Bush himself signaled the shift in tactics when he told reporters he had been “hammered” by Buchanan and the Democrats in New Hampshire. Now, he said, it was “a new ball game” and he was debating how “gentle” he would be. In fact, early exit polling from New Hampshire touched off something close to panic within the Bush campaign, and the debate echoed through the week. Hard-liners urged Bush to go negative against Buchanan in the upcoming Southern primaries, much as he did against Sen. Bob Dole in 1988. But the exit polls were off the mark, and when the final tally showed Bush 16 points ahead, 53 percent to 37, the campaign high command opted for less drastic measures. Bush, they decided, would step up his campaign schedule through the South in the weeks ahead. But he would remain “presidential” and let surrogates begin the delicate task of rallying dissident GOP conservatives while cutting Buchanan down to size.
There was no indication of any basic shift in Bush’s domestic policies. The administration still believes the economy will heal itself, and Bush has little faith in government as an agent of social change. Instead, the White House sent Dan Quayle on a peace mission to right-wingers last week. Appearing before the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Quayle did not mention Buchanan by name. But he warned that supporting a “symbolic” candidacy could only weaken Bush in November and risk putting conservatives “out of power for a generation.”
The message-stop yammering about ideological purity and get behind the president-was a clear sign of the Bush campaign’s rising concern about the dangers of a conservative revolt. But it was not the only one. Earlier, the White House sacked John E. Frohnmayer, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. His downfall, originally plotted by former chief of staff John Sununu, came after many months of protests from conservative groups about NEA grants to projects with strong sexual content (page 63). The timing of Frohnmayer’s ouster was an obvious attempt to pander to the born-again right. It was also an attempt to prevent Buchanan, who has attacked the administration for subsidizing “filthy and blasphemous art,” from capitalizing on the issue as the campaign heads south into the Bible belt.
Buchanan was already trying to upstage Bush in South Carolina, which holds its primary March 7. While Bush spoke before the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Charleston, Buchanan appeared at a hotel down the street to protest what he said was his exclusion from the party conclave. Gov. Carroll Campbell angrily denied Buchanan’s claim, and a Bush adviser grumbled about Buchanan’s campaign “terrorism.” The publicity stunt may or may not persuade South Carolina Republicans to vote against Bush. But it was one more sign of Buchanan’s talent for slash-and-burn campaigning, and it underscored the contrast between the stolid Bush and his mercurial opponent.
Buchanan’s chances in South Carolina are not good-but they are better in Georgia, on March 3, and he may be able to win a state on Super Tuesday, March 10. As some analysts see it, he does not need to win big to fuel the flames of conservative discontent with Bush. NEWSWEEK’S latest poll shows that more voters (51 percent) disapprove of Bush’s job performance than approve (42 percent)–real vulnerability in a dicey election year. The survey also shows Buchanan and Bush are neck and neck when it comes to public perceptions of which candidate has “good plans” for the country. Can Buchanan keep his candidacy afloat until the convention, as Ronald Reagan did against Gerald Ford in 1976? And if he does, will conservative delegates heed his call to oppose Old Read-My-Lips?
The Bush campaign says no. Buchanan, they say, is short on money and organization and far behind in the actual delegate count. “New Hampshire was Buchanan’s high-water mark,” campaign chairman Robert Teeter said last week. “We will run everywhere, and we will win everywhere.” Bush aides also were pleased by the results of the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, which had the effect of keeping heavy hitters like Mario Cuomo and House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt out of the presidential race. The ‘92 election, a Bush adviser says, is turning out to be a “who do you hate more” contest. The Bush campaign is clearly based on the wan hope that come November, the voters will hate the president a little less.
