Dan Quayle's Coming-Out Party

---

---

Twenty–five years ago today, Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana was introduced as Vice President George H.W. Bush's choice for a running mate.

And the focus at the Republican convention in New Orleans shifted almost immediately from speculation about the identity of Bush's running mate to skepticism of the choice.

"This was supposed to be his showcase week," lamented Ed Rollins, manager of the 1984 Reagan–Bush campaign that carried 49 states.

Rollins wasn't the only alarmed Republican. About a month earlier, just after the Democrats' convention, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis led Bush by 17 points.

By the time the voters went to the polls in November, Bush had overtaken Dukakis and wound up winning by 12 points, perhaps the most remarkable reversal in presidential politics in modern times.

But on this day in 1988 — and in the days that followed — there was considerable gloom in Republican circles and considerable glee in Democratic ones.

Most presidential tickets get some kind of bounce — even a modest one — from their party's convention, and the Bush–Quayle ticket did get a lift.

But there were doubts it would happen while the convention was in progress. And even after polls began to report that the shift was occurring, there were those who believed it wouldn't last.

The Republican gathering in New Orleans was supposed to present the "real" George Bush to the American people. With his announcement 25 years ago today that Quayle would be his running mate, the "real" George Bush may well have been revealed — for good or ill.

It certainly showed his sensitivity to public perception.

By 1988, there were growing concerns about the age of the team leading the executive branch. Outgoing President Ronald Reagan was in his late 70s, and Bush was in his 60s.

There were those who said the Republican Party needed to present a younger face to attract younger voters. I always felt that Bush's selection of Quayle was a clear indication that the vice president was listening to those voices.

---

---

"I'm proud to have Dan Quayle at my side," Bush would say — and I am certain there were times in the next four years when Bush regretted making that statement almost as much he must have regretted the "no new taxes" pledge he made a couple of nights later.

Although I often disagreed with Bush, I had to admit that I admired the facts that he didn't pass the buck on his tax reversal, and he stood by his vice president in spite of frequent suggestions that what his campaign for re–election really needed was a new running mate.

When Quayle was introduced as Bush's running mate 25 years ago today — and two days later, when he accepted the nomination — he was whooping and hollering and bouncing around like a preschooler on a sugar binge.

His performances invited ridicule from the late–night TV guys and contributed to the general perception that he wasn't especially bright.

That perception hardened as the nominees entered the fall campaign. Quayle had his debate with Democratic vice presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen for which to prepare; that debate is remembered, of course, for Quayle's comparison of his political experience to that of John F. Kennedy when he sought the presidency nearly 30 years before and Bentsen's rebuttal that Quayle was "no Jack Kennedy."

But even before that debate, Quayle was contributing to his own poor public image by making remarks like this — "The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. No, not our nation's, but in World War II. I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century, but in this century's history" — at a mid–September press conference.

In hindsight, it's hard to imagine that Bush reversed his fortunes with that convention. But he did, or at least he began the process, and it really had nothing to do with Quayle. It had a lot more to do with the famous pledge not to raise taxes that he made in his acceptance speech. That was what the delegates wanted to hear.

It had a lot to do with the fact that Reagan was a popular president who couldn't seek a third term. As far as most of the voters were concerned in 1988, the lesser half of the Reagan–Bush ticket was better than nothing.

And it didn't matter to them who his running mate was. Sure, Quayle was a nuisance and a bit of an embarrassment, but that wasn't particularly important.

The Democrats tried to make Quayle an issue in the '88 campaign, but it didn't really take until four years later — after 3½ years of Quayle's verbal missteps in office.

The City of New Orleans

I haven't been in New Orleans in a long time. The last time I was there was many years before Hurricane Katrina flooded the city and officially — and, apparently, irretrievably — turned public opinion against George W. Bush.

When I was there, the emphasis was on good food, good drinks and fun (good or otherwise). Live jazz was playing in the French Quarter, French–style beignets with powdered sugar and chicory–laced coffee were being consumed with reckless abandon every morning at Café du Monde, and New Orleans generally lived up to its nickname, "The City that Care Forgot."

But New Orleans — and the rest of Louisiana — couldn't hide away from care forever. After Katrina, the national spotlight seemed to shine ever brighter on the Big Easy.

