Erik:
What do I really think of George W. Bush? Do I have to? Hmmph. Let me dodge the question for a few seconds while I chew on the idea of Panetta like pancetta.
I don’t doubt your source’s reliability, and I don’t begrudge your wife her enthusiasm, but it ain’t gonna happen. What does Gore get by picking Panetta as his running mate? California votes–which he should already have sewn up, or else this election is over. Budget hawks–but even if he put Phil Gramm on the ticket, he’d still get attacked as a tax-and-spender, so that hawk won’t fly. Italian Americans–yet while every vote counts, there are larger constituencies to which he can pander. The fact is, if he chooses Bob Rubin, he gets both budget hawks and, to be crassly simplistic, Jews, who comprise one of those aforementioned larger constituencies. If he chooses Dianne Feinstein, he gets California votes, women, and Jews (a threefer!). And so on. The issue for Gore at this point is still what, not whom; that is, he has to decide what he wants: a political pick or a gravitas pick. My street-corner analysis is that Bush’s selection of Cheney rachets up the need for at least nominal gravitas, so the youngsters are probably out. (Bye, bye, Bayh.) But someone who is too overtly political, gravitas aside, allows the Republicans to spin the election as left vs. middle, which I’m afraid would be a fatal wound. So the old-time libs are probably out too. (Harkin, who goes there? Not you.) Rubin would be an interesting blend of base-coddling and statesmanship, plus his outsiderness would balance Gore’s insiderness. The same for Joe Lieberman, who’s an insider but an independent one–remember his speech chiding Clinton in the midst of the Lewinsky mess? For what it’s worth, as I said yesterday, my money’s still on Bob Graham, who helps Gore in Florida, where polls show an extremely tight race, and could step in and be president if a Buddhist temple should cave in at an extremely inopportune time. Still, I’m holding out hope for a more dramatic choice. Lately I find myself fantasizing about the unavailable (John Kennedy Jr.–don’t laugh), the too easily assailable (Henry Cisneros), the left-field options (hey, whatever happened to Andrew Young?), and the prospects in the farm system (Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, anyone?). Someone in my office even suggested Ann Richards. Now, that would be fun to watch.
All right, back to Bush. I’m in a bit of an awkward position here: My job demands that I remain aggressively neutral on the subject of the governor’s White House run except to say that I wish him good health and good luck, which I most certainly do, and that I hope Texas doesn’t take too bad a beating in the process. Without violating that rule, let me acknowledge, however, that he and I do not see eye to eye on a number of major issues, all predictable ones, and that if he were left to his own devices ideologically, which he cannot be as a candidate of the entire Republican Party, we’d probably have a bit of common ground. He’s been a competent governor–not fabulous, not a dud. His record in Texas is not quite as good as he says but not quite as bad as the Gore campaign says either. All that notwithstanding, he is one hell of a nice guy. The couple of times I’ve gotten to talk to him for any length of time I’ve found him to be engaging and funny; you simply can’t not like him. And Mrs. Bush is a genuinely warm, pleasant, nonpolitical person, which is how I think she came off in her speech last night. (Who would I rather be at dinner with–her or Hillary? No contest.) Both the New York Times and Slate observed that the ethnically diverse nature of last night’s program at the convention seemed forced, but anyone who spends any time in Austin knows that the Bushes’ embrace of inclusiveness is much more than an election-year pose.
And yet we’re voting for a president, not a pal. It’s about policy, not personality. As long I keep telling myself that over and over, I’ll be OK. Right?
Best,
Evan
