As Campaign Unravels, Baker Loses Infallibility

That James A. Baker III is a brilliant self-promoter is not in doubt. That he has an uncanny ability to take credit for success and avoid blame for failure is not in doubt. That he is a good political strategist is very much in doubt. In the political arena, this emperor has no clothes.

After 20 years in Washington, I’ve seen plenty of slick snake-oil salesmen who have convinced the press and the Washington Establishment that they have much power and few faults. They practice the art of getting their enemies but keeping their hands clean. None has been better at this than Baker.

The press has been particularly buffaloed by Emperor Jim, the man whom Bush wants to be his domestic czar next term. With a few exceptions, most reporters take to Baker’s self-serving lines like hungry dogs to raw steak.

But now the aura of invincibility is beginning to weaken. Don’t think this is piling on just because the Bush presidency is about to crumble. Since Baker’s inept handling of George Bush’s 1980 presidential campaign, I have been saying that, in the world of presidential politics, this guy is overrated.

In 1980, Bush pulled an upset over Ronald Reagan in Iowa. Remember “Big Mo?” Bush, with Baker’s advice, went to New Hampshire with the idea of turning the campaign into a two-man contest, ignoring the other candidates in the race. Bush, again with Baker’s advice, agreed to a two-man debate. The other candidates showed up. Bush didn’t want them to appear. Reagan said it was fine with him. Bush looked petty; Reagan looked a hero--leading to one of politics’ most famous lines, “I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green.” Bush never recovered.

Well, retort Baker’s admirers, he was chairman of two landslide victories, in ’84 and ’88. Give me a break. In ‘84, Reagan was at the height of his popularity, the economy was booming at near 7% growth, the Olympics were spectacular and all the hard work of the campaign was done by Edward J. Rollins. Hell, my mother could have chaired that landslide!

In ‘88, even though Baker was secretary of the Treasury, he still guided Bush’s political fortune--a fortune that was nearly squandered when Bush came in a lousy third in Iowa behind Bob Dole and--can you believe it?--Pat Robertson.

Bush was saved in the New Hampshire primary not by Baker but by then-Gov. John H. Sununu. It was Sununu who convinced Bush to stop with all the elitist trappings of the vice presidency--a Baker trademark--and get down with the people. It was Sununu and Lee Atwater, not Baker, who persuaded Bush to go negative on Dole over tax increases. Both these moves saved Bush.

When the Bush campaign appeared to be faltering, falling 16 points behind Michael S. Dukakis, Baker left Treasury to save the campaign. The truth is, by then, polls in both camps showed Bush closing fast. Before Baker appeared, Atwater already knew he had the goods on Dukakis.

And now comes ’92 and the widely heralded return of Baker to save Bush. True, he got things more organized. But, politically, he has had terrible judgment, beginning with his inability to gain control of the Republican National Convention. Baker’s excuse was that he didn’t officially start until the Monday after the convention closed. But who’s kidding whom? From the day that he agreed to return to the White House, several weeks before Houston, he was deeply involved in the politics of the Bush campaign. The truth is, Baker didn’t have the political judgment to see a disaster in the making.

His debate strategy was even worse. Keeping Bush presidential, which apparently Baker thinks is smart politics, ensures one thing: Bush loses the presidency.

But lest you get the idea that I think Baker is simply a bad political strategist, a number of questions about his vaunted stints as Treasury secretary and secretary of state should be noted.

--Although the connection is rarely made, Baker was running the Treasury when the savings-and-loan debacle began to get out of control. He left before its height. Still, Baker was a key figure in seeking to limit the scope of bailout legislation. In 1986, Baker proposed a $15-billion bailout, though many federal officials said it would cost much more. In 1988, less than a week before the election, then-Bush campaign manager Baker said he believed Bush would oppose a taxpayer bailout.

--Recent news reports and classified documents reveal that the Bush Administration, with Baker as secretary of state, had pressed for the continuation of U.S. programs to aid Iraq in spite of mounting evidence that Baghdad was using the money to buy arms. According to congressional investigators, Baker signed off on a memo that conceded Iraq was engaged in developing chemical and biological weapons and ballistic-missile systems and possibly seeking to develop nuclear weapons. According to the reports, Baker’s intervention had been instrumental in securing continued U.S. aid to Iraq in the wake of the Banco Nazionale del Lavoro scandal.

Should Bush go down to defeat, as now appears likely, Baker should take his share of the credit. True, selling Bush for a second term is not an easy job, but Baker has made it more difficult by making several bad strategic decisions. This time, let’s hope that Baker will be exposed for what he is--a brilliant self-promoter and a lousy politician.