29
July 2000
Watching: Jonelin
and Erzse (the Blar
chicks!) on the Blarcam.
.
|
|
Dick Cheney
Mr. Vaughn emailed me today regarding, among other things, Governor
Bush's selection of Dick Cheney as running mate. Mr. Vaughn seemed
torn by the fact that we, as foreign policy students, know that Mr. Cheney
is a highly capable man, but that Mr. Cheney doesn't deliver any
demographic or geographic block of voters to the ticket and hence may be
an unwise choice.
I know the mainstream media has adopted this assessment, and so have a
lot of bright people that I know. I disagree with the assessment
almost entirely, for the reasons I'll lay out below. But I'll begin
by soliciting feedback
on the message boards right now, because I'll admit (unlike the
mainstream media, I might add!) -- I'm partisan. I want Governor
Bush's team to win this one. I don't *think* I am guilty of spinning
the selection of Cheney because of my partisanship. And I think
because of my training in assessing matters political both domestically
and internationally, I can be objective in my assessment even though I
prefer a certain outcome. That being said, here are the reasons I
think the selection of Cheney was brilliant:
- Cheney, a principled conservative but not an ideologue, helps
solidify Bush's base conservative voters while still allowing him to
court moderate swing voters in the general electorate. Bush is
drawing over 90% support among Republicans (compared to Dole drawing
around 80% in the last election, an election that I think illustrated
that if you can't count on your base, you're doomed from the
start). A choice of Tom Ridge or John McCain might have given
the illusion of "helping" the ticket geographically or on
certain issues, but would have hurt the base, which was taken for
granted in 1996 and helped produce a loss (not that Dole didn't have
many many other problems). In contrast, the names most mentioned
for Al Gore as running mate these days are the far-left Senator John
Kerry (a MA democrat for christ's sake!), far-left Senator Dianne
Feinstein, and far-left ex-Senator George Mitchell (whom, for some
reason, the media calls a moderate). Gore right now is only
winning 80% of his Democratic base, with Nader sucking off some labor
and green voters -- meaning he will have to pick a far-left Veep to
shore up his own base, which might honestly prevent him from courting
moderates in the general electorate as well as Bush. Gore's best
choice would be Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, who would be outstanding
if Gore didn't need to shore up his base and if Senator Kerrey himself
didn't think Clinton/Gore were a bunch of crooks.
- Cheney helps demographically, because he shores up the ticket where
Bush is weakest. Bush, for whatever reason, has an image of
being inexperienced and maybe even a little reckless. This
leaves Gore an opening to pound Bush on partial privatization of
social security with older voters. I think Bush is going to
capture some younger voters who would typically go Democratic because
younger voters understand the need to reform social security.
The youngest of those voters don't even know Mr. Cheney -- so he
doesn't hurt the ticket with them -- but the older voters who might be
scared by Bush's "recklessness" by the time the Gore media
campaign is done do know Mr. Cheney, and think of him as a responsible
leader with vast government experience. In this sense, Cheney
helps far more than a Frank Keating (no help with any demographic but
possibly hurting with women voters, and Bush already wins Oklahoma
easily), Tom Ridge (some help with women voters, but anyone who's been
reading my journal knows that I've already pointed out Bush's appeal
to women -- look at his exit polls in the primaries and the current
national polls, and you'll see he runs far better than a republican in
a LONG time with women voters. The gender gap is not going to
make the difference in the general election this time), Senator McCain
(he scares women if exit polls are to be trusted, and would hurt the
base of the party even if he did pull in a few democrats), Senator
Danforth (I've written
about him, and he is the epitome of a great statesman, but his
stand on Clarence Thomas is what he is most remembered for which could
potentially hurt demographically, a circumstance I find to be a sad
statement about the citizenry these days since I found his stance
heroic).
- Cheney helps the "gravitas" factor that most pundits
aren't considering when they say he doesn't really "help"
the ticket in a strict sense. As Peggy Noonan and Paul Gigot
have written, Dick Cheney is a man of substance, proven leadership,
and proven ability to work with Democrats and Republicans alike.
He will be an outstanding member of the administration. He is
serious, or as Noonan and Gigot have said separately, he is a
"grown-up" in contrast to the Clinton white house
composition. He shores up a Bush ticket in areas where people
have questions about Bush: experience, intellect, etc. He
is a man who doesn't scare people as the guy who could become
President. Can we honestly say that about Senator John Kerry or
Senator Dianne Feinstein (or Dan Quayle)? The gravitas factor
matters, I think, for the same reasons I discussed ages ago in my John
Danforth journal entry.
