Gulf War Dims Democrats’ Hopes for Presidency : Politics: Some are considering putting up only a token candidate. Bush’s leadership in crisis has dramatically enhanced his stature with voters.

In the wake of the U.S. triumph in the Persian Gulf and the new surge in President Bush’s popularity, some Democrats are so disheartened about their party’s chances of winning the White House in 1992 that they are talking quietly of drafting an uncharismatic but respected legislative leader to serve as a sort of caretaker nominee.

Such a candidate--House Speaker Thomas S. Foley of Washington is frequently mentioned--might be a sacrificial lamb, but, said Ted Van Dyk, a veteran of Democratic presidential campaigns going back to 1964, “at least he’d run a dignified race, and we’d get our share of wins in Congress.”

Although the odds are against such a scenario actually taking place, the fact that it is even being considered is one measure of how Bush’s leadership--which produced the most overwhelming military success for the United States since World War II--has dramatically enhanced his political stature and brightened his prospects for reelection.

For Commander-in-Chief Bush, the Persian Gulf crisis will come to represent the “defining moment” of his presidency, former Ronald Reagan White House aide and unofficial Bush adviser Richard Williamson contends.

Bush’s skill at guiding the international coalition against Iraq substantiated his claim to expertise in foreign affairs. Just as important, the President’s forcefulness and steadfastness during the seven-month crisis appear to have finally swept away the questions about his strength of character, questions that have plagued him for most of his career.

“It cleared up any doubts people had about him as President,” said Robert Teeter, Bush’s longtime political adviser, who is expected to play a major role in his reelection campaign. “It’s just as important to him politically as it is to the way it has changed the country and the way the country thinks.”

From now on, said Paul Tully, Democratic Party national political director, “you’re not going to beat George Bush by calling him wimpish.”

Most analysts interviewed cautioned that, with more than 18 months remaining before Election Day, there are still some wild cards--particularly the state of the economy--that could alter the political balance.

Nevertheless, some Republican leaders could not resist gloating. “There’s a competent party in this country called Republicans and an incompetent party called Democrats,” House GOP whip Newt Gingrich told a Young Republican conference here this week. “One system won a war. The other system--the last time it was in power--couldn’t get eight helicopters across the desert,” an allusion to the Jimmy Carter Administration’s failed effort to rescue American hostages in Tehran.

Such braggadocio aside, it seems clear that the President has a firm grip on the political initiative, and Democratic chances for regaining the White House seem to rest on factors outside their control.

“The Democrats have to hope for continued economic hard times and for the President to stumble,” said Republican pollster Linda DiVall. “That’s not an easy hand to play.”

Moreover, the bad news for Democrats is that the good news for Bush is likely to continue for weeks to come, as joyous local welcomes for the returning troops fan the fires of national pride and patriotism.

“We are still in a recession and we still have a banking crisis,” said New Right activist Paul M. Weyrich. “But the euphoria will override these things for a considerable period of time.”

On paper, at least, the Democrats have no shortage of potential contenders for the 1992 nomination. On Capitol Hill, the leading prospects are House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr., both veterans of the 1988 nomination contest, Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, the 1988 vice presidential candidate, and Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, who led the congressional opposition to the use of force in the Gulf.

Among governors, the most prominent possibilities are New York’s Mario M. Cuomo, now beleaguered by his state’s fiscal problems, Bill Clinton of Arkansas, who, like Cuomo, decided against running in 1988, and L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, the first black to be elected as a state chief executive.

But, so far, less than a year before the nominating process officially gets under way, not one of these prospects has offered himself as a candidate or given any reliable signal that he intends to do so.

And some Democrats fret that the current gloomy outlook for their presidential hopes will become a self-fulfilling prophecy by discouraging their strongest prospects from entering the race.

“You could wind up with a potentially vulnerable incumbent and no one strong enough to exploit that vulnerability,” Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said.

For his part, Bush can expect to enjoy the continuing benefits of his victory over Saddam Hussein, which John Mueller, author of “War, Presidents and Public Opinion,” compares to President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s achievement in ending the Korean War early in his first term.

“It was an overwhelming good thing for “Ike” and, even though other problems came up, he was rewarded for it for years afterward,” Mueller recalled.

“Bush is not a great communicator in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan,” said Alonzo Hamby, Ohio University presidential historian. “But there’s no doubt that, by his actions, he touched an enormous reservoir of support among those who believe that America is very strong and can take on its enemies and win.”

If the recession ends in the next few months--as many economists expect--the 1992 election could well turn into a rerun of the 1984 Republican landslide, according to Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution. “You’ll have an incumbent President in control of all the big factors (such as foreign policy) that decide the outcome of an election,” he said.

“If the election were held today, we’d be in deep trouble,” Jim Ruvolo, president of the Assn. of State Democratic Chairs, conceded. “Luckily, we’ve got a year and a half to catch up.”

In the midst of this week’s euphoria over the Mideast, Ruvolo said, his hometown of Toledo was jolted by the announcement of the layoff of 1,000 workers at a Jeep plant. “In a lot of homes here, they are thinking more about their jobs now than about the Mideast.”

Recent political history suggests that Bush’s current advantage is not irreversible.

A Gallup presidential election matchup released on the eve of the ground war in the Mideast showed Bush getting 54% of the vote against 33% for an unnamed Democratic candidate, with 13% undecided.

But in March, 1979, a like period before the 1980 election, a Gallup survey gave incumbent Democratic President Carter a margin of 52% to 38% over Republican Reagan. Twenty months later, Reagan defeated Carter in a landslide.

Democratic hopes for staging a similar turnabout in 1992 depend on the public’s attention, spurred by discontent with economic conditions, shifting from foreign to domestic policy. Democrats say that that is possible because, even though the recession is expected to end before Election Day, the recovery is expected to be relatively slow and weak.

“What bad economic news does is create an audience you can talk to about alternative economic policies,” political director Tully said. “Then, the major presidential challenges for the voters have to do with things like fairness and giving the little guy a better shot in the economy.”

Democrats claim to be optimistic about their chances in such a debate because Bush’s approval rating for economic policy has been running in the 40% range, about half of his overall approval rating.

“Bush has shown a capacity to stumble in domestic policy before,” said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, recalling Bush’s difficulties last fall in dealing with Congress over the federal budget deadlock. “He can stumble again.”

But some analysts argue that Bush’s success in the Gulf will help offset domestic problems. “The foreign policy horse is so big and so strong that the domestic horse doesn’t have to pull that much of a load,” said John Petrocik, UCLA political scientist and GOP polling consultant.

Then, too, the Democrats have some credibility problems of their own in dealing with economic problems. They still have to live down their reputation as big spenders, going back to Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, and the memories of the skyrocketing interest rates and inflation of the Carter years.

And, when it comes to economic policy, Democrats disagree among themselves nearly as much as they disagree with Bush.

“We don’t have a consensus on economic policy,” said strategist Van Dyk. “Some Democrats want to cut taxes, some want to increase spending, some are for limiting entitlement programs, some are against that.”

Still another concern for Democrats is that the GOP will cite the party’s overall opposition to the use of force in the Gulf against its presidential candidate, much as Bush used 1988 nominee Michael S. Dukakis’ record on crime and civil liberties as evidence that he was outside “the political mainstream.”

But Democrats contend that any attempt to impugn the patriotism of their candidate would lack credibility and probably backfire on Bush.

“That sort of tactic only works against somebody voters don’t know much about,” Tully said. “People don’t think Lloyd Bentsen is Jane Fonda.”