6.30.00
Another Gore Scandal

6.29.00
Bush's Disappointment

6.27.00
FRC Tightens Its Belt

6.26.00
Debate Prep

6.23.00
Bye-Bye Bayh II

6.22.00
Sympathy for the Devil

6.21.00
The Kids Are Alright

6.20.00
Roe-ing through the Rapids

6.19.00
Stock Options

6.16.00
Sundquist's Folly

6.15.00
Code Blue

6.15.00
The Right Candidate

6/30/00 3:45 p.m.
Another Gore Scandal
This time involving power companies.

By Ramesh Ponnuru, NR senior editor, & Ben Domenech, NRO

n Tuesday, Al Gore proposed giving government grants and tax breaks to power companies that devise clean energy technologies. On Wednesday, UPI reported that the proposal was "developed with the assistance of a Gore adviser who also works for large power companies that could get millions in taxpayer subsidies under the plan." Kathleen McGinty, a former chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, advises Gore on environmental issues. She also briefed environmental activists about Gore's plan before he unveiled it.

Through her job at the law firm Troutman Sanders, McGinty does consulting work for American Electric Power and Southern Company. For the full story, click here.

The Nader Factor
The latest evidence that liberals are-to use the technical term-freaking out about Ralph Nader's potential to hurt Al Gore comes in the form of the lead editorial of Friday's New York Times, titled "Mr. Nader's Misguided Crusade." The Times writes that Nader is "engaging in a self-indulgent exercise that will distract voters," who ought "to see the major party candidates compete on an uncluttered playing field." The Times can't quite bring itself to admit that it wants Nader out to help Gore, which is why it includes a passing reference to Pat Buchanan: "We are equally reluctant to see the main election choices clouded by [his] spoiler candidacy." Sure, and no doubt they would be just as reluctant if he were taking 20 points away from George W. Bush.

Most conservatives, of course, are cheering Nader on. But his impact on the race is probably being overstated, for a couple of reasons:

1) Third-party campaigns always fade in the end. Even the strongest showings-those of George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992-fell short of their earlier strength in the polls. Especially if the Bush-Gore race is tight and polarizing, waverers will move from Nader to Gore.

2) Voters probably have only vague memories of Nader as a crusader for consumers, and don't realize just how hard Left he is. The more they see, the less they'll like-especially now that he's hooked up with the Green party, which wants to nationalize the 500 largest corporations in the country. (For more on the party's platform, check out Jonathan Chait's piece in the latest New Republic.)

3) Nader's presence in the race means that Buchanan isn't the only candidate running against free trade. Left-wing protectionists probably outnumber the right-wing kind, and will find Nader more congenial. That means that Buchanan will have to shift back from economic issues to social issues, as he has already started doing-and that hurts Gov. Bush, thus reducing the overall advantage he gets from Nader being on the ticket.

4) Gore may be able to use Nader to reinforce his own image of moderation, seriousness, etc.

5) Liberals have amply demonstrated that they're a cheap date. They've overlooked a lot more in Bill Clinton than they will need to overlook in Gore.

Conservatives have every reason to hope Nader takes millions of votes from Gore, but not much reason to expect it.

Famous Victories Dept.
The Hotline quotes the egregious Bob Schieffer of CBS explaining how the bill forcing "527" political organizations to disclose their donors got passed: "Every member of the Republican leadership first opposed this bill, but when members felt the campaign-year heat back home and turned on them, all of them, save House whip Tom DeLay, joined Democrats and voted for reform. That means the leaders are feeling the heat, too, and that could lead to even stronger reform." I don't know who Schieffer's talking to, but the word NR is hearing is that members weren't getting any phone calls on this issue. (How many people in Illinois, do you suppose, were following the 527 vote closely?) The Republicans most actively pushing for the bill were northeasterners within the New York Times's sphere of influence. The House leadership switched sides because there were enough such defectors for the bill to pass. It had nothing to do with popular outrage, and nothing to do with the fumes of John McCain's presidential bid. Campaign-finance reform remains, as it has always been, a media-driven issue.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home