At Last! Evidence Bush Is Too Right

After reading all the gushing editorials lauding Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s choice of Dick Cheney as his running mate, I’m amazed the national euphoria has finally subsided. Reading the editorial pages makes you wonder if mothers are finally able to get their children to sleep after nights when the little ones waited by the chimney, wondering who George would chose. The fact is, the national response to the Cheney selection confirms that vice-presidential nominees get too little attention from the average voter and far too much from the political press.

It’s as if all the editorial writers got together and decided every piece would contain “serious selection” and “experienced choice.” Just think if Bush had chosen Colin L. Powell: We could have canceled the election and simply awarded the presidency to Bush.

But do not underestimate the potential advantage--or pitfalls--that the Cheney selection provides Vice President Al Gore as he looks toward selecting his own running mate.

Attention has now shifted to Cheney’s voting record in the House, where he was a representative from Wyoming from 1979 to 1989. These votes provide Gore with much opportunity.

But Gore needs to exploit the Cheney selection not for what it says about Cheney, but for what it says about Bush and the kind of people who will run his administration. Bush is fond of saying he wants people around him who reflect his views and are loyal to a fault. If Cheney is the prototype of this, his selection gives Gore some solid evidence to reinforce his heretofore unsuccessful effort to label Bush as too conservative for the presidency.

Here are just a few stunning examples of Cheney’s votes while in Congress. He voted to bar the use of federal funds in abortion, with no exception for rape or incest (1983). He voted against a ban on “cop-killer” bullets (1985). He even voted against the federal hate-crimes law (1988). Bush clearly knew Cheney’s record and chose him anyway. If ever there was an opportunity to deny Bush the “compassionate conservative” label, his vice-presidential nominee’s voting record is it.

Can’t you just see the Gore TV spot? “In George Bush’s most important decision as a presidential nominee, he chose a man who opposes gun control and abortion, even in the case of rape and incest, and supported cuts in Head Start and public-education funding. If that is the record of his vice-presidential choice, imagine who Bush would put on the Supreme Court!”

The important emphasis here is not Cheney, but on Bush choosing someone who, according to Bush, has “a political philosophy that reflects my own.”

For this strategy to work, Gore needs to be careful that his own selection does not neutralize the message that Bush is to the right of mainstream American politics. If Gore were to pick a running mate with a liberal record, it would give the Bush campaign the ammunition to counter Gore’s “too far right” with a “too far left” argument of its own.

Voters already suspect Gore of closet liberalism. A liberal running mate would confirm these suspicions. This, regrettably, makes prospects for my two favorite choices--Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts--difficult. They would both be superior vice presidents, but the Bushes would unmercifully exploit either one’s very liberal voting record.

If Gore is to exploit the Cheney choice as a Bush weakness, he will need to find a centrist close to President Bill Clinton, the Democratic Leadership Council model. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Nebraska’s retiring Sen. Bob Kerrey all fit the bill. But Gore also needs to be mindful that a team of two Washington insiders will help Bush’s “time for a change and shake up Washington” message.

Now that Bush has given Gore an opening with Cheney, he needs to seize the moment. He needs to find a moderate running mate from outside the current Congress who will not undermine the advantage Bush has handed him.

In other words, Gore’s choice needs to be a defensive one (cause no harm), rather than offensive (makes a big statement). That calls for a hard look at current or former Democratic governors who won’t hurt Gore but will deny the Bush campaign the ability to undo the damage Cheney has done.

At some point, even the Op-Ed folks may get the Cheney damage point. On second thought, probably not.