Slate's Bizbox
frame game: How you look at things.

The McCain Challenge

By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Feb. 10, 2000, at 3:30 AM ET

Spanked out of their front-running stupor by John McCain's win in New Hampshire, George W. Bush and his advisers retreated to Austin, Texas, over the weekend to organize a counterattack. This week in South Carolina they began pummeling McCain with new messages and tactics. One or more of these strategies may well halt McCain and clear Bush's path to the nomination. But it matters a great deal which strategy gets the job done. Bush's prospects of winning the presidency depend not just on whether he beats McCain, but how. And the easiest ways to beat McCain are the least helpful to Bush in the general election.

The easiest way for Bush to beat McCain in South Carolina is to call him a liberal. Bush and his surrogates are blasting McCain for opposing Bush's big tax cut, promoting cigarette taxes, and crusading for campaign reforms that would allegedly hurt the GOP. Bush also courted South Carolina's right wing by speaking at Bob Jones University, which forbids interracial dating. These tactics may help Bush win one of the nation's most conservative primaries. But in the process, Bush may squander his "compassionate conservative" image, neutralize Al Gore's vulnerability on campaign fund raising, and help Gore tar Bush as the candidate of segregation, big tobacco, and fiscal recklessness.

The next easiest way to beat McCain is to carpet-bomb his character. Bush is already airing TV ads that imply McCain is corrupt, and he is telling reporters that McCain's attacks on him expose McCain's "true nature." McCain has a very positive image, but South Carolinians don't know him well, and their default preference is to vote for Bush if at all. If Bush can drag McCain into a mud fight that makes both men look bad, McCain's momentum will dissipate. Even if undecided voters become disgusted and refuse to vote for Bush, they probably won't vote for McCain either. That would be enough to deprive McCain of victory and begin choking off his oxygen. But this strategy carries two costs. It soils Bush's image in the general election, and it ruins McCain as a running mate. Since McCain appeals to many independents, and Democrats who don't like Bush, Bush-McCain would be a formidable ticket. That's why Bush wanted to capture McCain alive. If he captures McCain dead, Bush will have lost his best asset against Gore.

Bush is also fending off McCain with tactical tricks. These tricks aren't as dangerous to Bush as the preceding two strategies are, but they're not enormously helpful, either. First, Bush is learning how to knock an opponent off his game. McCain, like Bill Bradley, is running as a statesman. Gore bumped Bradley off that game by attacking him and drawing him into a fight, which made Bradley look like just another politician. Bush is doing the same to McCain. By practicing this technique against McCain, Bush may learn how to use it against Gore. But it's just a technique. It doesn't improve anything fundamental about Bush.

Another trick in Bush's bag is to change the question on voters' minds. Lately, many Republicans have asked themselves whether Bush is fit to be president. Concluding that he isn't, they have decided not to vote for him. In South Carolina, Bush is reversing that scrutiny. He is challenging the media and the electorate to ask whether McCain is fit to be president. Many people who would have voted for McCain to "send a message" to the Republican establishment will back off when they consider that their votes might actually sweep him into office. This is a handy trick for beating a little-known senator. But it's not much good against a vice president who is closely identified with the best economy ever.

Bush's cleverest stratagem has been to shift attention from McCain's military career to his political career. The most common thing voters in New Hampshire knew about McCain was that he had been a POW in Vietnam, whereas Bush was the son of a president. Bush wants voters in South Carolina to associate McCain less with the Hanoi Hilton than with the Washington Hilton. So the Bush camp refers constantly to "Chairman McCain" and accuses him of serving lobbyists while posing as a reformer. McCain's political career is no more remarkable than Bradley's, and his charm can evaporate just as quickly if voters and reporters scrutinize it.

Each of these three tricks hurts McCain, but a fourth helps Bush: By pummeling McCain, Bush proves his manhood. This seems silly, but it worked for Gore. Last summer, everyone agreed that Bradley looked bold, whereas Gore looked complacent and timid. So Gore jumped out of his chariot and beat Bradley senseless. Gore twisted every truth that got in his way, but pundits and Democratic voters loved it. Now everyone hails Gore as a "fighter" with "fire in the belly." Bush is attempting a similarly macho makeover, promising to "take it to" McCain. If Bush spins as expertly as Gore, he, too, can pass himself off as a "fighter" rather than a mudslinger.

Bush can help himself most in the general election by winning South Carolina in the two most difficult ways. The first is to steal McCain's message, which Bush is trying to do by repackaging himself as a "reformer with results." Bush's ads and press releases now boast that he has "taken on" education bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and other entrenched interests. Most people don't understand McCain's reform proposals, but they infer that he's courageous, and they love him for it. If Bush can absorb some of that magic, it will help him against Gore. But for Bush, it's a reach. He earned his lead by courting the Republican establishment, and he keeps deploying Washington politicians on the campaign trail. To reposition himself as a reformer, he'll have to shed the big names and face the voters on his own.

