Memo to Gore: Try Running on the Issues!

Great Debates
1

In the wake of the GOP Convention, the media buzz that Gore Is In Trouble has stepped up considerably. But the talk seems all too much about Gore’s need to successfully recast himself (again?!) and his inability to effectively reuse the demonize-the-Republicans strategy that worked so well in 1998, with much help from the backfired efforts of the GOP to demonize Clinton. (Goes to show you’ve got to pick your demonization targets carefully.)

There’s no doubt that demonizing is one of the Gore camp’s preferred approaches. For instance, after Bush chose Cheney as his running mate, the first thing the Gore people did was label it as the ticket of ‘big oil,’ to the collective yawns of millions of Americans.

For a variety of reasons, it’s clear that demonization isn’t going to work for either side this year. Dubya’s not going to try it himself, and if Gore tries to do it to him, it’s clear that he’s already slipped that punch. (Both sides of that are a tribute to the one area where Dubya is first-class - his political instincts are excellent.)

And recasting Gore’s public persona in the hopes of making it more compelling is a pretty hopeless endeavor; first, it’s too late, and we know Gore too well, for this to be done one more time; and second, it’s just wrong. And third, the more the campaign is about looks, the more it’s on Dubya’s turf. He already has his story line set, and knows how to play himself on TV.

So why not run on the issues? There aren’t really any other good options left for Gore - and it should be very winnable territory for him, IMO, without being an attack dog about it.

Not to mention, it would be good for the country: the more that elections clarify into honest and distinct choices about what we’re for, and what we’re against, the better democracy works for we, the people.

And in the long run (and maybe even the short run!) it would be good for the Democratic Party. Stating where you stand, and why, has a way of both solidifying your base and drawing converts; as I acknowledged in the Barry Goldwater thread, The Conscience of a Conservative has been, over time, one of the GOP’s biggest builders of popular support, despite the unpopularity of most of Goldwater’s positions at the time.

While I hate to see a candidate turn to running on the issues out of desperation, it’s a hell of a lot better than not doing it at all. C’mon, Al. It’s not too late.

2

If he runs on the issues, he will be running alone. Dubya is winning on being charming, warm, and saying as little of substance as he can get away with, which appears to be totally, at his point. Its Reagan-Carter II. We get the Democracy we deserve, God help us, and charming sincerity does it for us, we don’t like smart guys, and Al is smart. Al wrote a book, I rather doubt that Dubya’s even read one since it was assigned in school.

Where Dubya’s making his mistake is crowing about his record as Gov. of Texas. That will backfire. Texas politics is, and always has been, a swamp of petty corruption and deal making, kind of place makes Arkansas look like the paragon of civitas, a place where money not only talks, it votes, loudly and often. I believe it was Upton Sinclair:“Two things no civilized person should ever have to witness: what really goes into sausage and how a Texas politician makes his daily bread”. Amen.

As a recovering Texan, let me assure you that only ignorance of Texas governance could lead you to admire it.

The one amusing irony above all: this time it’s the Republican who is the draft dodger, and the Dem who’s the vet. Al apparently has too much integrity (so far) to make much out of that issue, and too much respect for the electorate (us). In America, that’s how you spell doom.

One hope: Al is a first rate debater, and Dubya can’t fart and chew gum simultaneously. But he has to cream Dubya without appearing to be a smart-ass. And how the hell do you do that?

3

Run on the issues? What issues?

Seriously; what issue is there out there that people would rally around en masse?

Social Security? No way. People have a vague notion that it’s important and needs to be preserved, but they aren’t about to march on The Capitol over it.

Gore’s in a catch-22. His best bet would be to run on how under his administrative watch, the economy has encountered unprecedented growth, and most everybody is gainfully employed and pretty comfortable.

The catch is, by running on his record, he connects himself with Bill Clinton. And even people who didn’t believe Clinton should be impeached are experiencing a little fatigue over the man and his ways of doing business.

Gore would also do well, I think, to continually hammer on the idea that if elected, the Bush administration would almost certainly get the opportunity to tilt The Supreme Court way further to the right than most would like, with the result being a court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Without turning this into yet another abortion debate, I don’t think that would play well out in the heartland, particularly among women voters.

Gore’s chameleon-like persona changes really work against him. He’s already canned the suits and ties and now yells at us with contrived vigor and enthusiasm. What’s next? Is he going to show up shirtless for the debates?

Like or dislike Bush, few can argue that he’s been inconsistent as a politician.

