THANK GOD THAT'S OVER
Not everyone got through the
year well; even Mark Steyn
counts himself a loser
New Hampshire THE transition is now well under way. That's to say, the US media have almost completed their smooth switch from sto- ries about the Republicans stealing the election to stories about the Bush adminis- tration in crisis: His agenda's dead in the water! Even the Republican House leaders don't want tax cuts! John McCain's going to put up his campaign finance bill and dare that Oval Office pantywaist to veto it!
Heigh-ho. We do not know what the next four years will bring. Will President Bush be another Benjamin Harrison or another James Polk? Or will he be more analogous to some other 19th-century president we haven't yet had a chance to pull up the cuttings on? All we know is that, with only three weeks to go till the first presidential fundraiser of Campaign 2004, now seems as good a time as any to look back and reflect on this year's winners and losers: 1) AL GORE: Loser. The concession speech was very artful, managing to seem gracious and eloquent white also calculat- edly snippy: he congratulated Bush on `becoming' President, which presumably isn't quite the same as being elected to the post. But when a man chuckles self-depre- catingly and says, 'It's time for me to go', you might as well start booking the 2003 Iowa rubber-chicken circuit now. It will avail him nought. 'Gore in '04!' is not a slogan to fire the troops: if he runs, he'll lose the nomination, no matter how many recounts he demands.
2) HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Winner. Unlike Al, Senator-elect Rodham provided a textbook performance of how to attach yourself to Clinton administration policies while detaching yourself from Clinton. By the end of the campaign, she was almost likeable. Look for more detaching from Bill in the years to come. As to the 2004 presidential race, whatever Mrs Clinton's denials, it's not hard to envisage circum- stances in which she might run. She got into the Senate race because the New York Democratic party had no stars to put up against Giuliani. In 2004, the national Democratic party will face the same prob- lem. With the exception of Senator Rod- ham, its marquee names are ageing throwbacks like Ted Kennedy. If Dubya seems secure, the Dems will make do with some blandsville type like California Gov- ernor Gray Davis. But, if Dubya seems vul- nerable, you can be sure Hillary will scent blood first.
3) WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON: Loser. The lack of coverage given to his farewell tour of world capitals is a taste of things to come. He lost in the worst way: the final score of the Clinton era is that Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House, and Bill doesn't even have the consolation of knowing he would have done so much better than that stiff Gore. The vice-president managed to get more votes than the allegedly popular Clinton ever did: Al may not have been able to beat Dubya, but he effortlessly surpassed Slick Willie. Meanwhile, Ken Starr's successor has been re-interviewing Monica with a view to indicting Clinton after 20 January- We're unlikely ever to see Bill in the slam- mer hammering out licence plates, alas, but a mischievous Dubya might announce, just for the hell of it, that he's pardoning Clin- ton. It would be an excellent jest: Clinton doesn't want a pardon, but he'll have no say in the matter. As for his 'legacy', he's not happy at the thought of being merely an interlude between Bushes. On the other hand, it may he that Bush winds up as an interlude between Clintons, though by 2008 Hillary's likely to be using her maid- en name.
