Don't Get Fooled Again (3/24/07)
"Mistakes were made" in the latest Bush Administration scandal involving the firings of United States Attorneys, according to President Bush. It was a clever use of passive voice to disguise the subject of the sentence, or the person(s) responsible for those mistakes.
When blame is on the table, politicians are frequently nowhere to be found. We will never know what happened until we understand the people that we elect to high office.
Who is Hillary Clinton? Is she the demon some on the right say she is or should she become the first female president in the history of the nation?
Who is Barack Obama? Does he have the audacity to hope or the audacity to take credit for what others actually did?
Who is John Edwards? Does his admission that his vote for the use of force in Iraq in 2002 was wrong make him weak or one of the few politicians to admit mistakes?
Who are Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Newt Gingrich? Are they for "family values" in spite of eight marriages among them? Or do they give the term lip service and little else?
Who is Mitt Romney? Is he the moderate who ran for the Senate in 1994 and Governor in 2002 or has he "matured" with new positions on abortion, stem-cell research, etc.?
In order to come up with objective answers to these questions, we ought to put them into perspective. We had a choice between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 that now appears to be an easy decision. But it was an easy decision then, too.
Bush played down expectations of his performance ahead of the first debate with Gore. He reminded the public that Gore had experience in debating Dan Quayle in 1992, Ross Perot in 1993 and Jack Kemp in 1996 on national television. The mainstream media, probably wanting a close election, echoed Bush's comments by telling us that Gore had 24 years of national elected office experience.
Bush inadvertently gave himself a handicap by flubbing a number of lines, such as "there ought to be limits to freedom" about a hostile website, his statement apparently endorsing a military coup in Pakistan in late 1999 and his foolish comment, "Is our children learning?"
He instead played up his "conversion" to Christianity by calling Christ his favorite political philosopher in a debate with other Republican candidates. This comment, cheered by religious conservatives, allowed him to downplay the fact that he had been a drunk most of his life until the age of 40, the very age at which Gore first ran for the presidency.
Who was the real George W. Bush? He certainly lacked experience and popularly-held positions. So, he instead went to the debate nine points down in the polls and decided to charm the millions of voters watching.
At the debate, while Gore answered question after question credibly and accurately, Bush smiled and threw out phrases like "fuzzy math" in reference to Gore's coherent economic plan. Gore challenged Bush's tax ideas and other policies fairly, pointing out their flaws. However, it made no difference to the mainstream media, which spun the debate for Bush. Gore, after all, had the nerve to sigh in frustration to Bush's comments!
So, "Mr. Nice Guy" held his own with the incumbent Vice President, the story went. Suddenly, civility was the key to the election and Bush had it and Gore did not.
In short, the voters let other people define the candidates for them. Competence and honesty made no difference. The election should have been a rout for Gore, who had prepared his whole adult life for the job of the presidency. But by expressing his displeasure with Bush's lies at their debate, he allowed those who covered the election to focus on the disgust and narrow the race.
The voters should not be fooled by candidates who deceive us as to their qualifications for the job. Remember Election 2000 and how it gave us an imposter completely unfit for the role. We simply cannot afford it to happen again.