4

Issues are boring, and require some thought. If your position can’t be expressed on a bumper sticker, no one is interested. (See Nader.) Meaningless platitudes are where it’s at.

I think Gore is going to win the election, for three reasons.

1.) He still has his convention to go. That should close the gap considerably.

2.) We are still three months from the election, and there are a few debates in there. There is plenty of time for Dubya to screw up, or for people to realize that he’s not saying anything.

3.) Nader is still pulling down a good percentage of the polls, and I think a lot of those people are going to chicken out and vote Gore. Besides that, I’m not sure Nader is going to make it onto the ballot in every state.

So I think the “Gore is in trouble” stories are premature.

If I may ask another question about the evil of the two lessers:

One of Dubya’s central messages seems to be that in a time of great prosperity such as we’re experiencing, we should use that prosperity to make this nation the great place that it should be. (This is a clever dodge–the alternative would be to openly give Clinton/Gore credit for the economy, or admit that the “Great Boom” is not reaching the majority of Americans.)

I agree with Mr. Bush’s philosophy there–but I liked it better the first time I heard it, when it was called liberalism. Wouldn’t the proper conservative attitude be that a time of great prosperity like this is exactly when the government should back off and do very little? And isn’t that exactly what he is accusing Clinton/Gore of doing?

Dr. J

5

When your the VP and your running for president, you don’t run on the issues. You basically say how good the country was with Clinton(or your President), say you will do the same(Cite some examples), then point out how Dubya is going to change things.

The only things I would have Gore say he supports is the marriage tax cut, and cheaper perscription drugs(and the estate tax if it hasn’t been passed already).

6

  1. Bush’s pledge to ‘leave no child behind’: all Gore has to do is stand up and say, “Look what he did about that in Texas,” where his record was abysmal. Went out of his way to make sure poor kids’ parents had a hard time finding out if the kids were eligible for Medicaid. Coulda pushed for universal kindergarten in Texas schools, but cut taxes for rich people instead.

  2. Bush’s efforts to paint himself as an environmental moderate: his Texas record again. (My copy of Molly Ivins’ Shrub is on loan to a friend - I’ve been doing my homework, elucidator - so I can’t quote chapter and verse right now, but Texas is piss-poor in protecting the environment, and Dubya was definitely part of the problem, in easy-to-describe ways, rather than part of the solution.

  3. Abortion. Especially with the Cheneys on the ticket.

  4. Gun control, ditto.

  5. Social security. Gore can give the details when he’s talking to policy wonks, but he can quite honestly say to the crowds, “My plan gives the most money to invest to the people who need it most; his plan gives the most money to invest to those who already have the most.”

  6. Tax cuts: yup, they’re mostly for the rich, despite what Dubya says. All Gore has to do is reel off how much the GOP tax cuts add up to, and how much of that will go to the richest 1% or 10%.

I think he should do a marriage-penalty reduction that does more for people with lower incomes; Bush’s plan mostly helps by raising the point where the 28% bracket cuts in. That helps upper-middle class people like me and my wife a great deal, but most working couples in this country don’t reach the 28% bracket even now. And I know there’s people making a lot less than I do, who could use a tax cut a hell of a lot more than I could. Cut their taxes first.

That’s not quite bumper-sticker size, but I think Gore can neutralize the issue. As far as I can see, education and the marriage penalty are the only issues where the GOP might have a slight edge with the voters. Everything else in play is Democratic territory. That was mostly true in '84 and '88, but the factors that neutralized that then (Carter, Reagan, the Cold War) are long gone.

7

The current mantra of Right-of-Centre parties the world over: tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts ommmm… tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts ommmm…

Y’know, all the “issues” currently facing America won’t help Gore one little bit if a sizeable amount of the voting public feel it’s “time for a change.”

A country just gets sick of the same party in power for too long.

8

Let me just comment on some of your thoughts here, RTFirefly…

Point numbers One and Two would be construed by many as “nagative campaigning,” I think, unless Gore can say he has a better idea.

Also, I doubt #2 - the environment - is “sexty:” enough for mainstream America. The days of “acid rain” scares seem to be over and it seems when a tanker goes down, people are more likely to bemoan that lost petroleum which will cost them at the pump than worry about encrusted sea fowl (sad but true).

Abortion SHOULD be a non-issue AFAIAC, a personal thing between a woman and her doctor/significant other/God, but I am willing to bet this gets dragged out eventually by the Dems since their stance is more in-line with what Americans want.

