Bush should topple Bradley in the end
Bridget O'Connor
Even at this early stage, it is clear that the real race for the 2000 presidential election is between GOP standout George W. Bush and the surprise Democratic contender Bill Bradley. Despite the presence of numerous other hopefuls, including the Vice President, the Bush-Bradley race is where the majority of public attention has been focused, and rightly so.
After nearly eight years of campaigning by Al Gore, Democrats are still shopping. Even with his claims to inventing the Internet, Gore remains the stiff sidekick to a scandal-ridden administration. Gore lacks the personal charisma that allowed President Clinton to sidestep the numerous indiscretions and remain in favor. Without Bill, the entertainment factor of this administration is gone and we are left with the shadow of scandal.
Enter Bill Bradley.
Senator John McCain from Arizona has recently confirmed his presidential aspirations on the Republican ticket. Upon first glance he has a lot going for him: war-hero status, a dynamic personality, a record of bold initiatives including taking on campaign finance and tobacco.
Unfortunately, a deeper look reveals that the downside to his dynamism is his stubbornness and propensity to alienate his fellow congressmen. In fact, McCain's reputation in Congress for being hard to work with and ineffective as a result should dissuade voters from signing on to another invitation for gridlock.
So that puts us back to the front-runners. In head-to-head competition Bradley has the biographical advantage. An Eagle Scout, he hails from small town middle America and did a decade in the NBA before his senatorial career. He has also benefited from a recent wave of good press resulting from his unexpected success. Bradley is a direct contrast to Clinton for the Democrats as a respectable messenger. Unfortunately, his message is lacking. His recent health care proposal was promoted as revolutionary but lacks any distinctive elements from other candidates' platforms.
Bradley's ideas for education and Social Security reform are most alarmingly lacking. His treatment of the needs of the educational system are bland at best, especially when compared to Bush's impressive proposals for school choice and record of support for education as Texas governor.
Bush supports the preservation of Social Security for future generations through personal retirement accounts that would give individuals the opportunity to realize a greater return on the mandatory contributions to the system by investing them in the stock market. Bradley sets out an inadequate and unrealistic solution, suggesting that by simply supporting a prosperous economy future Social Security receipts will be high enough to sustain the current level of payments. Perhaps he fails to grasp the concepts of demographic growth and an aging population which threaten the system.
Bush's stance on life issues reinforce his image as a compassionate conservative. He opposes abortion except in the infrequent cases of rape, incest or threats to the life of the mother and supports passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. This is in sharp contrast to Bradley's record of outspoken support for abortion.
The differences between Bush and Bradley will ultimately come down to questions of limited government, personal responsibility and local control. In the wake of the Clinton administration, the American public will surely realize what can happen if the messenger takes precedent over the message.
While it is disappointing that the lesser contenders don't have more of a chance at this early stage, their presence will be helpful in challenging both Bush and Bradley to stay sharp and make meaningful claims. Based on the strength of their platforms, and barring unforeseen public relations catastrophes, Bush should easily top Bradley in the final consideration.
Bridget O'Connor is a senior government and international relations major.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necesarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Friday, January 21, 2000
