by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 22, 2000
All Rights Reserved.

howing his best sleight-of-hand, Texas Gov. and soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush has political pundits gyrating over his running mate selection. Since Republicans are forced to choose first, Al Gore’s selection hasn’t hit the boiling point, but will surely take center stage after the Republican convention. Going down to the wire, the Bush campaign continues to impress by properly hyping the media before Philadelphia. In an otherwise lackluster race, both parties need all the high drama they can get to wrench voters away from Survivor and Regis Philbin. With neither Bush nor Gore possessing a knockout punch, the VP selection becomes the most critical factor heading toward November. Not only does it showcase a candidate’s decision-making savvy, but it invigorates an otherwise banal campaign. "A lot of people say it doesn’t matter who wins," said veteran pollster Andrew Kohut, "Fewer people think it’s all that important than ever before," attesting to depressing levels of voter apathy so far in election 2000.

       While Green Party candidate Ralph Nader would like to blame this trend on the 'corporate' cloning of both major parties, the reality is that there’s no great crusade brewing in campaign 2000. With the economy steaming along and most Americans making vacation plans, politics isn’t high on the priority list. Sure America’s still a work in progress, but with most voters relatively content, there’s less reason for a coup d’etat. Bush insiders know that voter complacency favors the incumbent party. Why rock the boat if everything’s copacetic? With Gore nearly catching Bush in the polls, it suggests that Bush is fighting the vast inertia of the status quo—even more reason why his VP choice is absolutely critical to his chances. Not only can Bush ill-afford to alienate his base, he must reach across the aisle to crossover Democrats who find their party’s candidate difficult to stomach. Adding an exciting vice president to the ticket shores up weaknesses in many categories, including geography, issues, experience, personality, and, yes, charisma.

       Compensating for geography only goes so far. Though Bostonian John F. Kennedy chose Texan, Lyndon Johnson in 1960, it remains to be seen whether geography played a key role. Johnson far more than Kennedy was a Washington insider, whose track record of congressional deal-making was practically legendary. By the same token, his somewhat unappealing personality might have hurt the ticket more than it was helped with geography or his Washington insider status. Beating Richard Nixon by less than one voter per precinct, or just 113,000 votes, was too close for comfort. Sure Nixon was a formidable candidate, but most people gave Kennedy a decisive edge in charisma and personality. With a more charismatic running mate, who knows, Kennedy’s slim margin of victory might have been far greater. Most voters are drawn toward attractive, charismatic candidates, regardless of all the cutting issues, impressive experience or political geography.

       More important than issues or geography is how candidates honestly weigh their strengths and weaknesses. Denying weaknesses—whether it’s deficient experience or charisma—hurts candidates’ chances by failing to capitalize on running mates’ strengths. Overestimating candidates’ strengths also proves counterproductive by not recognizing the opponent’s weapons or compensating by making the best VP selection. Back in 1980, Ronald Reagan buried the hatchet and offered his adversary George H.W. Bush the second slot, against opposition from his party’s right wing. Gushing charisma and personality, Reagan didn’t need a super-salesman or motivational speaker. Bush lent his distinguished reputation and low-key personality. With the economy in shambles, the VP probably didn’t have much impact in the 1980 election. Unlike 1980, the country isn’t in dire straits desperately trying to make a switch. To wrench the prevailing party out of office, Bush knows he’ll have to choose heavy hitter.

       Unlike his father in1988, he won’t have the luxury of speculating on an unproven commodity. After 8 years of Ronald Reagan—the most popular president since JFK—George H.W. Bush rode a powerful coattail into the White House. No such luxury exists this time around. Bush’s choice will be based on the force of electability—pure and simple. While speculation continues to swirl around a number of prospects, including former rival John McCain, Bush’s headhunter, former Defense Secretary Richard B. [Dick] Cheney, has emerged as the frontrunner, though it’s not a done deal. Conjecture about McCain remains a diversionary tactic as Bush gets closer to his decision—they just don’t seem like the right fit. While Cheney’s clearly a better match, his association with Bush’s father might not sit well with voters seeking convincing proof that he’s grown beyond his father’s influence and is ready to be president. Cheney’s past medical problems might also cause some reservations. Cheney possess impressive credentials, especially his successful role in the Gulf War, but isn’t known for his scintillating oratory or personality.

       Waiting in the wings and just completing his Waco inquiry is former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mis.), whose physical health and ties to Bush’s father aren’t a stumbling block. Like Cheney, he offers seasoned Washington experience and is well liked on both sides of the aisle. More charismatic than Cheney, Danforth bridges Bush’s gap with superb insider experience, and consolidates his base with unassailable conservative credentials. Whoever Bush picks, electability will guide the decision. With Bush forced to tip his hand first, the Gore campaign will surely counter with an equally competent choice. Unlike Walter Mondale in 1984, Al Gore won’t be taking any chances this time around. Following his boss, he’ll try to shore up his own weaknesses and select the most powerful running mate. Now that the race’s tightening, neither side can afford any miscalculation. With both going toe to toe, their VP’s will likely tilt the balance plus or minus. While Bush needs experience Gore needs charisma—both need to make all the right moves.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for The Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care, political research and media consultation. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.