Judging from the home page of the New Orleans Times–Picayune this morning, things haven't changed that much, though. There is still an emphasis on good food, good music and good times. At this time of year, "good times" means football, and two of the NFL's unbeaten teams, the New Orleans Saints and the New York Giants, will square off Sunday afternoon in the Superdome that once housed — temporarily — Katrina's refugees.

Barack Obama probably could have picked a worse time to make his first presidential visit to New Orleans. Granted, his pledge to rebuild New Orleans stronger than before is one that should have been made — and kept — on the federal level four years ago. But that wasn't Obama's fault. He was barely in the U.S. Senate at that time.

As much as Obama and his supporters may have wanted to believe his election nearly a year ago demonstrated that America was a "post–racial" society, events this year have shown it is not true. Both sides have been culpable to a degree. Some — but not all — of Obama's critics have injected race into the conversation, and some — but not all — of his supporters have been far too willing to point the finger and accuse critics of racism — to the detriment of arguments on both sides.

Neither the right nor the left seems to be truly at fault for an issue that has emerged recently in Tangipahoa Parish, just north of New Orleans. But that hasn't kept either from taking sides.

Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell refused to marry an interracial couple. "I'm not a racist," he claimed. "I just don't believe in mixing the races that way."

He said he was concerned about the children that could be produced from such a union and, for that reason, he has declined to marry about four interracial couples in his career as a justice of the peace.

Now the ACLU of Louisiana is attempting to have Bardwell removed from office.

I'm not an authority on the law, but it does seem to me that, since the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, marriage restrictions based on race have been illegal in the United States. Consequently, a public official who has the authority to marry couples and refuses to do so because the couple in question is interracial is in violation of the law.

But I grew up in the South. And, while laws have changed, it does not surprise me that attitudes have not — at least not to the extent that many people seem to have presumed.

What does surprise me, I guess, is how surprised others are by this. Last night, on Facebook, the pastor of my church pondered this development and asked, rhetorically, "It's 2009, not 1959, right?" Many people — too many to count — chimed in indignantly.

My knee–jerk reaction was that many of those people must not have grown up in the South — and then I remembered that my pastor did grow up here in Texas. But he, like many people, seems to have fallen under the spell of the post–racialists.

Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that a public official who refuses to marry an interracial couple is violating the law. As a public official, his personal opinions do not matter — even if he believes his motivation — the well–being of any as–yet unborn children — is noble.

(If his only concern is the children, has anyone asked him if he has performed marriage ceremonies for interracial couples who are past their child–bearing years?)

The left gets particularly agitated about racial implications, but the liberal lion, the late Ted Kennedy, seems to have understood that racism in America did not disappear because Obama was elected president.

---

"Ted Kennedy believes that race in America is, as he sometimes puts it, 'a–burning,' by which he means that it bubbles just below the surface of the American psyche and it takes little to bring it out."

Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson
The Battle for America 2008

---

I don't know how long it will take for those on the left to recognize that the election of the first black president didn't eliminate race as a factor in American life. It merely turned up the heat and it has bubbled past the surface in Obama's first year in office.

The real test of how much progress America has made in race relations was not — contrary to popular opinion — the election of the first black president. The real test will be whether, three years from now, Americans decide to re–elect him, knowing it will mean four more years of focusing on racial issues — often at the expense of issues that affect Americans of all races.

Gustav Makes Landfall

Late last night, I reported what I was hearing from WeatherNerd, which indicated that Hurricane Gustav would not hit New Orleans with the kind of intensity that had been predicted.

This morning, WeatherNerd reports that Gustav is a Category 3 storm, rather than the Category 2 it was predicting last night.

Nevertheless, WeatherNerd asserts, Gustav is really a Category 3 in name only.

And a statement from the National Hurricane Center about four hours ago said that Gustav "is not strengthening" and called its then-estimated wind speed of 115 miles per hour "generous."

According to the most recent information from the Weather Channel, Gustav has, indeed, been downgraded to a Category 2 storm. At 8 a.m. Central time, it was reported to have a wind speed of 110 mph and was moving northwest at 16 mph.

In fact, it does not appear, at this point, that Gustav will be as severe as it was predicted to be only a couple of days ago.

It's always risky to predict what a storm like this will do.

