Winners and losers of 2004
Election season will change how the winner governs
By PERRY BACON, JR.
In the waning days of the Campaign 2004 it's almost as if nothing has changed since March, when John Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination. Strongly divided partisans argue over the war in Iraq, the economy and who can best defend the country in television ads and speeches that ignore much of the country in favor of a few up-for-grabs states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. In battleground state polls, Kerry and Bush earn between 45 and 49% of the vote with a band of undecided voters who could tip either man over the top.
With all that remains the same, it's tempting to argue that this campaign has hardly mattered. Maybe Swift Boat ads, 527's and billions of dollars have left us exactly where we started, a 50-50 electorate. But in fact, no matter who wins, Campaign 2004 will have a profound impact on how the next president governs.
The most obvious effect may be in how the U.S. intelligence system operates. Members of the 9/11 Commission smartly exploited the political situation to push for Congress and the two candidates to adopt their ideas. Neither wanted to be seen as not doing enough to prevent another 9/11.
Kerry, looking to outflank Bush on the issue of who could be the better commander-in-chief, quickly said he would adopt all their recommendations if elected, most importantly the creation of a powerful new national intelligence director who would oversee the entire U.S. spy operation, not just the CIA, an idea Kerry had already endorsed in principle.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and CIA Director George Tenet were critical of the idea, but the political pressure from both the 9/11 Commission and Kerry pushed the president toward accepting the idea of a national intelligence director, even though he would give this person less power than the 9/11 Commission originally called for.
Both candidates have made a number of other promises in the campaign that they will have be held to as president. Throughout the race, Kerry had pledged to cut taxes on the middle class, while raising them on the wealthy to pay for increased spending on health care and education.
In 1992, then-candidate Bill Clinton promised much the same only to change course once in office to support slight tax increases on the middle class to balance the budget. Bush insists that, no matter what Kerry says, the Massachusetts Senator would raise taxes like Democrats have in the past.
In the second presidential debate in St. Louis, Missouri, a man asked Kerry to look into the camera and promise he would not raise taxes on the middle class, and the Massachusetts Senator did just that. Combined with his insistence he will not raise the retirement age or reduce benefits for Social Security, Kerry's tax pledge ties his hands in dealing with two major fiscal problems: the ballooning federal budget deficit and the millions of Baby Boomers who will soon retire and put stress on Social Security.
In his first term, Bush annoyed fiscal conservatives by adopting a $400 billion expansion to his Medicare program and alienated moderates by supporting a federal amendment banning gay marriage. But both moves are likely to help him with other parts of the electorate.
Bush has also made policy changes that stem from Kerry attacks. Last week, as Kerry sharply attacked him for reportedly telling a group of supporters he would move rapidly to privatize Social Security if he were reelected, Bush promised he would not change the benefits for current retirees or people soon to be retired.
That limits how he could reform the program, but his campaign has still been careful to only say it would not change benefits for those who are "soon-to be retired" -- a term they've left vague. Facing attacks from the Democratic candidates in 2003 and early in 2004, the Bush administration became more flexible about its No Child Left Behind education plan, softening requirements about how many students of limited English proficiency had to pass tests that the law requires.
The campaign will also affect the personnel around whoever the winner is. John Sasso, who started traveling with Kerry in September after the campaign's disastrous August, will earn much of the credit if Kerry wins and probably a very high level spot in a Kerry White House.
The most important difference in a Kerry White House would be the vice-president's office. By picking John Edwards, a man with obvious ambitions for the top job, Kerry won't have a vice president with only the president's agenda in mind like Dick Cheney. Kerry needed Edwards' charisma and popularity with rural voters to win, even if Dick Gephardt or Bob Graham or another figure might have been better at governing.
The biggest success story has been John McCain, who further enlarged his reputation in 2004. He flirted with Kerry about the vice presidency, but finally endorsed Bush. And he has been a thorn in both of their sides by becoming virtually the referee of the 2004 race, criticizing each side when he feels their candidate's words or ads cross McCain's definition of acceptable political rhetoric.
But undecided voters love McCain and each candidate constantly seeks his adulation. Bush would have to pay McCain back in some for all of this campaigning, while Kerry would be constantly seeking the help of the prominent Arizonian in dealing with a Republican Senate. Either way, McCain's stock could rise even higher in 2005. He's the one man who wins no matter who loses.