ABOUT GEORGE BUSH Is he doing enough on the economy? 75% No 23% Yes How likely is his re-election? 44% Very likely For this NEWSWEEK Poll, The Gallup Organization interviewed 767 adults by telephone Feb. 20-21. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. Some “Don’t Know” and other responses of shown. The NEWSWEEK Poll 1992 by NEWSWEEK, Inc.
title: “Message I M Nervous” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-19” author: “Jessica Bennett”
Bush himself signaled the shift in tactics when he told reporters he had been “hammered” by Buchanan and the Democrats in New Hampshire. Now, he said, it was “a new ball game” and he was debating how “gentle” he would be. In fact, early exit polling from New Hampshire touched off something close to panic within the Bush campaign, and the debate echoed through the week. Hard-liners urged Bush to go negative against Buchanan in the upcoming Southern primaries, much as he did against Sen. Bob Dole in 1988. But the exit polls were off the mark, and when the final tally showed Bush 16 points ahead, 53 percent to 37, the campaign high command opted for less drastic measures. Bush, they decided, would step up his campaign schedule through the South in the weeks ahead. But he would remain “presidential” and let surrogates begin the delicate task of rallying dissident GOP conservatives while cutting Buchanan down to size.
There was no indication of any basic shift in Bush’s domestic policies. The administration still believes the economy will heal itself, and Bush has little faith in government as an agent of social change. Instead, the White House sent Dan Quayle on a peace mission to right-wingers last week. Appearing before the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Quayle did not mention Buchanan by name. But he warned that supporting a “symbolic” candidacy could only weaken Bush in November and risk putting conservatives “out of power for a generation.”
The message-stop yammering about ideological purity and get behind the president-was a clear sign of the Bush campaign’s rising concern about the dangers of a conservative revolt. But it was not the only one. Earlier, the White House sacked John E. Frohnmayer, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. His downfall, originally plotted by former chief of staff John Sununu, came after many months of protests from conservative groups about NEA grants to projects with strong sexual content (page 63). The timing of Frohnmayer’s ouster was an obvious attempt to pander to the born-again right. It was also an attempt to prevent Buchanan, who has attacked the administration for subsidizing “filthy and blasphemous art,” from capitalizing on the issue as the campaign heads south into the Bible belt.
Buchanan was already trying to upstage Bush in South Carolina, which holds its primary March 7. While Bush spoke before the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Charleston, Buchanan appeared at a hotel down the street to protest what he said was his exclusion from the party conclave. Gov. Carroll Campbell angrily denied Buchanan’s claim, and a Bush adviser grumbled about Buchanan’s campaign “terrorism.” The publicity stunt may or may not persuade South Carolina Republicans to vote against Bush. But it was one more sign of Buchanan’s talent for slash-and-burn campaigning, and it underscored the contrast between the stolid Bush and his mercurial opponent.
Buchanan’s chances in South Carolina are not good-but they are better in Georgia, on March 3, and he may be able to win a state on Super Tuesday, March 10. As some analysts see it, he does not need to win big to fuel the flames of conservative discontent with Bush. NEWSWEEK’S latest poll shows that more voters (51 percent) disapprove of Bush’s job performance than approve (42 percent)–real vulnerability in a dicey election year. The survey also shows Buchanan and Bush are neck and neck when it comes to public perceptions of which candidate has “good plans” for the country. Can Buchanan keep his candidacy afloat until the convention, as Ronald Reagan did against Gerald Ford in 1976? And if he does, will conservative delegates heed his call to oppose Old Read-My-Lips?
The Bush campaign says no. Buchanan, they say, is short on money and organization and far behind in the actual delegate count. “New Hampshire was Buchanan’s high-water mark,” campaign chairman Robert Teeter said last week. “We will run everywhere, and we will win everywhere.” Bush aides also were pleased by the results of the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, which had the effect of keeping heavy hitters like Mario Cuomo and House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt out of the presidential race. The ‘92 election, a Bush adviser says, is turning out to be a “who do you hate more” contest. The Bush campaign is clearly based on the wan hope that come November, the voters will hate the president a little less.
ABOUT GEORGE BUSH Is he doing enough on the economy? 75% No 23% Yes How likely is his re-election? 44% Very likely For this NEWSWEEK Poll, The Gallup Organization interviewed 767 adults by telephone Feb. 20-21. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. Some “Don’t Know” and other responses of shown. The NEWSWEEK Poll 1992 by NEWSWEEK, Inc.
