It's easy to rip apart Bush's Reagan-reminiscent rhetoric. His own spending proposals--$523 billion to Gore's $818 billion--would increase the size of the federal government. He urges a "change of tone" in Washington, yet he was escorted on this campaign swing by GOP chairman Jim Nicholson, a champion name-calling partisan. Bush assailed big government at a Michigan plant that's prospering because of its work on the F-22 fighter plane and the V-22 Osprey aircraft, controversial projects kept alive by political guardians in Congress, and he gleefully accepted the endorsement of Lee Iacocca, the former head of Chrysler, which was saved by the largest government bailout of a private corporation. The new economy Bush acclaims was aided by the Internet, which started as a government-funded endeavor. His Social Security numbers defy explanation. His vision of an America unburdened by large government and political rancor, where tax cuts for the rich insure a strong economy for all, is slim and self-contradicting, but it passes the vision test for millions. Since Bush began his big-government bash, "things are moving our way," claims Mark McKinnon, a Bush media consultant. "Whether it's what we're doing right or it's what Gore is doing wrong, it's been working for us. Sometimes it's hard to say why." The details of the Bush message may mean less than the impressions conveyed.

Still, Gore and his advisers keep believing in the power of details. In a more reactive mode than the Bush camp--that's what bad poll numbers will do to a campaign--the Gore crew pounced on Bush's trillion-dollar Social Security grab and quickly kicked out ads for broadcast in the toss-up states accusing Bush of threatening Social Security benefits. (The Gore campaign has the money to play even with the Bush squad in the final television-ad showdown.) "We're going to keep moving on this," says Bob Shrum, a top Gore consultant. One hears in the voice of the Gore advisers a hint of last-ditch hope: How can this not work; Bush has messed up and given us an opening; he's swiping money from the near-elderly (who vote) to give to younger workers (who don't vote); if this doesn't pan out, we're screwed.

The Bush people, though, don't seem to be worrying much. On the campaign plane, Karen Hughes, Bush's communications director, was cracking jokes that played off the view that Bush is a ninny. Referring to a top-ten list of reasons why Bush won the last debate, she said No. 2 was, "He's finally learned the difference between East Timorians and West Texians." No. 1: "Strategery." In contrast, at the St. Louis debate Ed Rendell was test-driving excuses for a possible Gore defeat. The media, he said, were preoccupied with Gore's misstatements, "let [Bush] off scot-free...and failed to focus on issue differences." There was, he maintained, "no question" Gore won the first debate "on substance." But the commentary on Gore's "sighs and interruptions...cost us what should've been a knockout on debate one. What should have been a five-to-six-point bump turned into a one-to-two-point loss."

As pols usually do at the end of campaigns, Gore and Bush partisans say turnout efforts will determine the outcome in the close-call states. The Republicans have more money to spend on a get-out-the-vote push--maybe as much as $50 million, compared with $15 million for the Democrats. Moreover, Wisconsin Republican Governor Tommy Thompson maintains that "in a tight race, the undecided usually break for the challenger." Rendell argues that the door-knockers and phone-bankers the Republicans hire won't be as effective as the activists deployed by labor unions. The AFL-CIO, which endorsed Gore, is running a $40 million member-to-member campaign, in which about 1,000 union people--many of them in the swing states--are arranging phone banks, leaflet-drops at work sites and visits to union households to make certain that union voters know the differences between the two candidates on union issues. (To abide by the loophole-ridden campaign finance law, the union cannot directly tell members to vote for Gore, but it can point them in the obvious direction.) Other unions are doing the same; the Service Employees International Union claims it will have 18,000 volunteers working at election time. With several industrial states in play, a strong union effort could save Gore. "We know that if we can get union members out in the same numbers as we did for Clinton, then Gore can win, say, Ohio, by 1 percent," says a labor strategist.

But encouraging unionists to vote for Gore is not a problem-free task, for many of them bitterly recall Clinton/Gore support of NAFTA, GATT and the China trade bill. "When Gore was talking populism--'I'm on your side and taking on the bad guys'--that helped us," one union official notes. "But then that went away, while Bush stayed on message and was unflappable. Gore provides no context for all his programs. It's a jumble of see-how-smart-I-am and see-how-much-I-know. Bush has mostly platitudes and little substance, but it resonates with people."

More than ever, outside groups are toiling to nudge election results in the battleground states. The NAACP is spending $9 million to drive African-Americans to the polls. (It's no secret whom this will help.) The Christian Coalition is at work. In Wisconsin, antiabortion outfits have dumped a load of Bush-backing literature throughout the state. (Bush does not mention abortion in his standard campaign remarks, and during the "W. Stands for Women" bus tour in Michigan, both Laura and Barbara Bush refused to answer questions about abortion.) NRA president Charlton Heston has been crusading in swing states and decrying Gore; at a Michigan stop he drew a crowd of 5,000 people, many of whom were wearing union jackets. Workers in union shops in the Midwest have received leaflets warning that "Gore wants to take away your gun." The AFL-CIO has responded by passing out leaflets asserting that "Bush wants to take away your union."

Mike Golec, a 35-year-old inspector at a Michigan firm that produces weapons-systems parts, says he'd be happy to reward Gore and the Democrats for the booming economy, but as a hunter he's "pro-gun." Golec, who voted for President Bush in 1992 and President Clinton in 1996, has heard "from the guys, maybe the NRA," that Gore wants to impose a $50-a-gun tax. (Gore has no such plan.) "Gore is very impressive," he notes. "He has more answers. But Bush is more honest. I may go with guns on this one. I don't know."

As the election closes, behind both Gore and Bush are tens of millions of dollars' worth of last-minute political action and an assortment of forces. But to many undecided and already-decided voters--in swing states and elsewhere--the contest is one of individuals, not sides or agendas. When Bush concludes his typical campaign appearance, he solemnly talks of putting his hand on the Bible and swearing to uphold "the honor and dignity of the office." When Gore finishes, he often is sweat-drenched, red-faced, shouting: "I want to fight for you! I want to fight for you!" Bush is pushing his sincerity (real or not), Gore is marketing his desire (real or not). For a decisive number of voters--despite the issues that hang in the balance--that may be the difference that matters most.

• « Previous
• 1
• 2

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.