There is an adage that in politics you can't beat something with nothing. But this presidential election has amply demonstrated that you can beat nothing with nothing.

In almost every respect, George W. Bush could be considered a nothing candidate who, despite twice being elected governor of Texas, had little going for him but a likable personality and a famous father. He was in most respects Mr. Joe Average, the perfect "let's have a beer" guy, who early in his life was given to excesses that often plague the young and who had had a hard time making ends meet on his own.

He clearly was vulnerable to accusations about his intellectualism or more precisely his lack thereof. One could legitimately question his attention span, his understanding of matters both foreign and domestic.

How in the world could he have been expected to defeat a formidable force like Albert Gore, whose quarter-century of hard-nose political experience, including eight just a heartbeat away from the nation's top office, made him one of history's more qualified candidates? He helped preside over nearly unprecedented peace and prosperity. On paper, at least, he was as close to a sure thing as one generally gets in this business.

He was a bit, maybe even a lot, wooden to be sure, especially when compared to the easy-going governor whose twinkling eyes and penchant for screwing up a speech was somehow disarming. But the pundits all predicted that once things got going in earnest, Gore surely would turn things around in a hurry. He would make short work of this ill-prepared boob, dazzling him with his huge command of the details of government, showing just what it means to be "presidential." "Cue the Texas dummy!" seemed to be the battle cry from the Gore camp with "hoozas" from the media.

So what went wrong? Why is the inheritor of an administration with one of the brighter job performance ratings in recent history (we aren't addressing the character issue here) now trying to win the presidency in court rather than basking in the glow of a landslide? Why are the Democrats forced to allege that the election was stolen and that, after all, their man won the popular vote and is rightfully president?

The answer seems pretty elementary. He is simply a lousy candidate who, even his allies admit, would have a hard time beating Tom Thumb with a meat ax. He is among other things, pedantic, sanctimonious, preachy, arrogant and basically humorless. He has had no other life than politics, and it shows. Nothing appears to come from his heart, just his head. People, even large numbers of those who voted for him, really don't connect with him.

Want an example? In presidential history, a candidate has lost his home state only twice. State pride just always seems to nullify opposition party loyalty. This is known in political circles as the "He's an SOB, but he's our SOB" rule. Well, Albert Gore, whose national headquarters was Nashville, couldn't even win the vote in Tennessee. If he had, this whole exercise would have been moot, and he would be in full transition mode at the moment.

Those who excuse this failure contend that he had a bad organization in a state that has become overwhelmingly Republican. He served both in the House and Senate from Tennessee, and Clinton-Gore carried it twice. So not much credence can be attached to those claims.

View Comments

For a large number of independent voters, it seems, Gore was more concerned about governmental minutiae and maintaining the status quo, while conducting a negative campaign about his opponent. He was constantly laying claim to false achievements. He was a leopard whose spots were always changing, a moderate one minute, a populist the next. He raised hogs and plowed fields while living in the posh Fairfax Hotel. He claimed credit for the Clinton-Gore record but snubbed the president personally, cutting one of the most charismatic, instinctive politicians in history almost completely out of his campaign, even as an adviser.

His relationship the past year with Clinton reminded one of the title of an old country western tune, "If The Phone Don't Ring, You'll Know It's Me." He lost the debates partially because he appeared not to play by the rules, and to more and more Americans his court battle now appears to be some of the same refusal to abide by any outcome other than one that favors him. He is now desperately seeking the controlling legal authority that he said didn't exist during the investigation of his campaign funding practices.

What might have been a cakewalk for Democrats has become a pie-throwing contest with their "nothing" candidate getting hit last.


Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of Scripps Howard News Service.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.