10/26/00 5:50 p.m.
An October Surprise for Bush
He should debate Gore on Social Security.

By NR's John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru

o far, the only real October Surprise has been how well George W. Bush did in the debates with Al Gore. So why not have another? Gov. Bush should challenge Gore to a one-hour debate exclusively about Social Security.

It is the biggest issue in the race, both as a matter of policy and politics. And it's complicated. Gore says Bush's numbers don't add up; Bush says Gore's distorting his plan to scare people. Maybe they can take an hour to go through the claims and counter-claims.

The challenge would make Bush look aggressive and confident — both of his stand on the issue and his command of the facts. It would dominate the news for several days: when Bush made it, when Gore accepted it, the day of the debate, and the next two. That's no small advantage when you're ahead, as Bush appears to be.

And our guess is that Bush's proposal will look better the more people know about it.

Randy Al
Gore may be making a mistake by leaning so heavily on that Rand study suggesting that primary education in Texas hasn't improved as much as Bush says. An argument over how much education has improved under Bush is one he can't lose, especially as a Republican. Besides, voters don't pick presidents on the basis of their state records. (Michael Dukakis lost because he was portrayed as a liberal, not because Boston Harbor was polluted.) Gore's best strategy for winning is probably to concentrate on the risk Bush's tax and Social Security plans pose to the economy. He's been talking about that lately. But the longer he talks about Bush's record in Texas, the more he crowds out that message.

House Value
Sometimes, it's better to lose an election. Back in 1995, most Republicans thought they were better off having lost the presidential election in 1992 because it enabled them to take Congress two years later. Many Republicans probably still think this way, although two Supreme Court justices and eight years of tawdriness and corruption is a high price to pay even for control of Congress.

Losing the presidential race this time would pretty clearly not be good for conservatives. It's important to hold the Senate, too, in order to confirm judges and approve treaties if Bush wins. The state legislative elections are important because they will affect Republican strength in the House over the next decade.

But how important is it, really, to hold the House over the next two years? A narrowly Democratic House, unable either to hide its liberalism or to act on it, would allow a President Bush to define himself advantageously in opposition to it. It would finally exorcise whatever remains of the ghost of Newt Gingrich. On the other hand, the Democrats would be able to use Congress's investigative powers to harass the Bush administration even with a small majority.

If Al Gore were to win the presidential election, however, the conservative case for a slightly Democratic House would get better. Republicans would be positioned to clean up in 2002 against a bunch of liberals who couldn't pass anything, just as in 1994 — but with more winnable districts than there were then. (Republicans worry that they're going to lose seats in California, but it's almost unimaginable that they won't come out ahead from redistricting nationally.)

And if there's one thing that congressional Republicans have shown us over the last eight years, it's that they're better at framing issues when they're in the minority.

Blood Test
Daniel Inouye, the Democratic senator from Hawaii, is still dead-set on passing a bill to let his state hold some elections restricted to people with certain bloodlines — "the lineal descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who resided in the islands that now comprise the state of Hawaii." He wants to attach this provision to the last appropriations bill to go to the president. Will Trent Lott and Denny Hastert say no to this odious bill?