It’s seldom a good sign when a Republican presidential candidate gets praised for not going “negative” on his opponent. “For 90 minutes,” wrote David Broder in the Washington Post, “the campaign of tedium was elevated into a lesson in civics and civility. The first debate . . . may not have helped Bob Dole much in his pursuit of the presidency, but he and President Clinton deserve a vote of thanks for helping politics regain its good name.” R. W. Apple of the New York Times applauded the debate’s “temperate, civilized tone,” while ABC’s Jeff Greenfield said it was a “high-minded discussion.” In fact, the debate was so high-minded that every post-debate poll showed Clinton the clear winner by a 20-point margin. More astonishing was that Dole failed to discuss issues that would clearly have put Clinton on the defensive and helped Dole with Reagan Democrats and other swing voters. And we’re not talking about Whitewater.
Consider that Dole spent several days on the stump criticizing Clinton’s liberal judicial appointments, but never mentioned it when Clinton crowed about his tough-on-crime record. On affirmative action, Dole said nothing. And even though a majority of Catholics and one in every three evangelicals now support Clinton, Dole never talked about Clinton’s veto of the partial- birth abortion ban.
So is there really any wonder why the Republican base is totally demoralized when obvious debate points are ignored? Doesn’t the Dole campaign know that Reagan Democrats supported Reagan because he stood for more than increasing the growth rate two or three percentage points? In a recent Washington Post column, Charles Krauthammer, a contributing editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, explained such missteps this way: “Dole’s physical courage is beyond doubt. It is his political courage that is suspect.” Well said.
