By Dorothy Anne Seese firstname.lastname@example.org
From late June until
the events of October 12, 2000, when the Middle East erupted, some
conservative journalists were expressing the view that there may be an
"October factor" that would dramatically affect the outcome
of Election 2000.
Apparently, and of no
surprise to many of us, the uprisings in Israel and the bombing of USS
Cole were the events that fulfilled our expectations that some type of
crisis would occur in October. Such events would have to be of a
magnitude to affect the outcome of an election, and what better than
the threat of global war? It takes something like that to get the
attention of the average American voter, to turn the television set
from the ballgame to news and to change the focus from day-to-day
blahs to the importance of the upcoming election.
Is this cynical? Not
when there is an administration in power that wants to continue as
badly as the present bunch in Washington D.C. Al Gore, falling behind
on the stand of being his "own man" needed a big boost and
he needed it in a hurry. As part of the National Security Council he
is privy to everything transpiring now, both in the waning days of the
Clinton administration and the events occurring around the globe.
Can he ride to an
election victory on the coat-tail of Clinton's heretofore failed
Middle East peace efforts? Or on the wings of fear chilling the United
States about possibly having to get involved in a much bigger war
effort than Desert Storm or the Balkans ever posed? Al Gore, who clearly lost the second debate, now faces the
third presidential candidate debate armed with his Veep label
plastered across his forehead. Will
Americans be looking at Gore, or at his label?
But look at the men
behind George W. Bush! Dick Cheney, who was Secretary of Defense
during Desert Storm, and Gen. Colin Powell, then-chairman of the joint
chiefs of staff. How about former President George Bush? What about
the contributions that Condoleezza Rice and others could make to the
presidency of "Dubya"?
Who would be the more
effective negotiator of explosive Middle East affairs? A man like
Gore, whose boss has failed miserably in his previous attempts to
achieve any dramatic progress in the Middle East?
Or a man like George W. Bush, whose advisory staff has a vision
of a dramatically strengthened American military? (I am even assuming
that under Bush-Cheney, our warships would not be refueling in known
hostile ports where terrorists keep offices.)
If Americans are
willing to continue the present big-government, big-control
administration out of fear that a new, untried administration would
fail, I would like to ask this: when it comes to foreign policy, what
does the Clinton-Gore administration have to show us by way of
This, also, should be
asked: if a man cannot establish his own identity to himself and
others, then how can he be expected to present a definitive America to
the shaky world?
Final question: who do you think Yasser Arafat wants to see elected?
Comment on the latest column by Dorothy Anne Seese
© Dorothy Seese, 2000
View expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Political USA.