubt it was fine with Gore too.
What made the Microsoft episode ripe for comment was not simply that the ruling came in a lawsuit pushed by the Clinton administration. More important is the new financial environment in America in which it occurred. Now, nearly half of American households own stock in IRAs, 401(k)s, mutual funds, personal investment accounts, or other financial instruments. Microsoft itself has 3 million individual investors. Karl Rove, Bush’s chief strategist, often talks about an “investor class” in America, and it probably constitutes a sizable number of likely voters. Also, Microsoft has been an engine of the stock market boom of the 1990s. As Microsoft’s stock soared, so did many stocks of all kinds, but especially technology stocks. When it fell last week, so did others, notably tech stocks.
So, here’s what Bush could have responsibly said:
The savings of millions and millions of working families have been dealt a heavy blow in the aftermath of the Microsoft ruling. This may jeopardize or delay their retirement and substantially reduce the nest egg they had planned to leave to their children. It may be months or years before their savings recover. In the meantime, on my first day as president, I will instruct my attorney general to review the Microsoft case and make a recommendation on whether the lawsuit should be pursued. I make no judgment at this time on the legal issues in the case.
Had Bush read such a statement, he would have thrust himself into every network evening news show and onto the front page of almost every newspaper. He would have made a significant and fair point and planted himself on the side of middle-class and lower middle-class Americans. He would have pointed up a difference between himself and Gore, who has defended the Microsoft law-suit. He would have, in effect, sided with Bill Gates without taking a position on the legal issues. And, as strange as it seems, he would have made a populist appeal. Gates is popular with everyone except elites. (Bill Clinton astutely invited Gates to the White House the following day.) Instead, Bush’s photo op and news peg that day — the environment — got minimal media attention.
Bush aides insist that he actually did seize the opportunity to capitalize on the Elian Gonzalez controversy. The truth is, he could have done more. Bush early on endorsed permanent residency status for Elian and said what’s best for the boy should determine whether he stays in Miami or is shipped back to Cuba. Later, after Gore endorsed the same thing, Bush said this wasn’t enough and Gore should lean on President Clinton and the Justice Department to halt their efforts to deport Elian. Of course, no one expects Gore to do that, but it was fair for Bush to point out the emptiness of Gore’s position.
What Bush failed to do was take center stage in the Elian case. He could easily have done so by making a few strong but non-demagogic statements and perhaps visiting Elian’s relatives in Miami. Among Republican leaders nationally, there’s a vacuum on the pro-Elian side. Most congressional Republicans are uninterested (among the exceptions are senator Bob Smith and representative Tom DeLay). Bush could easily have emerged as the leading Republican opponent of the Clinton administration’s effort to send Elian back to Cuba without a custody hearing. His brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush, could have hosted George W. on a visit to Elian’s relatives. All this would have been big news, Bush versus the Clinton administration. But again, he chose to be a peripheral player.
Bush may not have to grab at targets of opportunity in the spring and summer to win the presidential election. On the contrary, Rove insists Bush’s low-key campaigning is helping him against Gore. “Movement around the country doesn’t equal forward movement in the polls,” he says. Rove cited three new polls released on April 7. They showed Bush taking the lead in Pennsylvania and Michigan, gaining 7 percentage points in each state, and opening a 14-point lead in North Carolina, a pickup of 8 points.
Gore’s surge over the winter, Rove argues, came while Bush was being challenged (and attacked) by John McCain in the GOP primaries. At that time, Gore got far less press and public attention. But once the spotlight again falls on Gore, he will sink, Rove says. And this will occur by mid-summer. Then, the Bush campaign will be airing ads reminding voters of Gore’s fund-raising visit to a Buddhist temple and other campaign finance excesses.
Still, it certainly would please restive Republicans if Bush were more active now. They’re eager for him to be visible, to show a spark, to jump quickly on a new issue, to say something worthwhile, to dispel the (unfair) caricature of him as slow-witted. I suspect Bush fears he’ll come across like Gore if he pounces aggressively on issues that come up. With Gore, nearly every shot is a cheap shot. According to him, every Bush proposal would ruin one American institution or another. Last week, Gore said Bush would cause “a right-wing U-turn back to the Bush-Quayle deficit, the Bush-Quayle recession, the Bush-Quayle assault on working families.” Bush will never sound like that, even when taking advantage of a fresh development. It’s not in the genes.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
