Good thread concept. I have a couple of thoughts.
First, anyone who has read & posted on the GWB thread on SI, as I have, will have noticed the conciliatory tone among Bush supporters has gone up as GW appeared to have it sewn up, and down as it appeared more in doubt. In other words, the 'kinder, gentler' tone of the GW supporters has been turned on and off as it suited them. Insincere? You bet. I think the GW campaign team itself reflects this as well. When it appeared the election was in doubt for "their guy," they brought in ex-Reagan admin relic James Baker. I think his presence and (IMHO) highly infamatory remarks conjured up images of the old right-wing heyday of the Reagan 80's. Democrats may well have dug their heels in, seeing this apparent 'turning back of the clock' in Baker's very presence in this process. GW's promise to 'bring people together' takes a more hollow tone to it by the very presence of Baker, IMHO. So, the sooner Baker leaves the stage the better. The longer he stays, the more likely the vitriol will continue on both sides.
Also, it's a longshot, but GW can choose not to give Katherine Harris a position in his administration of any stripe. Her obvious and shameless partisan conduct guaranteed the recount process would not succeed. Sadly, I think GW will repay her in spades, as everyone is anticipating, and, judging by the pathetic lack of ethics she has already displayed, she will be one of the first members of his administration to be deservingly embroiled in scandal. Imagine the message a Harris appointment will send to everyone on both sides.
I agree with others that pardoning Clinton "for the benefit of America" would be the best single act GW could take to establish he "is his own man," to borrow from Gore. If he did, the Rush's, Robertsons, Reeds and other Righties would respond as if Christmas had been cancelled. I don't think GW has one wit of personal toughness to carry out such a move. It will be remembered IMHO as another opportunity "to bring people together" lost.
Finally, if GW and the GOP are salivating over a new Reagan-like era of right wing bliss ala the early/mid 80's, guess again. Reagan took office by a landslide; America was arguably desperate for ANY positive message following Jimmy Carter's disasterous term: inflation was out of control, and the economy in miserable shape, and America's reputation among foriegn allies and foes alike was abyssmal. No one can say the same with any credibility about Clinton's successful presidency. Yes, if Clinton ran again he would have won easily, no debate.
In contrast, GW takes office by the most wafer-thin margin possible. Reagan was the Great Communicator and even many Democrats sided with him. GW had more than he could handle in the Presidential debates and campaign interviews. He ain't Ronald Reagan in charisma, communication or anything else, period. Meanwhile the Dems (the 49.9999% of Americans who voted for 'the other guy') are conditioned to vehemently battle any right wing moves by the GW administration. I personally do not see GW as having the will or personal toughness to defy his own party and take any of these suggested gestures, or any others, to try to stem the tide of very bitter partisan politics. We'll see, of course, but IMHO it's gonna get a lot uglier before it gets any better.
One final thought: GW's centerpiece campaign message was he would "restore honor and dignity" to the White House. That was the SAME message Carter delivered...and...well...the rest is history, I guess. Better pray history does not repeat itself. |
