I hate it when someone tells me, ‘I told you so’. However, I cannot help myself and have to tell the conservatives – I told you so, I told you so, your horse will never make it.

Gore has already launched his campaign against Bush, challenging him to ban so-called soft money, to eliminate all of the 30- and 60-second radio and TV ads, and debate on a separate issue twice a week. Gore called for "a contest of ideas and not insults, a campaign conducted in full daylight and not through secretly funded special-interest attack ads or smear telephone calls."

Touché! That is what the Christian conservatives could have expected if they would not be so close-minded.

The liberal media amplified the challenge, and Ted Koppel, on Nightline, pressed Bush to answer the challenge. Of course, Bush ducked the challenge, excusing himself by a vague possibility of "debate fatigue," and once more insulting Gore as a hypocrite on campaign-finance reform.

Lott, Limbaugh, and the rest of the Christian right could have foreseen the tactics of the Democrats, when they picked an unable horse, which cannot accept this kind of challenge, and thus, looks cowardly and fishy in the public eye. That is precisely why this tactic of the Democrats will be the silver line of the liberal media for the entire summer.

Gore learns fast, at least, faster than Trent Lott and other Republican leaders in the Senate who picked Bush as their winning horse. Gore watched the Republican primary debates closely and learned that Bush is awkward and stiff alongside his rivals at a podium. That is why Gore practiced on Bradley the tactic of leaving the podium in the middle of a debate and approaching the ramp in order to get all the attention of the public. Gore also learned that, in debates, Bush tends to be evasive on many concrete issues, retreats into abstractions, and is tensely defensive on personal remarks. Gore also learned that, in debates, Bush, when questioned by a rival, cannot keep an eye-contact for more than 10 seconds and turns them away, looking shy.

Why, on the earth, did Lott and other donors pick Bush as their winning horse and are now shaking in their boots? There were probably not many fish in the pond. As you know, a lobster becomes a fish where there are no fish any longer. Probably they assumed that Bush was already tried by the fire of battles for governorship. They saw him in a private stable, not in a public stadium; they saw him in a narrow party circle of state debates, not on the national arena.

In his private and staged conversations with media-men or senators, Bush appears often as well balanced and thoughtful. Sometimes, he can demonstrate that he sees the forest behind the trees, though he often does not see the trees. However, he is good at listening to advice and criticism on how to see those trees. Consequently, the donors did not pay the close attention to his public appearance until New Hampshire, where he was invisible and speechless. Only then, they realized they bought a horse from a cunning Gypsy-Baker, who make it up just before the party fair. However, at that time, it was too late to acknowledge their mistake. They have already been in the middle of the stream and spent more than $50 million.

There is no a doubt why Gore wants to debate with Bush right now. Gore is disciplined, aggressive, well versed, and is always keeping in mind the advice of his mother – "relax, smile, attack." Gore excels in public forums and learned how to dictate the subject matter in such debates. Gore has nearly the same economic and political program as Bush. Indeed, Bush wants to cut taxes at the expense of the mythical surplus and Gore wants to fix the Social Security from the same mythical source. Bush says that he is a "compassionate conservative and a reformer with results, who will uphold the honor and dignity of the office." However, he had acted against McCain surreptitiously and with great cynicism. Gore says to his constituency that he will "fight" for them, alluding to the lower class. However, he did not say with whom, for what, when, and how he will fight. That is precisely why his plan is Clintonesque by content and by form. So, there is nothing much to talk with Bush about content. Consequently, Gore likes the debates not for their content, but only for their format.

So far, in their opened and concealed debates, both candidates of the major parties gave the public as many insults and buried as many issues as they could. Would formal debates produce "a contest of ideas and not insults"? Most likely, they would not. What Gore really likes in such debates is their format, because formal debates will likely prove to the majority of Americans that Bush is dumb, if not a coward.

However, what real choice does Bush have? None, unless the economy turns really sour. You cannot teach an old dog new tricks. He cannot fake debates with Gore, as he did amidst Bower, Forbes, Keyes, and McCain. Bush must now debate Gore, because, by June, there will be no one else around to stay behind, unless Pat Buchanan will take the third podium.

If Bush will debate only against Gore, he will definitely lose. And even if Buchanan will take the third place in the debates, he will probably take the lion share of moderates’ votes. However, that is precisely about whom should be in those debates, because the moderates will define the fate of Bush. Roughly speaking, Gore already has a half of the electorate; and even if a tiny fraction of the moderate Republicans will join the Democrats in November, it will be enough for the president Gore. And survey after survey told us that from 10 to 15% of the moderate Republicans will vote for Gore in the two men race.

From now on, Bush will be no longer able to duck the debates without being explicitly or implicitly accused in using "soft money and attack ads" to cover up his inability to debate "issues and ideas."

Either debating or not debating, the outcome will show that Bush is inapt to be the president, because he cannot effectively show the large audiences his ability to inspire and lead them.

I told you so, I told you so! When you pick your winning horse not by its merits (looks, character, and performance) but solely on its pedigree, you will probably lose your bet.


03/12/00

[email protected]