Jewish World Review Nov. 6, 2000 / 8 Mar-Cheshvan, 5761
IF GEORGE BUSH wins the election Tuesday -- which I believe he will
-- he will have a mandate, regardless of his margin of victory. Why?
Because his message has been simple, focused, direct and consistent.
Voters know where he stands.
From the time he announced his candidacy Bush has been telling us
that the president cannot be all things to all people; he should do a
limited number of things and do them well. Bush's approach to the office
is consistent with his philosophy of government: Relatively speaking,
the less of it, the better.
Throughout the primaries and the general election Bush has stayed on
message, not deviating from his proposals, even when doing so would have
been politically expedient.
He laid out a tax plan during the primaries and has not altered it
one iota, despite the relentless assaults on it from his opponents in
both parties. Most of his GOP opponents said it was too little, and Gore
said it was too much and tailored to the wealthy. Bush has also
explained the reasons for tax reduction. Excess revenues belong to the
people who overpaid them, spending cuts cannot be achieved without tax
cuts, and marginal tax cuts stimulate economic growth.
Bush had the courage to tackle the untouchable "third rail" of
politics (Social Security) by proposing that we partially alter its
structure -- knowing full well that he would be bombarded with
scare-mongering by his opponent. Bush has remained unflappable.
Bush has been enthusiastic about his educational proposals. Having
achieved improved test scores in Texas, especially among minorities, he
is anxious to see nationwide improvements. He is adamant, however, that
local school districts remain sovereign, but accountable.
Bush has also been very clear in articulating his commitment to
rebuilding the military and just as importantly, to stop the
Clinton-Gore practice of using it as an international Meals on Wheels.
Bush will not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations absent
a compelling national interest.
Bush has promised to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and the
federal bench who, like Justices Thomas and Scalia, believe in
interpreting the Constitution according to its original intent. His
judges would leave policy-making to the democratically elected
Though Al Gore has not been as consistent on the issues as Bush, the
contrast between the two candidates could not be more pronounced. Which
is another reason Bush's mandate will be clear. Gore's philosophy,
coursing through all of his policy proposals, is that government should
keep the money and the control.
Bush has promised to restore dignity to the White House. He believes
that character matters, and that the president should set a moral
example for the nation, including its children.
Bush has pledged to return civility to Washington. The importance of
this cannot be overstated. One reason he is so popular in Texas is that
he has reached across party lines and treated his opponents with
respect. His emphasis is on results, not partisan conquest. More than
anything else, I think, this will differentiate the Bush administration
from the Clinton-Gore years.
Clinton and Gore ushered in an era of unprecedented divisiveness and
acrimony between the parties. Competition is a good process, but during
the Clinton-Gore reign, it has become an end in itself.
Clinton and Gore together set the tone for their tenure in the fall
of 1995, when they embarked on a systematic plan to win at any cost,
including the rapacious acquisition of illegal foreign contributions and
the sale of the White House.
Clinton then planted deep seeds of distrust early in his first term
with a bait and switch -- promising a tax cut for the middle class and
instead proposing the largest tax hike in American history -- and Gore
cast the tie vote. They even rubbed a retroactive increase in our faces.
Clinton and Gore never really had a mandate -- not just because they
were first elected with only 43 percent of the vote -- but because their
message was unrefined and muddled and changed with the ever-shifting
winds of political polling.
In the event of Bush's victory, neither the Democrats nor the press
will concede that the electorate gave Bush a mandate. They will say it
was a personality contest having nothing to do with issues. If you
haven't noticed, their spinning has already begun.
In January they'll still be spinning. Bush will be
commentator. Send your comments to him by clicking here.
11/01/00: Can't stop thinkin' 'bout tomorrow
10/30/00: George: Give Gore the ball back
10/25/00: Mr. Gore: A few more questions
10/23/00: It's the big government, stupid
10/18/00: Gore's down, so will he panic?
10/16/00: We're fresh out of new Al Gores
10/11/00: Gore: Fuzzy math = dirty politics
10/10/00:Gore: Renaissance man or unbalanced?
10/04/00: Where have you been, Albert Jr.?
10/02/00: Clintonís fragmented presidency
09/27/00: Liberal media doth protest too much
09/25/00: AlGore: Turning dreams into nightmares
09/20/00: Something fishy's going on
09/18/00: It's the liberalism, stupid
09/13/00: An open letter to open-minded cynics
09/11/00: The virtues of going negative
09/06/00: On a mission for marriage
09/04/00: Al Gore's 'Trivial Pursuits'
08/30/00: Lieberman and the paradox of liberal 'tolerance'
08/28/00: A campaign divided against itself
08/23/00: Al Gore's trickle-down populism
08/21/00: Prosperity without a clue
08/16/00: AlGore can run but he can't hide
08/14/00: When hate speech is OK
08/09/00: Bush: The pundits' enigma
08/07/00: GOP convention: Live or Memorex?
08/02/00: The first attack dog
07/31/00: The Cheney taint?
07/26/00: The anti-gun bogeyman
07/24/00: The raging culture war
07/19/00: Is Hillary 'Good for the Jews'?
07/17/00: How dare you, George?
07/12/00: Jacoby's raw deal
07/10/00: The perplexities of liberalism
07/05/00: Big Al and big oil
07/03/00: Partial-birth and total death
06/28/00: Some questions for you, Mr. Gore
06/26/00: Supreme Court assaults religious freedom
06/21/00: Waco: We are the jury
06/19/00: "Outrage" just doesn't quite cut it anymore!
06/14/00: Al Gore: Government's best friend
06/12/00: Say goodbye to medical privacy
06/07/00: Elian: Whose hands were tied?
06/05/00: Who, which, what is the real Al Gore?
06/01/00: Legacy-building idea for Clinton
05/30/00: Clinton: Above the law or not?
05/24/00: Not so fast, Hillary
05/22/00: Gore's risky, fear-mongering schemes
05/17/00: Can Bush risk pro-choice running mate?
05/15/00: Right to privacy, Clinton-style
05/10/00: Patrick Kennedy and his suit-happy fiddlers
05/08/00: Don't shoot Eddie Eagle
05/03/00: Congress caves to Clinton, again?
05/01/00: The resurrection of outrage
04/28/00: A picture of Bill Clinton's America
04/19/00: President Clinton: Teaching children responsibility
04/17/00: Elian, Marx and parental rights
04/12/00: Elian, freedom deserve a hearing
04/10/00:The fraying of America
04/05/00: Noonan: End Clintonism now
04/03/00: Bush: On going for the gold
03/27/00: Treaties, triggers, tobacco and tyrants
03/22/00: Media to Bush: Go left, young man
03/20/00: Stop the insanity
03/15/00: OK Al Gore: Let's go negative
03/13/00: Deifying of the center
03/08/00: The media, the establishment and the people
03/01/00: McCain's coalition-busting daggers in GOP's heart
02/28/00: Bush's silver lining in McMichigan
02/24/00: A conservative firewall, after all
02/22/00: Bush or four more of Clinton-Gore?
02/16/00: Substance trumps process
02/14/00: The campaign finance reform mirage
02/09/00: President McCain: End of the GOP as we know it?
02/07/00: From New Hampshire to South Carolina
02/02/00: SDI must fly
01/31/00: Veep gores Bradley
01/26/00: The issues gap
01/24/00: GOP: Exit, stage left
01/20/00: Nationalizing congressional elections
01/18/00: Do voters really prefer straight talk?
01/12/00: Media's McCain efforts may backfire
01/10/00: Conservative racism myth
01/05/00: Just one more year of Clintonian politics
12/27/99: Al Gore: Bullish on government
12/22/99: Bradley's full-court press
12/20/99: Bush: Rendering unto Caesar
12/15/99: Beltway media bias
12/13/99: White House ambulance chasing
12/08/99: Clinton's labor pains
12/06/99:The lust for power
12/01/99: In defense of liberty
11/29/99: Are Republicans obsolete?
11/24/99: Say you're sorry, Mr. President
11/22/99: Architects of victory
11/17/99: Trump's tax on freedom
11/15/99: GOP caves again
11/10/99: Triangulation and 'The Third Way'
11/08/99: Sticks and stones
11/03/99: Keyes vs. media lapdogs
11/01/99: Signs of the times
10/27/99: The false charge of isolationism
10/25/99: A matter of freedom
10/20/99: Clinton's mini-meltdown
10/18/99: Senate GOP shows statesmanship
10/13/99: Senate must reject nuclear treaty
10/11/99: Bush bites feeding hand
10/06/99: Jesse accidentally opens door for Pat
10/04/99: Clinton and his media enablers
09/29/99: Reagan: Big-tent conservatism
09/27/99: The Clinton/Gore taint?
09/22/99: Have gun (tragedy), will travel
09/20/99: Hillary's blunders and bloopers
09/15/99: GOP must remain conservative
09/13/99:Time for Bush to take charge, please
09/10/99: Bush's education plan: Dubya confounds again
09/07/99: Pat, savior or spoiler?
09/02/99: Character doesn't matter?
08/30/99: Should we judge?
08/25/99: Dubyah's drug question: Not a hill to die on
08/23/99: Should Dubyah start buying soap ... for all that mud?
08/16/99: 'W' stands for 'winner'
08/11/99: The truth about tax cuts
08/09/99: Hillary: Threading the needle
08/04/99: What would you do?
08/02/99: No appeasement for China
07/30/99: Hate Crimes Bill: Cynical Symbolism
07/26/99: Itís the 'moderates', stupid
07/21/99: JFK Jr. and Diana: the pain of privilege
07/19/99: Smith, Bush and the GOP
07/14/99: GOP must be a party of ideas
07/12/99: Gore's gender gap
07/08/99: Clintonís faustian bargain: our justice
07/06/99: The key to Bush's $36 million
06/30/99: Gore: a soda in every fountain
06/28/99: 'Sacred wall' or religious barrier?
06/23/99: GOP must lead in foreign policy
06/21/99: Crumbs of compassion
06/16/99: Compassionate conservatism: face-lift or body transplant?
06/10/99: Victory in Kosovo? Now What?
© 2000, CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.