Considering New Orleans' position in relation to sea level and the precarious nature of part of its levee system, some flooding appears inevitable.

And, in a hurricane, it is almost inevitable that some lives will be lost.

But the city looks like it will be spared a repeat of its experience after Hurricane Katrina. Loss of life and destruction of property do not appear likely to happen on a Katrina-like scale.

And, if that's really how it plays out, then the next question to be answered will be this — how will offshore drilling rigs and land-based refineries hold up?

Because if they are damaged, a nation that has already weathered the storm of rapidly escalating gas prices this summer will face another round of price hikes.

And they might not go away soon.

A Break in the Weather?

WeatherNerd is saying that the latest advisory on Hurricane Gustav suggests New Orleans "will most likely dodge a bullet."

Instead of making landfall Monday as a Category 3 or 4 storm, the advisory indicates the hurricane may have weakened to a Category 2.

"There may be significant flooding in the West Bank, but if so, it will be mostly because of the levee system’s fragile and incomplete state," writes WeatherNerd, "not because of anything extraordinary about Gustav."

There will be the usual amount of death and destruction that is always left by such a storm, but the most important WeatherNerd conclusion is this — "we should not see a citywide repeat of Katrina."

That's something to be thankful for.

More Hurricane News

It is about mid-day on Sunday, August 31. The Republican National Convention is scheduled to begin on Monday.

Meanwhile, Hurricane Gustav is churning through the Gulf of Mexico (if you want to see what it looks like from space, see the photograph at right).

According to CNN, President Bush and Vice President Cheney will skip the convention because of the hurricane.

Both men were scheduled to speak to the delegates on Monday night.

CNN reported Saturday night that Republican officials are "considering turning the convention into a service event, a massive telethon to raise money for the Red Cross and other agencies to help with the hurricane."

On the surface, that seems like a generous gesture — although, if it isn't handled correctly, it could be interpreted as a very self-serving move.

CNN also reported last night that four governors whose states are in Gustav's projected path — Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Haley Barbour (Mississippi), Charlie Crist (Florida) and Rick Perry (Texas) — will skip the convention because of the storm.

Perry had been scheduled to speak on Monday night. Jindal had been scheduled to speak on Wednesday night. Crist was scheduled to speak on Thursday night.

Bush and Gustav

---

---

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is reporting this morning that George W. Bush's plans to attend the Republican National Convention in St. Paul as scheduled on Monday have been put on hold.

Bush, who is scheduled to deliver a speech to the delegates on Monday, is monitoring the progress of Hurricane Gustav in the Gulf of Mexico.

I hope he has thoughts of the Hurricane Katrina experience on his mind — and I particularly hope he has FEMA ready to respond immediately to a crisis.

(That would be appropriate — not only as a way to compensate for FEMA's abysmal record after Hurricane Katrina but also because, ironically, Monday night's theme at the Republican convention happens to be "Country First: Service." This would be a good time for the Republicans to demonstrate their commitment to service in what would certainly be a big way.)

Everyone is welcome to hope and pray that the forecasts are wrong.

But, unfortunately, a crisis situation seems to be headed in New Orleans' direction.

---

"You need to be scared and you need to get your butts out of New Orleans right now."

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin

---

When New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin called it the "mother of all storms," he wasn't kidding.

When Katrina made landfall three years ago, it was a Category 3 storm. Current projections call for Gustav to be a Category 4 storm when it is predicted to make landfall on Labor Day, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

And, if that is correct, the surge from the storm will overtop the levees that are strong enough to withstand the violence of the storm itself.

The levees that haven't been rebuilt completely may not have a chance against Gustav.

Residents along the Gulf Coast already are evacuating their homes and moving farther inland to escape Gustav's wrath.

If you're in the New Orleans area, pack up what you can and leave.

Now.

Another Ill Wind Heads for New Orleans

It was quite a statement, coming from the man who was New Orleans' mayor three years ago when Hurricane Katrina caused such extensive death and destruction.

A short time ago, Mayor Ray Nagin ordered a mandatory evacuation starting at 8 a.m. on Sunday — but he urged the people of his city to start the evacuation right away.

Hurricane Gustav is taking aim at New Orleans. And Nagin, who lived through Hurricane Katrina and FEMA's feeble response to the tragedy, described it as "the mother of all storms" and "the storm of the century."

