It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

THE BIG JOKE in Washington these days is that the 9 percent of survey respondents who don't give George Bush a favorable approval rating are all considering running for the Democratic nomination.

Judging from most of the recent pre-election commentary, this is not much of an exaggeration. Very few people seem to think Bush can be defeated in 1992. The solid Democratic base of Blacks, liberals and the aged will deliver about 40 percent of the votes to the Democrats. Depending on the savvy and skill of their candidate, another 5 to 7 percent may fall the Democrats' way. But Bush basically has it locked up. So goes the conventional wisdom.

And it's never been sillier.

IN LAST SUNDAY'S Boston Globe, Martin F. Nolan even trotted out some nonsense suggesting that George Bush could inaugurate a second "era of good feelings (a la James Monroe in 1820) by naming Democratic Sen. Albert Gore Jr. '69 of Tennessee as his '92 running mate. Time Magazine ran a bizarre piece last week proposing that the Democrats nominate Bush with a Democratic running mate. The pundits are desperate for a story.

But George Bush is not invincible. In fact, those within the reelection campaign hierarchy fear a Democratic surprise. William B. Lacy, who ran the successful Bush campaign in California in 1988, said this week that the Democrats can bounce back in '92. And Bush is still having problems in Washington.

Just two weeks ago, Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf dropped a bombshell when he questioned Bush's decision to keep the war out of Baghdad. Democrats have much to gain from jumping on the "Save the Kurds" bandwagon. Bush's reputation as a foreign policy guru should last about as long as the Kurds did against Saddam's helicopter gunships.

Such behind-the-scenes wrangling is reminiscent of last fall, when many Republicans refused to return one another's phone calls over the budget debacle. Bush's turnaround on taxes and his poor handling of party infighting dropped his approval ratings and wilted people's faith in his ability to negotiate Washington battles.

Any political junkie will acknowledge that a year in politics is an eternity. George Bush will not be allowed to fight the war straight through 1992. A long war could have been great for the president--it would have kept the electorate's mind off the deficit, the recession, higher taxes. But, thankfully, the war was short, and now is the time for Democrats to attack.

THE ATTACK must be quick and ruthless. If the Democrats really want to win the White House in 1992--and they can--they must craft a strategy something like the following:

Kick out the liberals before the primaries. As much as I hate to admit it, District of Columbia "Shadow Senator" Jesse L. Jackson and Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York will not win the 1992 election--not by a long shot. Nominating one of them--or, even worse, the persistent George McGovern or the laughable Paul E. Tsongas--will doom the Democratic Party to another four years of "Don't forget--we control the Congress." A national party needs a nationally unifying leader.

The Cuomos and the Jacksons in the Democratic Party don't fit the bill. Most Americans--including most Democrats--consider them tax-and-spenders who care more about minority rights than about majority government.

Unfortunately, Democratic primaries tend to attract diehard liberals, who tend to nominate liberal candidates. When the general election comes around, more conservative Democrats come out to vote--and choose the Republican nominee. So...

Nominate someone with a conservative image. The most logical choice right now is Gore. While the Gulf War will not decide the '92 election, it will be important. Since Gore voted to grant Bush war powers in January--a vote that has gained enough symbolic value to make a 1992 bid impossible for Mr. Sanctions, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.)--he can neutralize charges that Democrats would have appeased Saddam Hussein.

A good running mate for Gore would be Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, whose Congressional Medal of Honor and loss of a leg in Vietnam would preempt any perceptions of softness on national defense. His "down-home" Midwestern image will retain the Democrats' traditional strength in Minnesota and Michigan.

Washington outsiders could also serve the Democrats well, as Jimmy Carter did in 1976. Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, has already formed a committee to test campaign waters. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who almost entered the '88 race, should probably run as well to build name recognition. All four of these potential nominees support the death penalty, a morally repugnant position that is unfortunately necessary to win an election in today's political climate.

Develop a new campaign strategy. For years, the Democrats have tried to run absurd 50-state campaigns late into the fall, limping through obvious no-win states. The Democrats should target enough states to give them the 270 votes in the Electoral College needed to win.

Also, the Democrats need to stream-line their message. Every piece of campaign literature and every TV spot should be focused around two or three central issues. Mike Dukakis was tossed by Bush from Crime one week to defense the next week to taxes the next. The result was a defensive Democratic campaign with little focus.

Attack on the issues. Negative campaigning gets bad press, but it wins lots of votes. The Democrats must start the battle early. Bush must be battered for appeasing Saddam Hussein until last August and abandoning the Kurds after encouraging a rebellion. And right now, it looks as though Saddam will remain in power at least through 1992; Gore and others must continue to charge Bush with giving up too soon.

On the domestic front, the attacks should be even stronger. The Democrats should relentlessly trumpet Bush's idiotic "no new taxes" pledge all across the airwaves. If the jobless rate continues to climb, they should focus on issues of prosperity and the increasingly uneven income distribution of the 1980s. The Democrats must avoid calling for massive increases in social spending and affirmative action programs, but popular Republican attacks on the tax-and-spenders can be answered with attacks on Republican "borrow-and-spend" economic policy.

The Democratic candidate should slam Bush for breaking a slew of promises to protect the environment (Gore's pet issue) and to increase funding for education (Clinton's). The Democrats should continue to fight for stronger gun control laws, especially now that Ronald Reagan has partially relented on the issue. The popular Dukakis plan to extend health insurance to the 37 million uninsured Americans could also be revived.

Finally, the Democrats should hammer home their pro-choice stance on abortion rights. Republican convention battles over the issue should stand in stark contrast to firm Democratic support for women's rights.

THIS KIND of strategy is what it will take to get a Democrat elected. Some Democrats, including myself, will find that it gives up some of the ideals that made them choose the party. But at this point, more is at stake than just losing the White House for the sixth time in the last seven elections. If Bush coasts to the presidency without a struggle, he could drag along both a Republican majority in the Senate and significant gains in the House.

Those who argue that such a strategy will drive away the Democratic foundation of Blacks, liberals and the elderly are simply wrong. In stark terms, these voters have nowhere else to go.

George Bush is not George Washington. He will not waltz into office with the full and unequivocal support of all Americans. But he will win if the Democrats allow him to run against someone in the McGovern-Mondale mould.

The Democrats have only a few months to learn the political lessons of the last 20 years. If they don't, they might never regain the Oval Office.