Dare I say, if the Democrats can somehow convey to the people that GOP = Reproductive choice rights diminished (erroneous or not), it could swing things.

This saddens me, but there ya go…

Gun control is a sticky wicket, IMHO. While this could be something important, the WAY it is debated is silly. Seems that you’re supposed to either be an NRA member who wants uzi stands in every strip mall or you want all guns to be destroyed… And the misinformation about WHAT the sides REALLY think is ridiculous.

I also think that most americans like their guns to some extent, and that simply mentioning the words “well regulated” right from the constitution gives conservative hardliners the ability to say “He wants to take your guns away.”

I am aware that the same thing could be said in the inverse of the two issues above, but as someone being pro-choice yet also pro-gun reform (but pro-gun ownership), I am letting my biases show and either way, I think my point in the context of the post I am relying to is the same.

Social Security - Not sexy. The iold folks are getting their checks, the young people are stupid enough to not think about their futtures and more worried about their 401k plans than any government help they will or maybe won’t get in 40 years.

The tax cuts one is intriguing, mainly because the sound-bite world we live in makes this prohibitive for any candidate. Can you say “No New Taxes,” amphatically while pounding a podium? Thought you could…

So, it could be a help or it could kill you. A gamble of a horse to ride into town on, IMHO.

I appreciate that you are trying, RT, really. And you are right about many of the above. I just don’t have enough faith in the American population and the media that feeds it to give a shit, however, and I expect the candidates to give them exactly what they want.

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, four weeks, one day, 9 hours, 11 minutes and 13 seconds.
4815 cigarettes not smoked, saving $601.91.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 17 hours, 15 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]

9

Mustapha - twenty years of tax-cut bushwa has convinced most Americans that the tax cuts are always for somebody else. (I remember when the big Reagan tax cut netted me enough for a small pizza every other week.)

Seriously, the trend seems to be that people care more about government dealing with problems than cutting taxes. And ‘time for a change’ usually needs a reason.

Satan - the environment isn’t sexy, but people have gotten used to clean air and water, and don’t want to see what’s left of the nation’s forests chopped down.

Ditto Social Security - not sexy, but most people want to be able to know it’s done right, and forget about it; the people to whom Social Security matters are much less investment-literate than the average American, who is him/herself not very ‘with it’ when it comes to investing money. If Gore can convince people that Bush’s plan will reduce the level of security provided to those people, while providing one more investment opportunity for well-off types like me (a fair interpretation of Bush’s plan, IMO), he can win that issue.

On taxes, I think he can remind people of three things:

  1. boom times always come to an end sometime.
  2. the GOP tax cuts are based on the assumption that the party will go on forever.
  3. You gonna give away the store, or you want your government to be prepared for a rainy day?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

And he can remind the wonks that the present surplus projections are based on assumptions that Congress will cut spending by some incredible degree. That won’t have much of an effect, but it may slowly work its way into the consciousness of the more educated swing voters.

My sense of things is that the American public is more ready than usual for, if not a serious discussion of the issues, a sense that that discussion is taking place. The average voter really only wants a summary of that discussion, even in a time like this, but I think people have OD’d on Elian, flag-burning, and other pseudo-issues. My guess is that they want to have a sense that somebody’s minding the store.
That’s just one man’s political intuition, and it’s probably worth what you paid for it. But that’s my story, and I’m sticking with it.

10

Elucidator:

You Democrats just keep saying that and you’ll ensure a Bush victory. That’s exactly how Ann Richards lost the governorship of Texas.

In Texas, Bush’s record and methods have been praised by Republicans and Democrats alike. His support amongst Hispanics and African-Americans is much higher than it’s ever been for an average Republican. No doubt there are parts of his record that are open to criticism, but clearly, he’s done something right.

If Gore and the Democrats don’t start acknowledging that, their attacks will fall on deaf ears.

Milossarian:

He’s already on record as having called Bill Clinton one of the greatest presidents in the history of our nation, something I guarantee you won’t go unmentioned by the Bush camp. He’s already pretty darned connected with Clinton; he might as well try to attach himself to the creditable part and not let himself get tagged only with the blame.

DoctorJ:

Not quite. He’s sticking with the Republican playbook of saying the feds should hand money over to the states with a lot of leeway for methods a certain measure of accountability for results. The liberal/Democratic policies he (and other GOPers) have been assailing for years has been the strict mandate from Washington to do a specific thing, and then to blindly continue that mandate, regardless of results.