The best way to beat McCain is even harder. While Bush coasted through New Hampshire with scripted speeches and superficial rallies, McCain invited thousands of questions at scores of town meetings. Now Bush is toying with McCain's format. He's getting rid of his podium, shortening his speeches, and fielding more questions. When McCain adopted this format, he was sending a message: "Here I am, with nobody to protect me. Give me your best shot. I can take it. I can think on my feet. I'm up to the job." Can Bush handle the same challenge? If he tries and fails in South Carolina, he might lose his shot at the presidency. But only by trying can he prove he deserves it.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Highlights from The Fray:


There's two issues that concern me that I haven't heard about: as much as we'd like to think that solutions to the amount of money floating through D.C. can be legislated, previous attempts have failed. Is the solution a new law, or should we recognize the problem is bigger than money? Will the law of unintended consequences once more trample the result?

A compelling case has been made that the Senator's campaign finance bill is unconstitutional on its' face. I had a problem with the disregard for the law shown by the current occupant at 1600; if McCain is as constitutionally ignorant as he seems to be, I don't want him near the office. As imperfect and maddening as the current system is, it lets issues be aired. Heaven help us if we should be left to the competence of the press (and their obsession with tactics). Informed citizenry, indeed.

--Geo

(To reply, click here.)


I was struck by the gratuitous and unsubstantiated claim that "Gore twisted every truth that got in his way." That seems to be the conventional view of the Washington pundits, something that's tossed out in a column or on the air with such casual nonchalance, as if it were so obvious as not to need any evidence to support it. The scant evidence for the charge that I have seen/heard from the pundits has not convinced me that Mr. Gore has twisted EVERY truth, let alone any truth of significance that would merit this kind of denigration. I look forward to Mr. Saletan's substantiation of this rather grave charge.

--Bob Parnes

(To reply, click here.)


Exhibit A: Gore said Bradley's health care plan consists of $150 "vouchers," despite the absence of any such "voucher" system in the written plan. So Bradley explained that $150 was his estimate of the average cost of the plan per person -- not a voucher. And the Bradley campaign said that if it turned out that health insurance costs more than that in any given state, Bradley would make up the diference. Bradley and his aides clarified this point repeatedly and pointed out that the "voucher" claim was false. But Gore, after hearing each of these clarifications, went right on repeating the charge ad infinitum.

A simple, outright lie.

--William Saletan

(To reply, click here.)


I'm afraid Mr. Saletan's criteria for what qualify as "truths" are different from mine. I am reluctant to use that term in the context of a political debate about a work in progress, in the heat of a campaign. Especially when one of the candidates chooses to characterize the concept as a "voucher" while the other candidate prefers that it be called a "weighted average." My dictionary defines "voucher" as "a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures." That definition seems to describe the Bradley proposal pretty succinctly. Perhaps Mr. Bradley (and Mr. Saletan) should take more time to explain the subtle (or not so subtle) differences between a "voucher" and a "weighted average" rather than cry foul. I find it striking that this is the best example of truth-twisting by Mr. Gore that Mr. Saletan could come up with.

--Bob Parnes

(To reply, click here.)


It seems to me that at worst Gore can be accused of oversimplifying an opponent's stand to make a salient point: That the projected cash grants with which the Bradley plan replaces Medicaid are inadequate. Now oversimplifying is not wonderful, but it's a common practice in political campaigns and cannot be equated with lying.

--Andrew Goodwin

(To reply, click here.)


You've stated the best possible defense of Gore on this point, but it's not good enough. The question of whether Gore is lying or not about the "voucher" charge boils down to the following question: If it turns out (as I'm sure it will) that it costs more than $150 on average for people to get adequate health insurance, will Bradley increase the amount of money in the program to make up the difference? I've seen several Bradley representatives say or indicate (grudgingly, because they insist it won't cost more) that if the insurance costs more, the program would pay accordingly. Therefore, it is clearly not a voucher. Instead, it is an expensive program whose cost Bradley is wishfully understating. Gore thinks (correctly) that he can't get Democratic voters upset with Bradley by making the latter argument, which is true. So he makes the former argument, which is false.

--William Saletan

(To reply, click here.)


Your argument, while eloquent--and possibly correct-- seems to rest on the idea that a cash grant with a flexible value is not a voucher and that therefore calling it a voucher is an unpardonable lie. I can't get exercised about that. Infinitely worse things are said in campaigns all the time, as the current internecine bombardment between Bush and McCain demonstrates. If the misstatements of most campaigns were documented and explicated as thoroughly as this one has been, it would reveal how Talmudic most of the media criticisms of Gore's campaign have become.

--Andrew Goodwin

(Ton reply, click here.)


Thanks for the exchange, Andrew. I hope you'll testify on my behalf the next time somebody writes in (tomorrow is always a good bet, if not today) to accuse me of shilling for Gore.

--William Saletan

(To reply, click here.)

(2/14)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby