Does the W stand for Wrong-way?

George W. Bush, the governor of Texas positioning himself for a
presidential run in 2000, is trying not to say too much — trying to be
all things to all people. For that reason, and others, he’s none of the
things I would look for in a presidential candidate.

The word on the street is that it was George W. behind the Senate
Republicans’ recent cave-in on background checks at gun shows. More than
one Senate aide has blamed pressure from the governor — the
all-but-anointed Republican presidential nominee — who reportedly
doesn’t want to be forced to defend the Second Amendment during his
campaign.

Which raises the question: Just what does George W. Bush stand for?
Exactly which parts of the Constitution does he plan to uphold and
defend as head of the executive branch of government? Why should anyone
believe he has what it takes to get America back on track after eight
years of the Clinton prescription?

It’s hard to make the case for George W. based on a record of
accomplishment as governor of Texas:

• His claim to be a tax reformer rings hollow. His legislative
  package merely shifted the burden of taxes from property owners to
  businesses.

• His other “innovation” — a modest state school choice plan — has
  received precious little actual, meaningful support from the governor,
  probably because he realizes it is doomed to failure in the legislature.

• I’ve run out of things to list.

There’s really not much else to talk about in Texas politics. Maybe
that’s why George W. is so quiet. He has also been mum on national
issues — even those that cry out for commentary by governors who seek
to take charge of the nation’s foreign affairs some day soon.

It took George W. six weeks to speak out on the Balkans War, for
instance. Even then, his passionless and guarded statement amounted to
criticizing President Clinton’s policies as “haphazard.” Haphazard? How
about criminal? How about immoral? How about stupid, cowardly and
disgraceful?

“The Republicans are pinning their hopes on someone who hasn’t to
date stood for much of anything,” observed Investor’s Business Daily in
a recent editorial, which added: “… themeless pudding is what we’ve
gotten so far from George W. That’s why the Beltway Republicans have
such high hopes for him. They think alike.”

If all that’s not enough to scare you away from George W., consider
this: One of his top political consultants has snatched up a bunch of
potential Internet campaign domain names — and this list says a lot
about the likely direction of a Bush run for the White House.

Among the domain names registered by Texas political consultant Karl
Rove and used to redirect to George W.’s official website
are the following: bushwhitman.com,
bushpataki.com and bushridge.com.

For the politically uninitiated, Whitman is New Jersey Gov. Christine
Todd Whitman, Pataki is New York Gov. George Pataki and Ridge is
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. All three are known as fairly radical (at
least by GOP standards) proponents of abortion, even in the late stages,
and of the hideous infanticidal procedure known as “partial-birth
abortion.”

Michigan Gov. John Engler and Elizabeth Dole are also under
consideration for the vice presidential running mate role in a Bush
campaign, if the domain name registrations are any indications.

Wow! What an exciting political year 2000 will be with those kinds of
names in the fray, huh? America will sure get a chance to debate the
great issues of our day with leadership like that. It’s inspirational,
isn’t it? I mean, Al Gore must be quaking in his boots.

No wonder George W. isn’t saying much. With vice presidential ideas
like those, he wouldn’t even stand a chance to get the Republican
nomination. He’s trying to slide by. He’s trying to be coy. He’s trying
to get by on his good looks, his southern charm and his familiar name.

He just might do it, too — unless Republicans wake up and notice
their principles are being hijacked in favor of political expediency.