4) COLIN POWELL: Winner. Some of us were hoping General Powell would do his usual shtick and, after mulling it over for weeks on end, announce regretfully that he'd decided not to take the secretary of state job. But unfortunately he didn't, and now the nation's darling — a guy you can't sack — is running US foreign policy. In 1992, asked for his thoughts on military force in Bosnia, he said, 'We do deserts. We don't do mountains.' Actually, Powell barely does deserts: that's why Saddam's still there, and why Powell is now talking about the need to intensify sanctions. Oh, well. Let's hope Condi and Cheney are keeping an eye on things. 5) JUDGES: Losers. Dissenting from the US Supreme Court's pro-Bush 5-4 major- ity, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, `Although we may never know with com- plete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identi- ty of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.' To which I can only say: 'Oh, I do hope so.' The nation's confidence has been largely misplaced in recent years, not least thanks to the efforts of Justice Stevens, a Ford appointee who's drifted remorselessly left until he's virtually off the graph. It will be interesting to see how long liberal outrage with the 'ideological partisans' of the judi- ciary lasts. Once they get back to voting in favour of abortion et al., the Left will no doubt rediscover its affection for the bench. But until then the more they do to weaken 'the nation's confidence' in its robed masters, the better. 6) NEW HAMPSHIRE: Loser. Ever since Bill Clinton came along, the Granite State Primary has flunked its self-appointed role as the most reliable predictor of the November election. This year we went 'for John McCain; last time round for Pat Buchanan. A pattern is beginning to emerge: the kind of candidate who appeals to cranky, flinty, ornery guys up here is most likely the sort of flinty, ornery iiber- crank the rest of the country will want to steer well clear of. Look for the Republi- can establishment to try to downgrade us next time round.
7) FRANCE: Loser. I see Lionel Jospin has been casting doubt on whether Bush really won the election. You can't blame the poor chap. Earlier this year, Robert Altman, the famously cantankerous direc- tor of Short Cuts and Nashville, said it would be a 'catastrophe for the world if George Bush is elected'. Many celebrities felt the same and several offered to leave the country. Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam alsosaid he was outta here if 'little Damien II gets elected'. But Altman was the only one to name his bolthole: `I'm leaving for France,' he said. M. Jospin doesn't mind getting Jerry Lewis over for the odd awards ceremony, but the prospect of mass immigration from Hollywood is clearly alarming him. If Altman promises to move to France on Inauguration Day, I will personally buy him a first-class ticket (one way).
8) Kim BASINGER: Winner. A few months back, the lovely Kim told Focus magazine that her husband Alec Baldwin had promised to leave the country in the event of a Bush victory. 'Alec is the biggest moralist I know,' she said. 'I can very well imagine that Alec makes good on his threat. And then I'd probably have to go too.' Alec immediately issued a statement denying any such threat, and now the supermarket tabloids say their marriage is in trouble. Will they be the first celebrity split of the new Bush era? Kim could sure- ly do better, given not only Alec's clumsy ventures into politics — 'Let's stone Henry Hyde to death!' he said during impeach- ment — but also his abysmal performance as the conductor in the Thomas the Tank Engine movie. If Alec promises to move to the Isle of Sodor on Inauguration Day, I will personally buy him a cheap-day off- peak saver, if not on Thomas, Percy, Gor- don or Toby, then on a decommissioned Virgin EastMid SuperSprinter.
9) ME: Loser. Better men than I predict- ed Bush was going to win big. But, as it turned out, voters who made up their minds on the final weekend went for Gore by a margin of three to one, with a third of them saying that the last-minute revelation of Dubya's drunk-driving conviction had played a part in their decision. The guy's entire approach to politics has been to throw away huge leads and then scrape to victory. He was way ahead in the summer of '99, so he decided not to bother with campaigning, lost New Hampshire and then squeaked through in South Carolina. Those of us who've stuck with him despite the attendant humiliation can only hope that his belief in minimal campaigning foreshadows an equally robust belief in minimal government.
10) GEORGE W. BUSH: Prevailer. 'Bush Prevails,' said the New York Times the day after Gore conceded. The snot-nosed Times boys have taken a decision not to use the word `win' in connection with Bush's accession to the presidency. A few days later, it was 'Bush Prevailed, But Did He Seize a Poisoned Chalice?' You know the routine: country hopelessly divided, House split, Senate split, no mandate to govern. In fact, Bush is better placed than, say, Reagan in 1980 facing a Democratic Congress, or Clinton for the last six years up against Newt's zealots. Besides, Dubya always does best when expectations are lowest, and right now they're zero: the press has decided he's already a lame duck, seven years ahead of the usual schedule. Don't bet on it. The Times will never see him as a winner but, in the long run, Dubya will prevail.
Previous page
