10/18/00 10:05 a.m.
The Contingency Candidate
Waiting for the Gail Sheehy profile of Gore.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

f at all possible, this contest may have gotten even tighter. No, there's no objective criteria to prove this. The insta-polls right after the third presidential debate called it basically a draw. Logic tells us that in a race where one person is ahead going into a debate, a tie should benefit the front-runner. By that analysis, Bush — who led by most polls over the last few days — should still be ahead.

Marginally, he might be. But, this columnist's gut is telling him that Al Gore did himself some good Tuesday night. Was he pedantic at times? Oh, geez, yes. Did he interrupt Jim Lehrer several times and stray from the rules? Yep. Was the pander to the memory of Mel Carnahan at the beginning of the debate one of the most unctuous things you've ever seen? Yes to that too.

But, all that aside, Gore's appearance — by the standard he needed to reach — was semi-successful.

But, first back to George W. Bush. The governor wasn't as superb as he was in the second debate, but was still far superior to the first. Bush has decided that this race is settling somewhat on the lines of a classic liberal-conservative race. He is comfortable with that and it showed. He kept pushing variations of that argument throughout the debate — without ever using the words. Instead, he used phrases that got the point across well: Gore was for "big government"; Gore's budget was "three times Clinton's"; "If this were a spending contest, I'd come in second." Perhaps Bush's best line was: "It's who you trust, the government or people." Bush constantly came back to the issues of "trust" and accountability. He made those words relate to issues such as education, Medicare, and Social Security reform. Bush was, in a word, thematic, avoiding getting into discussion over arcana such as the "Dingell-Norwood" bill. Since hardly anyone knew what was in that "Patient's Bill of Rights," Gore seemed a bit too knowledgable. Bush stuck to principles.

While a format allowing "regular" people to ask questions gives politicians the opportunity to pander, Bush restrained himself. When a black man asked about Bush's appearing to seem "proud" of Texas' status as the leading death-penalty state, Bush was appropriately somber. He avoided the smirking tic that seems to pop up when he talks about that issue. But he didn't back down; he said that death-penalty cases were an awesome responsibility that he took seriously. The man's viewpoint on the death penalty might not have been changed, but he appeared satisfied with Bush's answer.

And then there's Al Gore. After his aggressive — yet ultimately failing — performance in the first debate and his passive — and disastrous — second debate, Gore must have decided that the only way he was going to win was to default to his natural aggressive self. The lack of a podium actually helped him in this regard. Podiums accent his natural pedantic personality. He doesn't come off quite as obnoxious roaming around a stage.

Actually, from a body-language perspective, Gore appeared more assertive — in a good way. He kept coming closer to the audience — perhaps a trick he picked up from Bill Clinton — and to George W. Bush as well. To borrow a phrase from the first Hillary Clinton-Rick Lazio debate, Gore came perilously close to "invading Bush's space." Gore was clearly the stalking lion this time around. I wouldn't be surprised if you turned the volume down and just watched the candidates, Gore might come off looking more polished and confident.

Bush's "big government" argument has clearly nicked Gore. The vice president pointed to his "reinventing government" track record: "The federal government has been reduced in size by more than 300,000 people." Gore followed that up with the charge that Texas' government has expanded during Bush's tenure. This was the one area where Bush didn't effectively respond to an attack. Had he calmly pointed out that the reduction which Gore is so proud of has primarily come from the armed forces, he would have done two things: Undercut Gore's claim to wanting a "small government" and buttressed Bush's critique of what has happened to the military over the last eight years.

The attack mode is obviously a "risky scheme" for the vice president to utilize at this late date. But, he's decided that if he's going to go down, it will be "fighting." Gore's not completely stupid to try this. After all, he got his biggest lift in the campaign with his defiant "I will fight for you" stance at the Democratic National Convention. Viewers saw a bit more of that Tuesday, though with the open class warfare toned down a bit.

Gore also made the choice explicit (with his own demagogic accent, of course): "If you want somebody who believes that we were better off eight years ago... emphasizing tax cuts mainly for the wealthy, here is your man. If you want somebody who will fight for you and who will fight to have middle-class tax cuts, then I am your man. I want to be."

Gore here stands as the contingency candidate: "If" this, then this. "If" you behave a certain way, you get certain tax benefits. Hmmm . . . don't you wish Gail Sheehy would do a psychological profile of a 50-something man who seems to need being needed? "I want to be [your man]." Bush asks for the vote of the people; Gore seems to crave it. Bush explicitly says that he trusts the people; Gore says he will fight for them.

Generally speaking, Bush's approach and personality should carry the day. The cracks in the Clinton-Gore "peace and prosperity" in recent weeks — Middle East, stock market, etc. — should help Bush. But there is a danger in just assuming that. As anxiety increases, the public may lose self-confidence. In that scenario, they may decide they want a "fighter." A contingency candidate might be appealing.

In such a case, Gore's pedantic combativeness — no matter how infuriating many find it — may serve him well as the race enters the home stretch. And that's why this contest may still remain as tight as possible.

Warning to those on the right: Of five post-World War II presidential elections decided by less than six points (1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992), Democrats have won four.