Observing from afar, as I do, I can only hope that the forecasts will be wrong and something will happen to spare the people of New Orleans from having to go through another disaster.

But if they do, though, I hope the federal response is faster and better prepared than it was in 2005.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush is scheduled to give what amounts to his farewell address to the delegates in the opening session of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., on Monday night.

Sam Youngman writes, in The Hill, that Bush does not plan to attack Democratic nominee Barack Obama in his speech.

"White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that Bush's remarks will express gratitude to his friends and supporters, and he will explain why he thinks Republican candidate John McCain should be president," Youngman writes. "Perino said Bush will not make a case for his legacy, and he will not go after McCain's opponent."

That's a wise decision — especially when you consider that America may be revisiting the scene of the Bush administration's greatest domestic failure while he gives his speech.

But you know what would be an even greater show of wisdom?

Staying on top of the weather reports, staying in touch with the Louisiana governor and New Orleans mayor — even if Bush is scheduled to give his speech in a matter of minutes — and being ready to order FEMA to respond immediately to a crisis.

The country needs to see Bush actively responding to the emergency. It doesn't need to see Bush reading another book about a pet goat.

That's what leadership is about.

Presidential Debates -- the 2008 Schedule

The Commission on Presidential Debates has announced the lineup and format for the 2008 presidential debates -- once the Democrats and Republicans have settled on their tickets.

The first debate will be held in about 10 months, on Friday, Sept. 26, 2008, on the University of Mississippi campus in Oxford, Miss.

Other sites for the debates include Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., on Thursday, Oct. 2, 2008; Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., on Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008; and Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2008.

St. Louis will host the vice presidential debate. The other cities will host the second and third presidential debates.

Noteworthy for its omission is New Orleans, which has hosted conventions since being devastated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 but was rejected as a presidential debate site because it hasn't sufficiently recovered from the storm and the flooding.

Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who is expected to face a tough fight for re-election next year, says the commission has “lost sight of the public interest it was chartered to serve.”

Landrieu, of course, is free to say and believe what she wants about how New Orleans was "slighted" in the selection of debate sites, but I can see both sides.

Democratic co-chairman Paul Kirk reportedly claimed the city wasn't ready to host a high-profile event like one of the debates, and Republican co-chairman Frank Fahrenkopf reportedly said sites were selected based on technical factors and geographical balance and that politics played little or no role.

But, in the words of Forrest Gump, I think both are going on at the same time.

(Besides, the "geographical balance" bit doesn't really hold up for me. St. Louis, Nashville and Oxford, Miss., are from generally the same part of the country, and St. Louis is the only one [but just barely] that is west of the Mississippi River. Those three cities are even in the same time zone. Only Hempstead, N.Y., is in the Eastern time zone.)

Fahrenkopf is wrong if he thinks politics didn't influence the decision. Politics influences everything.

On the other hand, everyone saw how New Orleans was hammered by the hurricane, and we all know how difficult it has been for the city to bounce back. It's plausible to believe that it isn't ready to provide food and lodging for the thousands of people who come to a city hosting a debate. Including the candidates and the Secret Service agents who are assigned to them.

So, if the commission was simply latching on to a convenient excuse not to select New Orleans, it has one that is practically bullet-proof.

It would be nice to hold a debate in New Orleans. It reminds me of the talk six years ago of holding the next Super Bowl in New York in support of that city following the 9-11 attacks.

In both instances, the suggestions represent a desire for supportive gestures that are or were easier to achieve as abstract recommendations. In reality, there are too many obstacles.

For example, playing the Super Bowl in the Meadowlands in February 2002 would have meant traffic and a large crowd at an outdoor arena on what may have been a cold, possibly snowy, evening -- which would have made great TV but would have been a logistical nightmare for a city still on edge after the collapse of the Twin Towers less than five months earlier.

The presidential and vice presidential nominees won't be debating in New Orleans, but both parties need to define what the federal role will be in New Orleans in the next administration.

A country that is willing to spend $1 billion a week to capture, then lose, then re-capture, then re-lose much of the same territory in Iraq over and over and over again should be willing to invest money and manpower into rebuilding a city that has been made to suffer for more than two years.

And hopefully allow many of its displaced citizens to return.

That's the battle Landrieu needs to fight in defense of her Senate seat.