Bush's Fakeout.

By Cultivating Low Expectations, GOP Candidate May Win the Debates

No one argues with this bit of conventional wisdom in the 2000 presidential election: Texas Governor and Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush would get a major-league whoopin' in a debate with Vice President Al Gore. And it is that high expectation of Gore superiority that could spell trouble for the Democratic presidential nominee.

Without question, Bush looked pretty bad trying to weasel out of the debates put together by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates in favor of less strenuous encounters with CNN's Larry King and NBC's Tim Russert. Oh, all right, let me be as plainspoken as the Republican nominee. Bush looked like a scaredy cat feeding on his reputation as a frat boy allergic to substance.

Because the television networks said they would not run another network's debate, Bush's alternative debate plan would have suppressed viewership. Why watch Bush and Gore when you can switch over to something more entertaining, like "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" You have to have wall-to-wall coverage to reach as many people as possible.

"(Bush's) own staff is making him look bad," said George Arzt, a veteran New York Democratic Party political consultant who is not involved in the Gore campaign. "By allusion, they are questioning his IQ and his grasp of issues relevant to the presidency."

Arzt went on to say what I think is the real dilemma Gore faces in the upcoming debates. "(Bush has) lowered the bar so low that no one expects him to do well... (but) if he shows humor and if he doesn't make a mistake, he's going to win."

Gore's debate legend

Gore's reputation as a debater has reached almost legendary proportions. He vanquished then- Vice President Dan Quayle in 1992. Ross Perot had his hat handed to him in a 1993 debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement. And there was nothing but a chalk outline left of Democratic rival Bill Bradley, the capable former senator from New Jersey, after the raucous debate on urban issues at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem last March.

Pat Harrison, the feisty co-chair of the Republican National Committee, doesn't believe the hype.

"Gore's reputation for being a great debater is based on the Quayle debate, where he didn't do well, and Bradley, where he lied," Harrison said. "If you look at the debates with (former Texas Governor) Ann Richards, the dialogue was the same: 'Whoa, Bush is going to get whooped by Ann Richards.'"

We all know what happened in that 1995 contest. Bush exceeded similarly low expectations and went on to evict Richards from the governor's mansion in Austin.

Gore has been riding an incredible wave since he accepted his party's presidential nomination in Los Angeles last month. He's up in the polls, he has had Bush on the defensive and his detail-laden policy proposals stand in stark contrast to Bush's trust-me-I'll-work-the-details-out-later proposals.

But none of that will mean anything when the TV cameras are on and the voters are watching the debates. For most Americans, it will be their first time paying more than scant attention to the selection process of the 43rd president of the United States.

They want someone who is smart and who will represent the nation and its ideals at home and abroad. But more importantly, they want someone who won't lord his intelligence over them, someone they can connect with.

A condescending smarty pants is in as much danger of losing the electorate as a candidate who appears dumb because he cannot clearly articulate his positions or his vision for the country. While both personality types are exaggerated on TV, Gore stands to lose more with his tendency to condescension.

Perplexity in Gore camp

"He has to be careful," warned Bill Lynch, a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee from New York. "He has to connect with the American people like he did in his convention speech. If he isn't clear and doesn't connect, he will lose the people."

The Gore campaign acts perplexed by the expectations game. When I called spokesman Douglas Hattaway to ask him about it, he tried to downplay the Gore-as-Debate-Goliath image.

"The low expectations cultivated by (the Bush) campaign are misleading," Hattaway said. "They're saying their boss is a lousy debater. That's debate spin 101. At the same time, they call into question his capacity to be president."

Echoing Harrison of the RNC, Hattaway noted, "Bush has actually done well in his past debates. He did well against Ann Richards. He performed well in the primary debates.

"He'll be an excellent debater," Hattaway said without any hint of a smirk. "It's a mystery why he's trying to minimize the audience."

Jonathan Capehart is a columnist with Bloomberg News.