9/13/00 5:10 p.m.
Rats!!! The Times Tries Bush's Soul
A media giant's major-league payback.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

eo Tolstoy wrote, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." One might say the same thing about political campaigns. Consider the pain of the George W. Bush effort, locked in a fight that it can't win. And we're not talking about Al Gore.

In this year of bad words in political campaigns, we can say without a doubt that paybacks are a b****.

Now it's come down to the Gore campaign vs. the Bush campaign vs. — the New York Times? The fact that the media tend to lean toward Democratic campaigns is hardly news. However, the insertion of the Grey Lady into the 2000 presidential election may have no previous equal.

Well, let's change that. In the earlier days, newspapers were unapologetically ideological and partisan, from page one through the editorial page. All readers knew which was the "Republican" paper and which was the "Democratic" one. In Great Britain, that tradition still holds. Today, the Washington Times, New York Post and Manchester Union-Leader are generally perceived as "hard" conservative papers. In truth, they all vary in how much the editorial position of the paper influences coverage. Many outsiders would be surprised, for example, at how much of a church-state separation exists at the Post between editorial and news.

There would be no problem if other newspapers were as up-front about their leanings. The New York Times, for example, presents itself as a bastion of "objectivity" in all things. It's been around for so long that non-ideological individuals perceive it that way. If it's in the Times, it must be true. However, the paper has become something of a front for liberal and Democratic positions (these are often, but not always, the same), and this has damaged the paper's reputation. Already this year, NRO's Melissa Seckora eviscerated a Times story on how the Boy Scouts have lost access to public areas since the Supreme Court's decision permitting the organization to reject gay scoutmasters. The Times had to print a partial retraction. Another Times story on the icecap melting was also taken apart — in a separate Times article in the Science section.

But those stories were ideological. Tuesday's "Rats" story — alleging the subliminal use of the word in a Bush campaign ad — was basically a direct partisan hit. First, the story was previously reported two weeks ago by Fox News Channel. Fox passed the tidbit along to the Times, which initially ignored it. But isn't it interesting that the paper decided to run it at just the moment when Bush is seeming most vulnerable — just when he is beginning a major counter-offensive to Gore's surge? The Times manages to cut Bush off at the knees, making it impossible for him to get his message out.

Now, is the Bush campaign partly responsible? Sure. It defies credibility that Alex Castellanos (the ad's maker) didn't know that the "RATS" image was in there. (The British have a phrase for this — "too cute by half.") But that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire campaign (or, especially, the candidate) knew about it. But, even if they did, this is certainly not a Page One story! Seriously, a two-week-old story should never have been given that much play — even in the "paper of record."

What happened during that fortnight? Times reporter Adam Clymer was hit with a "vulgarity" from George W. Bush. The "RATS" story, then, is "major-league payback." One effect of this is that it should put to rest the conventional wisdom in some conservative circles that Bush's "a**hole" remark might rebound in his favor — make him more "Trumanesque." Instead, it seems to have gained him a foe that was already willing and able to portray Republicans and conservatives in the most awkward and unflattering manner.

Can Bush recover? One should never say never, but the situation is getting more dire by the day and the national media — like sharks — smell blood in the water. Taking the Times's lead, the pile-on has begun. The Dukakis comparisons have started.

That being said, while the campaign can't completely control the coverage it receives, it can certainly control some of the words the candidate utters and where those words are uttered. Thus, when Bush is being interviewed — as he was Monday on Brit Hume's Special Report — about winning Florida, he should avoid statements such as this: "Brother says we're going to win in Florida and I am taking the man for his word. I certainly hope we do. I think we have a good chance."

Such comments give the impression that Dubya himself is not fighting himself for a particular state, that he's willing to let "Brother" bring it home for him. Bush has to demonstrate that he is going to work his butt off for every vote in every state.

In a similar vein, the campaign should keep him as far away from Texas as possible. When was the last time Gore was interviewed outside of his campaign headquarters? Conversely, how many times has Bush been photographed hanging out by his ranch? Gore appears hard-working while Bush seems lackadaisical.

The campaign has more problems than just these surface issues, but trying to instill a bit more discipline with both candidate and campaign might help stanch the bleeding and keep the sharks at bay long enough for the candidate to regain his footing.