by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 4, 2000
All Rights Reserved.

erforming his version of the Texas two-step, GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush put on some pretty fancy moves trying to dodge the accepted debate format of the bipartisan commission established in 1988. Rewriting history, Bush proposed the less rigorous format offered by the prime-time news shows "Meet the Press" and "Larry King Live," rather than the more in-depth question and answer session seen in traditional debates. Turning things inside-out, "My opponent said he’ll debate me any time, any place, and he’s accepted the debates that I am accepting today," said Bush to reporters at an impromptu news conference in Austin. What he failed to mention was Gore’s offer was contingent on Bush first accepting the bipartisan commission’s program without reservations. Debating about the debates leaves many people wondering about all the fancy footwork. While candidates can run, they can’t hide from eventually facing the daunting proving-ground of televised debating. Most pundits give Gore a decisive edge after watching Bush debate during the Republican primaries.

       Thrown for a loop, the Gore campaign rejected Bush’s plan, emphasizing that it would rob the American people of greater exposure to the issues in campaign 2000. Capitalizing on a recent GOP TV ad showing Gore at the 1996 Buddhist Temple fund-raiser and his oft-lampooned remarks about inventing the Internet, Bush went for the jugular, "It’s important for the American people to be able to trust the next president to keep his commitments, and therefore I take Al Gore at his word that he will be there." Sure Gore acknowledged a willingness to debate on "Larry King Live," but he never agreed to abandon the bipartisan commission’s recommendation for televised debating. Gore’s offer to hold weekly 'debates' didn’t erase his commitment to the bipartisan commission’s historic format. Blaming Gore for reneging is a bit like the kettle calling the pot black. It’s Bush—not Gore—who’s having trouble playing by the rules.

       Playing dirty pool, the Bush campaign is trying to catch up after Gore’s phenomenal 26-point turnaround in the polls following his bell-ringing speech at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. Looking for a momentum-grab, the Bush campaign is pulling out all stops trying to impeach Gore’s credibility. Roundly criticized by the press for ducking the presidential debates, Bush regained the offensive, pointing out Gore’s 'inconsistencies' in a nationally televised press conference. But who’s really running and hiding? From 10 points behind, the Bush campaign is trying to set the parameters and level the playing field. Convinced that Gore is a better debater, the Bush campaign is trying to hurdle the next major obstacle—the widely watched bipartisan debates. Should Bush tank with a high Nielsen rating, Gore would surely capture the momentum gained over the last few weeks. No longer running neck-and-neck, one more GOP mistake could prove insurmountable.

       Since the GOP convention, the Bush campaign has tried to cleverly connect President Clinton’s indiscretions with Al Gore. Recent polls have indicated that dredging up the Lewinsky sex scandal boomerangs by hitting below the belt. Most rational people don’t hold Gore accountable for Clinton’s depravity, nor should he be blamed for disgracing the Oval Office. Following this one-dimensional tack hasn’t been enough to derail the public’s perception that the country’s better off than it was before Clinton took office in 1992. Acknowledged or not, Bush has always faced an uphill battle convincing voters that it’s time to change Clinton’s true legacy—the most powerful economic prosperity in U.S. history. While Republicans have tried to attribute Clinton’s success to Reagan-Bush’s economic policies, the public just hasn’t bought it. Rightly or wrongly, incumbents receive the credit for economic prosperity. Like boxing, it takes a convincing performance to dethrone the titleholder. With Gore stepping into his own, undecided voters are now taking a searching inventory: 'If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

       Complicating the picture are the GOP’s positions on key issues, including tax cuts, Medicare, Social Security and education. With most economists viewing tax cuts as inflationary, putting cash in taxpayers’ pockets raises the specter of higher interest rates. Increasing Greenspan’s GDP Deflator—his favorite index for determining the wealth effect—with unrestricted tax cuts might torpedo the economic expansion and bull market. Few people are willing to take that risk. Unlike 1980 or even 1992, today’s inflation-prone economy might not survive a sudden infusion of cash without dangerous overheating. While few can deny that tax rates aren’t excessive, how the surplus is spent makes a big difference on inflationary pressures. Spending the surplus on a Medicare prescription drug benefit and paying down the debt seem to make more sense to most voters—or so the polls say. Privatization plans for Social Security and education create way too much anxiety for seniors and working families. Sure, in the best of all possible worlds, choice makes sense, but most people are frightened by changing tried-and-true programs.

       Without losing further ground, Bush needs to step up to the plate and accept the bilateral commission’s structure for presidential debates. He needs to make a compelling case for how his proposals will benefit working families more than Mr. Gore’s. With the charisma factor now fading, selling undecided voters on GOP plans is Bush’s only remaining hope for turning around the polls. Changing the rules and showing reluctance to follow the traditional debating format creates the impression that he’s running scared. Unlike the witness stand, presidential candidates can’t avoid testimony on the grounds that it might hurt their case. Like it or not, they must get into the hot seat and strut their stuff. Bending the rules, avoiding confrontation and making excuses won’t get it done. Despite all the handlers, spinmeisters and cornermen, the candidates must still lace it up and jump into the ring.

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.