11/21/00 5:55 p.m.
Bush’s Troubling Pattern
Here we go again.

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

n one level, supporters of George W. Bush should be gratified by the turn of events over the weekend.

After languishing for days since the election and losing — badly — the PR war, the Bush campaign finally got aggressive on the military-ballot issue. Bush and Co. finally discovered that the best offense — is "defense," i.e., questioning Gore's political disenfranchisement of members of the military.

On the Sunday talk shows, Joe Lieberman (doing "the full Ginsburg," as one CNN reporter wittily called it) got hit with the ballot-disqualification issue at every turn. It didn't matter whether the questioner was Tim, Sam, Bob, Tony, or Wolf — all questioners started off on the same question. Lieberman stated that he wanted all ballots to be accepted if possible.

On Monday, Florida AG Bob Butterworth — the Gore campaign's state co-chairman — issued a ruling saying that military ballots without a postmark that had been rejected should indeed be counted. Of course, it's far easier to eliminate ballots than it is to retrieve them and add them to the count, so Butterworth's statement is more window-dressing than anything. However, the issue was a clear loser for the Democrats. It gave the Bushies the ability to turn the fairness issue on its head and make Gore look stunningly unpatriotic. All this coming at a time when Bill Clinton went to Vietnam — finally.

Along with a systematic attack on problems with the hand counts, Bush and Co. have been able to bring in Generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell as big guns condemning the ballot exclusion. The Democrats were on their heels.

While this is all good, and it has definitely allowed Bush to get back on his feet after a rather dismal ten days with questionable strategies (suing in federal court to end the hand counts, for example), there is something disturbing in the sense that we have seen this all happen before.

A clear pattern develops. Bush rides along with a sense of inevitability, he stumbles, reverts to his conservative base or themes, gets back his footing, and then continues. This style has certainly been successful during the campaign. But is it something to be concerned about if and when he becomes president?

In February, flush with $70 million in contributions that had winnowed half the Republican field before the first ballot was cast, George W. Bush was confident and riding high with a sense of anointed inevitability. Reality came and slapped him in the head in the form of John McCain, who scored an impressive win in the once-bellwether primary state of New Hampshire. Panic roared through GOP ranks as McCain became the media darling and Bush seemed to flail around.

But in South Carolina, Bush retooled. He became the "reformer with results," brought together both the conservative Christian Coalition wing of the party and the moderate Republican Leadership Council section and crushed McCain in that state — though burning through much of his $70 million in the process. Seen as too liberal by the Republican primary voter, McCain didn't last for too much longer after that.

In August, after a very successful Republican convention, Bush was riding high once more with a sense of inevitability. Gore, however, had a surprisingly good convention. The governor flailed around for several weeks in September, with the media relishing every flub and failure. Finally, he recovered to paint Gore as a big-government "old Democrat" and took advantage of the unattractive figure the vice president projected in the debates.

In the last couple weeks of the campaign, Bush was riding high, ahead in nearly all the polls, feeling confident enough to take off a Sunday off before the election. Gore, however, came on strong and nearly won the race at the last moment (and winning, if numbers hold, the popular vote). Even as Gore pulled back on his concession, Bush stated that his brother Jeb was confident the numbers were accurate.

Gore's aggressive behavior continued post-election with the Florida Invasion. The combination of legal briefs and spin machine nearly overwhelmed Bush — until this weekend's recovery.

The pattern now plays out again.

It can be accurately argued that no one could have predicted the degree of Gore's post-election fight. But, the New Hampshire stumble? The post-Democratic-convention lethargy?

In the context of results, one can't completely argue with the effectiveness of the Bush campaign. He has won — or nearly so. Furthermore, campaigns are not perfect indicators of a governing style. However, a president doesn't always have the luxury of flailing around for a week or more, before responding to a crisis. The margin of error can be razor-thin.

Bush slipped through that margin (or two electoral votes, if the current result holds up) at the end of the campaign. But a pattern of overconfidence, stumbling, and hesitancy-just-before-recovery is not the ideal recipe for a successful presidency.