|
Ronald Reagan appears prominently on the op-ed page of today's Washington Post. Three columns mention his name. The first, by Robert Novak, argues that Republicans should embrace Reagan-style tax cuts more forcefully. Novak asked pollster John Zogby to ask likely voters if they are paying too much in taxes and whether they prefer across-the-board tax cuts rather than Gore-style targeted cuts. The poll using Novak's wording resulted in an overwhelming positive response in favor of a Reagan-style tax cut. Another Zogby poll showed that the public favored Bush on a number of import issues. Yet all we hear, again and again, is the liberal propaganda that the "issues" favor Gore. Bush needs to be Reaganesque and stand up for his anti-tax/small government philosophy. A second column, by Richard Cohen, compares Reagan's problem with the truth with Gore's and asks why Gore is getting hammered over the head with his lies while Reagan escaped scrutinyu. Cohen answers the question himself when he mentions Reagan's "tremendous charm". Gore has absolutely no charm. In addition, most of Reagan's "Whoppers" were anecdotes of long past events that did not really have much substantive importance. Now, it is true that some of Gore's lies and exaggerations fall into this category -- for example his boast about the Internet and being the role model for the novel and movie Love story. But others are lies about specific actions that have come under scrutiny such as whether he knew the Buddhist temple event was a fundraiser and whether he was present at meetings when illegal fundraising was discussed. In addition, other falsehoods are used to support policies that are not justified -- for example his story about the dog and his mother-in-law. His truthstretching covers a much wider territory that Reagan's and he has no charm or wit to mask it. So, it may not be totally fair since Gore can't help being so stiff and charmless but the charge against Gore is fundamentally sound. Furthermore,Gore suffers in comparison with Reagan by his 180 degree turnaround in the second debate. Reagan whatever his shortcomings, also presented a consistent public persona to the voters. Although he had his bad days, as in the first debates against Mondale in 1984, he didn't totally change his personality for the next debate. He merely made sure he was better prepared. Gore, on the other hand, completed changed his demeanor from a rude obnoxious bully to a very mild-mannered polite gentle debater. What kind of President would he make when he has no constancy and changes so quickly. Even more important, voters should consider how easy it was for him to become so unnerved by the critics that he changed so completely. Kudos to the Bush team for spinning the first debate and causing such panic in the Gore camp. Remember, in the aftermath of the first debate, most viewers thought Gore won (even I thought Gore looked better) but soon all the post-debate analysis focused on Gore's over-agressiveness and factual errors. Finally, the Bush campaign seemed to be the one creating the coverage instead of passively reacting to it (as with the Rats and other stories last month). The Gore counter-attack of pointing to Bush's mistake about the penalty given to the murderers of James Byrd may help Bush too, since it keeps Bush's tough-on-crime image before the public. Finally, the third column by former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, shows the real greatness of Reagan. Recalling the reaction of his fellow prisoners to Reagan's comment about the Soviet Union being an "evil empire", Sharansky says, "The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth -- a truth that burned inside the heart of each and everyone of us." This is the reason Reagan was so great and could get away with a few mis-statements. He could inspire brave men, which is something forever beyond the capability of Al Gore. |