'Great Debates' victorless so far

Staff Editorial

Editorial Cartoon

Democrats need to take it seriously

R. Alex Whitlock

"Go ahead, underestimate me," Gov. George W. Bush said.

Besides the economy, arguably one of Bill Clinton's greatest assets in 1992 was the belief on the part of Republicans that he would never be elected president. They believed America would never elect such a sleaze, no matter how bad the economy.

Their shock at being proven wrong and at having underestimated Clinton might be one of the reasons for their intense dislike for him on a very personal level.

It seems history may be repeating itself. For the past year, the Democrats have been saying that Bush will not be elected president. America would never elect an idiot to the presidency, no matter how affable the guy is and bland the Democrat is. But the polls suggest that Bush's chance of winning is very real.

The overwhelming characteristic of Bush's political career has been his opponents' underestimation of him. In 1994, he surprised everyone by toppling the popular gubernatorial reign of Ann Richards, who had 60 percent approval ratings the day she left office.

Halfway through his first term, Bush's name was already being tossed around for president, once it became obvious the 1996 nominee was doomed.

You can say, as many have, that Bush has only made it as far as he has because of his family name. There is certainly some truth to that. However helpful his family name has been, though, there are countless sons of politicians -- even presidents -- who never made it in politics.

Bush's name may have put him on the presidential radar, but Bush himself has managed to surprise everyone time and time again, much like the man he hopes to replace.

Yet still, over and over again, I hear Democrats say that he will not be elected. Bush is inexperienced and arguably under-qualified to be president, yet John F. Kennedy was a do-nothing playboy senator who rose admirably to the presidency. Bush's academic career was marked by mediocrity, but so was Gore's. Bush has a short résumé, but so did Reagan.

I am not saying Bush will be elected to the top position in the land. I'm just saying that it's really time the Democrats start taking that possibility very seriously, as it seems they're only just now starting to do.

Bush has survived the media assault over the cocaine matter, John McCain's insurgency, media scrutiny and an incumbent-friendly economy.

He defeated Ann Richards, he defeated John McCain, and he can defeat Al Gore. Is it a done deal? Not at all. Even if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on this one either way.

I'd just hate to see the Democrats have the same reaction to Bush that the Republicans had toward Clinton.