![]()
|
Shoulder to shoulder Out Standing in Their FieldBy Rick Horowitz
Consider, please, the art of standing next to. You can say what you want about those other political skills -- the sharp mind and the quick tongue, the earnest handshake and the ready smile. But don't forget this one, perhaps the most underrated skill of all. The politician who knows how to stand next to, and -- equally important -- how to be stood next to, is a politician to be reckoned with. It's also harder than it looks. Even experienced pols can mess themselves up with ill-considered standing. Don't believe me? I've got actual case studies: two presidential candidates, from the two major political parties. Consider the evidence, and draw your own conclusions. Case Study # 1: Albert Gore. Here we see the vice president of the United States trying to improve his chances of becoming president of the United States by accepting the endorsement of a major environmental group, the League of Conservation Voters. The Gore campaign has been having trouble building momentum lately, and a big part of the problem, the experts say, is: Gore. Too negative, they say. Always on the attack. So this time, the veep tried something different: He touted his own environmental record, and he said nothing about his opponent's. But did the other guy get a free ride? Hardly. Gore kept it gentle, but the head of the group that was endorsing Gore lit into George W. Bush with all the passion she could muster. And where was the candidate at that very moment? Too close for comfort. "Gore," the newspapers reported, "dressed in a blue polo shirt and tan slacks, stood stiffly on her right during these attacks." Not good. Standing stiffly on her right, I mean. (I'm neutral on the polo shirt.) By "standing stiffly on her right," Gore risked giving a totally damaging impression -- either that he was uneasy with the harsh tone his endorser was using, or that he was sorry he wasn't leading the assault himself. Either way, how is that supposed to help him sweeten up his image? "Standing with rapt attention"? Possibly. "Standing with bemused detachment"? Certainly. But "standing stiffly on her right" just doesn't cut it. Even in tan slacks. Case Study # 2: Dubya. Here we see the governor of the great state of Texas trying to improve his chances of moving from Austin to Washington next January by showing off his foreign-policy chops. For months now, the Bush campaign has been trying to counter the impression that when it comes to the great wide world out there, the gov is traveling strictly tourist. So this time they trotted out the big guns. The candidate may have been at the microphone, fielding questions about nuclear-arms reduction and missile defense systems. But arrayed on either side of him were Names You Know. Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, for instance, former secretaries of state. Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser. Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the glitteriest bulb in the GOP marquee. The idea, apparently, was to give Bush a public stamp of approval from the Republican national-security establishment. The second idea was to reassure nervous voters: Our guy might not know it all -- but he knows the folks who do. If there's ever a crisis, they're only a beeper away. Does it work? Or does it convey the absolutely opposite impression: Compared to these guys, George W. really is a lightweight! You can see the flock of them, standing there right next to the candidate, as a crack team of global-grasp gurus always on call. Or you can see them as the proud aunts and uncles at the grade-school piano recital. They're cheering for their boy. But can he afford to look like their boy? Don't bet on it. So where are we? With plenty of room for improvement. Bush still needs to work on his standing skills. So does Gore. The first one to figure it out could be on his way to glory in November. Right now, though? It's...a standoff. Posted 6/1/00. Stand
up for your right to laugh -- get your fresh stuff at "Rick's" twice
every week!
|
![]() |