Three War Stars Are Born

“Star Wars” is fiction. But war stars is a fact. Wars create popular heroes. And political stars. It goes all the way back to the beginning of the republic--George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Colin L. Powell.

And now, who? Well, to start with, Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Rarely has a politician seen his image transformed so quickly and so dramatically. Remember last summer when the New York tabloids were filled with stories about Mayor Giuliani’s scandalous personal life? After Sept. 11, Giuliani appeared with his girlfriend all over New York--and overseas--and nobody seemed to notice. Or care. Giuliani’s pitch-perfect response to the terrorist attacks made him a hero and an inspiration. The percentage of Americans who say Giuliani has done a “very good” job of responding to the terrorist attacks: 61 (in a Time magazine mid-December poll). Percentage of Americans who say President Bush has done a “very good” job of responding to the terrorist attacks: 53 in late October.

The old Giuliani was petty and vindictive. The new Giuliani is ... well, petty and vindictive. At a farewell meeting in Brooklyn last month, the mother of a policeman rose to ask the mayor why the city had not given police officers a long overdue pay raise. “What you just did isn’t right,” the mayor said sharply. “I can’t negotiate a contract with you now. You shouldn’t have done this.” And that is one reason why, despite his Churchillian stature, Giuliani’s political future is cloudy. He has an outsized personality and a difficult temperament. He does not, as they used to say in school, work and play well with others.

Sen. Giuliani? It’s hard to see him going along or getting along with 99 colleagues. Vice President Giuliani? A vice president’s job is to be loyal and self-abasing. That’s not him. Gov. Giuliani? That’s the role most people see him in. But he’ll have to wait five years, since New York’s Republican Gov. George Pataki is running for a third term this year. President Giuliani? He’d be a formidable contender. He’s already impressed the country with his presidential qualities. But he has to find a party that will nominate him. Conservatives distrust him. He’s pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control. And, anyway, the GOP nomination won’t be open for another seven years, during which time Giuliani has to figure out a way to stay in the spotlight.

A presidential appointment, maybe. Some kind of reconstruction czar. If anyone was ever born to be a czar, it’s Giuliani. But Bush needs to keep Giuliani at arm’s length. He’s already overshadowed the president once.

Another unlikely war star has emerged out of the ranks of the GOP-- Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Before Sept. 11, Rumsfeld was a retread. He first served as defense secretary in the Gerald R. Ford administration--more than 26 years ago.

Now he’s a TV star. Rumsfeld’s daily press briefings are cool, crisp and authoritative. He speaks to the American people like he’s speaking to grown-ups. In polished sentences and paragraphs. Without spin. When a reporter asked him what’s being done with prisoners of war being held by the Pakistanis, Rumsfeld replied, “I’m not as knowledgeable as I might be in 24 hours.” Rumsfeld’s briefings are a metaphor. The U.S. is in control of the military situation, just as Rumsfeld is in control of the press. “[Osama bin Laden] is important. We’re after him. We intend to find him. I believe we will,” Rumsfeld said on Dec. 19. “And if he turns up somewhere thumbing his nose at you?” a reporter asked. Rumsfeld replied, “We will go see about that thumb.” In other words: trust us. We know what we’re doing.

In effect, Rumsfeld is doing what Vice President Dick Cheney was supposed to do. He’s a reassuring presence in an administration headed by a president with little national or international experience. Meanwhile, Cheney is in an “undisclosed, secure location.” Where he may remain in 2004. If the international situation is still tense, Rumsfeld would be a good choice for the No.2 spot on the GOP ticket.

The Democrats have their own war star--Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Daschle was propelled into prominence by two unlikely events last year. The first was in June, when Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords startled the political world by leaving the Republican Party to become an independent. That made Daschle the new Senate majority leader--and the highest-ranking Democrat in Washington.

Then, in October, Daschle was the target of an anthrax attack. The attack was so virulent it forced senators to vacate their offices for months. And magnified Daschle’s image of importance. Once an obscure senator from an obscure state (South Dakota), Daschle has become an assured figure who rallies Democrats and infuriates Republicans. Why? Because the majority leader came up with a devious plan: He said Democrats should stand squarely with the president on the war while opposing Bush’s domestic agenda.

What’s devious about that? It’s the way most Democrats feel. But it’s driving Republicans crazy. They’re trying to depict Daschle’s opposition as disloyalty. What it is is partisanship. On issues that have nothing to do with the war, and where partisanship has always prevailed. Conservatives ran a newspaper ad in South Dakota picturing Daschle side by side with Saddam Hussein. The implication? Daschle is in league with the Iraqi dictator because he opposes oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

They ran a radio ad in Daschle’s home state accusing the majority leader of plotting “to use the economy as a campaign issue.” So, what else is new? Well, there’s the implication, spelled out in the ad, that Democrats blocked passage of Bush’s economic stimulus package because they “really don’t want the recession to end.” Daschle’s defense? “We want to pass something but we don’t want to pass anything.”

In a memo to Senate Republicans, GOP strategist Frank Luntz wrote, “Remember what the Democrats did to [former House Speaker Newt] Gingrich? We need to do exactly the same thing to Daschle.”

Memo to Luntz: Tom Daschle isn’t Newt Gingrich. Daschle comes across as mild-mannered and soft-spoken--a nice guy. Yeah, Luntz said in an interview, “He’s so nice, so unassuming, that you’ll never see the knife until it’s in your back.”

The fact is, the economy has surpassed terrorism as a public concern. Does that mean the memory of Sept. 11 is fading? No. It means the war on terrorism is going well, while the economy is not going well. Republicans want to turn public support for Bush Agenda II--the war on terrorism--into support for Bush Agenda I--”compassionate conservatism.” But they’ve got Daschle standing in their way.

The number of people who support Bush--more than 80%--is noticeably higher than the number who say they agree with him on the issues (about 60%). News flash: You can support the president even if you don’t agree with him. Especially at a time like this.

That’s what Daschle is saying. He’s saying it so well, it’s making him a contender for the presidency in 2004.

Daschle’s star is rising while Al Gore’s is falling. Last month, a Gallup poll asked Democrats whether they would like to see their party nominate Gore for president in 2004 “or someone else.” The winner?

“Someone else,” 66% to 26%.

Gore does a lot better among Democrats who believe Bush stole the election. But the number of Democrats who believe Bush stole the election has been dropping. It’s now down to 25%.

The Democrats’ war star is Daschle. Gore is a war casualty.

*

William Schneider, a contributing editor to Opinion, is a political analyst for CNN.