9/20/00 4:20 p.m.
Back off the Mat?
This race doesn't look like it's over by a long shot.

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

mmm … nice buss that George W. planted on Harpo, uh, Oprah, eh? Considering Pat Buchanan's fiery stemwinder at Bob Jones University Monday night, the second-most-famous kiss of the 2000 campaign may have cost Dubya South Carolina.

Just kidding. Sort of.

Seriously, this may actually be the week that George W. Bush has begun to turn the campaign around (again). Bush was remarkably good on the Queen of Daytime's show. That is, good by the standards of the medium. Most conservatives and traditional political observers must have been screaming and yelling at what passes for real campaigning in this modern era. But based on the current standards, Bush did quite well. Getting teary-eyed over his daughters, telling how much he loved his wife ("Kiss to my wife" — the best gift he's ever given) and going further than Loverboy Al by giving the royal one a nice peck on the cheek. No, he's not quite comparable to Al in flattery and emoting, but at least he's in the ballpark. It goes without saying that neither are even in the same universe as Bill Clinton.

But, something's going on. The polls have stabilized. CNN's daily tracking poll shows Bush gaining on Gore; Rasmussen's Portrait of America poll consistently shows the governor up (today by two points) and the Voter.com Battleground poll still has a Bush lead. On top of that, there is the unquantifiable "under the radar" information. A D.C.-based Republican telemarketer reports that the responses to his phone-bank entreaties have never been better. He says that if there was a sense of fatality out there, the phones would have been a "leading indicator." In other words, supporters wouldn't be still responding to requests for more money if they thought George W. Bush was completely toast.

But the most notable moment this week came from Al Gore. The lead runner is facing his first serious stumble in a while. The Boston Globe reported that "Gore told an audience of senior citizens on Aug. 28 that his mother-in-law, Margaret Ann Aitcheson, pays nearly three times as much for the same medicine that he gives to his 14-year-old Labrador retriever, Shiloh. He said her bill for the drug, Lodine, is $108; the bill for the dog's medication is $37.80.

Now, doesn't just the set-up of this story sound like the beginning of that trusty humor staple — the mother-in-law joke? Can't you just imagine life in Al and Tipper's house? "You treat your dog better than you do my own mother!" "Well, dear, when I tell Shiloh to stay — he stays!"

But seriously, folks, the Globe completely eviscerated Gore's anecdote. First, it's fuzzy as to whether Gore's mother-in-law — or Shiloh — ever took the specific medication in question — or the less expensive generic equivalents. Besides, the campaign can't produce the family bills to compare — Gore is using a House Democrat study. But beyond that, for the dog to have taken the same dosage as Tipper's mom, Shiloh would probably have kicked by now. But the best thing about this information is: 1) It brings back all the questions concerning Al Gore's credibility and propensity to exaggerate family circumstances — in a contemporary context. This isn't about the 1996 presidential campaign or his long-deceased sister. This is a statement that Gore made just weeks ago; and 2) Even better for the Republican party generally is that the story also implicates congressional Democrats. Gore cites a House Democrat study that showed the prescription-drug imbalance.

However, evidence has surfaced that shows that the Democrats know that their own study was bunk. In a letter dated June 29, 1999, Niall Finnegan, director of the American Veterinary Medical Association's Governmental Relations Division, wrote to Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), "... in your endeavor to compare veterinary drug pricing to human drug pricing, it's important to understand that there are a host of differences one must consider when comparing the two systems ... there is no national pricing system like there is on the human side of the equation, nor does the veterinary profession have a third-party payer system."

The letter continues to note that "All drugs are developed for human use first as this is the biggest market. If in the course of development, substantial animal benefits are discovered, then the drug may be further developed for animal use, piggy-backing on the work already done for the human drug. This significantly reduces the sunken costs in the development of a veterinary drug and therefore allows it to be sold for less." [Emphasis added.] In other words, a comparison of the costs between drugs for humans and drugs for animals is like comparing apples and oranges.

Finnegan goes on to say that veterinary drug pricing provides "insufficient evidence" to create an argument concerning human drug pricing. Now, in the case of special prosecutors, when Democrats see the phrase "insufficient evidence," they assume that means there is no there there. However, Finnegan's conclusion when it comes to drug pricing was basically ignored. Waxman & Co. continued for more than a year with the story about drugs for dogs being cheaper than drugs for humans. Even in the case of Lodine — the drug Gore cited — where Finnegan grudgingly suggested a comparison could be made, the AVMA asserts that they are not experts in the area and that "any further speculation on our part ... would be irresponsible of us ..."

Apparently, irresponsibility is no barrier to House Democrats. Even though they received this letter 14 months ago, they continued to pass along information that they knew was scientifically suspect — at best.

Gore and the Democrats have given George W. Bush and congressional Republicans a sword — if only the GOP is smart enough to make use of it. The credibility critique — specifically on the issue of prescription drugs — can now be invoked across the board. Why should anyone believe anything coming from either Al Gore or his party? House Democrats use research that is faulty to begin with, and the presidential candidate cavalierly repeats this misinformation with no regard for the truth. Given that, why should their "plan" to pay for prescription drugs be perceived as credible?

This race doesn't look like it's over by a long shot.