I was amazed at R. Bruce Dold’s assertion in “When instinct counts more than intelligence, Before they get into the hustle of the fall campaign, there’s a lot to learn about the gut reactions of George W. Bush and Al Gore” (Commentary, June 4), that Bush has shown greater “intelligence and instinct” than Gore during the presidential campaign.
Yes, Gore has pandered on some issues. But, as I recall, Bush pandered earlier and harder to Cuban-Americans on the Elian Gonzalez issue. He just got a lot less press because everyone expected him to do it. And what was Bush’s “instinct” when asked to take a principled position on whether to remove the Confederate flag over the South Carolina statehouse? He pandered to racists.
When speaking recently to American Jewish leaders, did Bush tell them the hard truth that his father understood well–that Israel must give up land for peace? No, he demagogued by accusing the Clinton administration (and, implicitly, the Bush administration as well) of being unfair to Israel.
And then there’s the death penalty. When asked about mounting evidence that innocent people may be sitting on Death Row, did Bush’s gut lead him to stop and ponder? No, he pandered to the law-and-order crowd by asserting that Texas never makes the mistakes other states have made. Every one of the more than 130 people who have been sent to the execution chamber during his administration was guilty, he insisted. The list goes on. Yes, we have learned a lot about Bush’s instincts on important moral issues: There’s no principle he won’t sacrifice for votes.