- Following up on that last, the Cheney selection in its own right
helps to overcome questions about Bush's experience and leadership
ability. Rather than follow the Clinton example of letting
policy (or rhetoric) be determined by opinion polls, or focus groups,
or notions that Tom Ridge might deliver Pennsylvania (a contested,
important state), Bush chose Dick Cheney because in his opinion -- not
the opinion of the latest focus group -- Dick Cheney was his best
option, both for campaigning and, more importantly, for
governing. In contrast, would Jim Carville ever recommend to Al
Gore that perhaps Senator Sam Nunn would be a great choice as
veep? No chance in hell, and Gore wouldn't show the leadership
to pick him. To buck the advice of lots of pundits, to exercise
one's own political judgment IS leadership. After the Democrats,
who had long called Cheney a good, solid, inclusive leader, launched
their hysterical account of Cheney's voting record (again, there's a
good article by Gigot on this at Opinion
Journal), Bush responded not by explaining away the record in
Clintonian fashion, but by saying "This man is a
conservative. So am I." That's virtuous leadership,
as opposed to "I did not have sexual relations...." (and
later on, for the veracity of that statement to depend upon how we
define sexual relations!).
- Cheney doesn't help geographically as much as some candidates might
have. To the extent a vice-president can help geographically
(and I'm not so sure it's all that significant in most races), the
selection of Cheney doesn't give you much (a small state that votes
Republican anyway). By that argument, however, what did Al Gore,
a southerner, give Bill Clinton, a southerner who appealed to Reagan
Democrats? I think the combination of the other factors can
negate any one factor -- such as this one. Now, a John Danforth
might bring you Missouri -- a key battleground state -- but he had
more potential negatives than Cheney, and I don't think the magnitude
of his positives were as significant.
So, those are my thoughts on Dick Cheney. I think it's a
marvelous choice. And I think the hysterical democratic reaction to
it -- their maligning his voting record when most of his colleagues at the
time and most Americans would agree he was a collegial member of the House
-- is an indicator that he helps the Bush campaign far more than Democrats
would like. Gore doesn't have the freedom to pick someone from his
own party -- Kerrey of Nebraska or Nunn of Georgia -- who could do the
same thing. Moreso than usual, I'd love to hear some feedback.
* * * *
We went to the Icehouse after Spanish Village with Hallmark and Graves
last night, and I got to chat with Mrs. Burns a bit (see my 14
July entry). Then Hallmark showed up -- which was a little odd
-- and dragged us to a new place off of downtown called the Continental
Club, which was even more odd! All I can really say is the place
is.... funky. I avoid the whole trendy downtown scene for the most
part these days because it's just a pretentious load of crap. But
this place isn't truly downtown, and is very much a dive, but a classy
dive. It's in an old building that has barely been remodeled at all
-- really just touched up. So the old, ornate ceiling design is
maintained, the plain walls are preserved, but the lighting is just....
odd. A few neon fixtures on the ceiling (yes, on the ceiling) with
some drop down lighting that I can't really even describe. The main
area is fairly open, with a stage that has gaudy (but somehow appropriate)
red velvet curtains. To the side of the stage, there is an entrance
to the back part of the bar, which looks like a warehouse, not remodeled
at all and having the appearance of a storeroom. Except the place
has pool tables and a full bar. Quite different.
Now, I haven't even mentioned the "band" if one can call it
that. It was a band of three, a drummer, lead guitar, and steel
guitar player. If you're thinking country, you're wrong. It
was.... experimental. Yep, that's the only word to describe
it. The steel guitar was played like I've never heard it
played. It sounded more like an eerie organ than a steel
guitar. The lead guitar was a bit bluesy. And the drummer...
well, his playing wasn't all that unusual, but his demeanor amused
me. His "playing" made me think of the Friends episode in
which Ross "played" his music on the keyboard -- the guy even
looked a little like Ross, and certainly ACTED like Ross did in that
episode. The music was just bizarre. No vocals. Not
quite like anything I've ever heard. Not bad mind you, just
different. We'll just stick with experimental!
I like the fact someone has opened a place in the downtown area
that isn't catering to the same old pretentious crowd, people who find
their value in being admired by other a-holes in clothes and cars just as
ridiculously expensive. I plan on going back.
* * * *
Finally, we stopped back by the Icehouse to talk to Pete, Callie's
brother, for a bit as he was closing down. We saw an example of
Pete's big heart in action. While lots of people talk about helping
the homeless or other downtrodden (usually, these people want to take my
money and give it to someone, and when they are democrats, they usually
want to give themselves a fair chunk of it as well), Pete actually had a
contingent of homeless or otherwise downtrodden/maladjusted people helping
him to clean up the icehouse -- sweeping, trash, cleaning, etc. I
suspect he pays them a little for their efforts, though I don't really
even know. I do know he lets the one of the guys sleep over at his
place on occasion. In short, he shows them some kindness and
respect, but he also demands something in return for it. And they
respond -- those guys were working their asses off, happily, at 1 in the
morning! The next time any of us are inclined just to write off
people down on their luck, or just to bribe them with a government
handout, we might instead think of Pete's example. He's a good man,
probably better than he knows.
|