TIME - Man of the Year/CompactPublishing-TimeMagazine-TimeManOfTheYear-Win31MSDOS.iso/moy/101292/1012unk.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 5.3 KB | 109 lines

                                                                                THE POLITICAL INTEREST, Page 48

Why Bush Welcomes Perot


By Michael Kramer


    In 1980, when he helped Ronald Reagan snatch the White
House from Jimmy Carter, Jim Baker summed up his view of
presidential politics in two words -- "reasonable doubt." As an
attorney -- and he was one of the best when he practiced law for
a living -- Baker has always been charmed by courtroom
analogies. "At the presidential level," he explained, "the
stakes are so high, and are seen as so high by the voters, that
the trick is to cause people to view your opponent as somehow
`guilty,' as being unfit for the top. Especially if you're the
incumbent, if you create just a reasonable doubt about the
challenger, he's convicted."

    Fast-forward 12 years, and Baker's strategy is on full
display. That it has so far failed miserably says nothing about
the final outcome, and Ross Perot offers one last chance for
success. Consider the state of play till now and what the nation
will probably see this month -- on television, on the stump and
especially in the debates. To date, none of the attacks on Bill
Clinton's character have stuck. Voters' fears about the economy
have outlasted the mud. "We have absolutely no credibility on
domestic matters," concedes a Bush aide, "and Clinton is seen
as Reagan, as a guy who knows where he wants to go even if all
the details don't compute exactly. That's why he's leading;
that's why we're headed for exile."

    Given that, the G.O.P. game plan is easily understood:
create a reasonable doubt about Clinton's domestic prescriptions
and hope that he is eventually perceived as having no more of
a clue than Bush. Then, perhaps, the election can turn on
character, on a determination that Clinton is too flawed a
personality to serve as a moral role model.

    The first step in this process is already visible. In his
speeches and in his television ads, the President is
relentlessly hitting Clinton as a "tax and spend" liberal of the
old school. A top Clinton adviser says the charge is resonating
"mildly" and admits it "doesn't much matter" that Bush's ads
shamelessly distort the Democrat's proposals. (The latest
Republican commercial predicts disastrous tax increases for
several average Americans, dubious calculations that senior
adviser Charles Black lamely defends as legitimate because the
spot claims "only" that such horrors "could" occur, not that
they necessarily will.) Bush's team professes delight with
Clinton's reflexive counterpunch -- a series of ads that slam
the President's fiscal record. "We're already dead meat on the
economy," says a Republican operative. "He can't put us in the
hole any deeper. He hasn't closed his sale. He's still new in
the public's mind. He should be taking the high road, putting
out his vision, fleshing out the hope people think he offers.
Attacking us wastes his money and detracts from his positive
message."

    Enter Ross Perot, a paranoid hoist by his own self-regard
who could nonetheless end up as Bush's secret weapon. Most
observers are focusing on the state-by-state matchups -- whom
Perot will hurt more in which key states, a crystal-ball
exercise whose only safe conclusion at this point is that Perot
hurts either Clinton or Bush or both or neither. Meanwhile,
Baker & Co. believe that victory requires blowing the current
campaign dynamic across the board; surgical strikes won't do.
"If Clinton fractures anywhere, he will fracture everywhere,"
says a Bush campaign official. "Perot serves that possibility
because even though he's crazy, on the economy he's considered
a straight-shooting truth teller. Of all the potential
third-party nuisances we could think of, Perot alone has the
standing to describe both of our economic plans as pain-free
nonsense -- which is fine by us. Please, Ross, tar us both."

    Perot will of course play this role with relish. It's his
only card, the ticket to rehabilitating his reputation. A few
Republicans are fretting (Perot's an "egotistical pest," says
former Education Secretary Bill Bennett), but the party's big
guns are smartly encouraging Perot to follow his instincts: "If
Ross Perot's re-entry puts even more focus on the federal
deficit," says Senator Bob Dole, "it will be a plus for everyone
. . ." Thus, in the debates, Bush will defend his record, but
he will gladly take the hit as long as Perot swipes equally at
Clinton, which he is bound to do. As Clinton strikes back, he
and Perot could descend into an unfathomable numbers war about
growth stimulants and deficit philosophy, permitting Bush to
portray both men as simply too willing to raise taxes -- an
attack that could force Clinton to defend his plan with a few
thousand academically sound but mind-boggling words reminiscent
of Mark Twain's crack about Wagner's music: "It's better than
it sounds."

    The final step? "After the debates, we have the last two
weeks to blitz Clinton on the character stuff," says a Bush
strategist. "It's desperate, but it's coherent, and if Ross
performs as expected, it hangs together theoretically." Call it
what Baker called it -- reasonable doubt. As Bush aide Robert
Mosbacher said some months ago, all the President needs on
Election Day is to be considered "the lesser of three evils."