Quayle Vs. Gore

By DAN GOODGAME

Dan Quayle and Al Gore would seem to have much in common. They are of the same generation, born a year apart to influential families that carefully nursed their sons' political careers. Each won his first election to the House in 1976, where they played basketball together in the members' gym, and quickly moved up to the Senate. Each is handsome, in his way, and boasts an attractive young family with a wife more conservative than he. Both ran bumbling campaigns in 1988 and were criticized as weak and wooden public speakers.

Gore, however, has grown in political skill and public approval, while Quayle has not -- as both men demonstrated vividly last week. Campaigning arm in arm with Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton on a triumphant bus tour that attracted enthusiastic crowds through the Midwest, Gore managed to excite voters as he seldom did during the 1988 primaries. He deftly fielded questions, deferred to Clinton, turned back attacks from the Bush campaign and provided a remarkably effective complement to his running mate's considerable campaign skills. "Both of the Democratic candidates are young and smart," grumbled a depressed Bush-Quayle campaign official, "and we've only got one of each."

That was typical of the daggers flung at Quayle's back during one of the most bruising weeks of his embattled tenure. Desperate to do something dramatic to reverse Clinton's 2-to-1 lead over Bush in the polls, many Republicans last week stepped up their calls to dump Quayle. No sooner had Bush publicly stated that Quayle's spot on the ticket was "very certain" than the Vice President handed fresh ammunition to his critics. Asked by CNN'S Larry King what he would do if his daughter, now 13, were grown and had an unwanted pregnancy, Quayle replied that he "would counsel her and talk to her and support her on whatever decision she made." That seemed to leave open the option of abortion for her, though the Vice President and his party officially - oppose that choice for other women.

In a TIME/CNN survey conducted by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman last week, 1 of 4 respondents said Quayle's presence would make them less likely to vote for the Republican ticket, while 2 of 5 said the Gore candidacy would make them more likely to vote for Clinton. Though vice-presidential preferences have had little predictive value in past elections, some strategists in both parties think this year may prove an exception. Democrats sense an unexpected synergy between Clinton and Gore. Television images of the two fortysomething men calling for change "help us make our case that it's the new against the old," says Clinton strategist James Carville. Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says if voters are closely divided between Bush and Clinton in November, the Quayle-Gore mismatch "has the potential to be a scale tipper in favor of the Democrats."

Some G.O.P. officials are in agreement, citing new polls showing that even among Republicans, a solid majority prefer Gore over Quayle. "This is not a Washington Beltway phenomenon," warns a senior Bush aide. "We're hearing from Republicans all over the country who are afraid that the campaign is going to be too close this time, and that Quayle might cost us the few points that decide the election."

Moreover, any setback to Bush's health before November would strengthen the Veep factor. In response to persistent rumors that he is ill, Bush and his doctor last week reiterated that his health is excellent, despite his bout last year with Graves' disease and his vomiting and collapse, caused by intestinal flu, at a state dinner in Tokyo last January. Reporters and staffers who try to keep pace with Bush find him exceptionally fit and energetic for a man of 68. Still, as a Bush friend observed, "he hasn't had much fun in this job lately, and that shows on his face."

Most G.O.P. strategists expect the 1992 election to be decided, as others have been, almost entirely on voters' judgments of the men at the top of the tickets. After the 1988 election, Republicans carefully studied the "Quayle factor," and found that the Vice President cost the ticket no more than 2% of the popular vote.

Representative Vin Weber, a Minnesota Republican whose political advice Bush values, bluntly recalls that Quayle "wasn't a popular choice in 1988, and suffered by contrast with ((Democratic vice-presidential nominee)) Lloyd Bentsen, and it didn't make any difference to the outcome." Says William Bennett, a former Cabinet member who remains close to Bush and Quayle: "When George Bush was at 85% in the polls, was Dan Quayle doing anything differently? No. Quayle has not set the world on fire, but he has done his job. He has been loyal, and he has appeal to the conservative base." Bennett, Weber and other top Bush advisers agree that removing Quayle would hurt the President more than it would help, by compounding the damage from his abandoned "no new taxes" vow. Says Bennett: "It would look like another broken promise: wobbly, panicky and inconsistent."

Some Republicans and reporters speculated that Secretary of State James Baker, who is expected next month to assume joint command of the Bush campaign and White House -- and who opposed the choice of Quayle in 1988 -- wants him replaced. Officials friendly with Baker, however, deny this, explaining that Baker's own presidential ambitions would not be served if one of his potential rivals in 1996 -- say, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney -- were elevated to the vice presidency.

More to the point, neither Baker nor most other top Bush advisers consider Quayle to be the President's main political problem. Says Bennett: "George Bush is where he is politically because of George Bush." Weber considers the Quayle debate "a harmful distraction" from "our core problem," which is "the credibility the President has lost on the economy and taxes. There is a strong feeling among the voters that the economy is crummy and that George Bush isn't going to do anything about it. We Republicans are not seen as credible agents of change in economic policy. And we can't fix that just with a negative campaign."

This point is echoed by mid-level officials at the White House and Bush campaign headquarters. They are worried that the President and several of his top advisers -- campaign manager Robert Teeter, White House chief of staff Sam Skinner, Treasury Secretary Nick Brady -- are far too confident that in the end, all that matters is "presidential stature." Teeter explains that in "the last weeks of the campaign, the voters will look at the candidates on a different basis than they do now: on who has the temperament, judgment, experience and character to serve as President. We're very confident of that -- confident enough to base our entire campaign on it."

Thus, when the White House decided to send a top official to St. Louis last week to counter the Clinton-Gore bus tour, it assigned presidential adviser Clayton Yeutter, who emphasized that "Clinton does not have one-tenth the stature that the President has all over the world. The American people are going to wake up and realize this."

For his part, Bush urges Republicans not to panic, reminding them that he was 17 points behind Dukakis at this juncture in 1988. One difference, however, is that Bush in 1988 could run on the rosy-looking Reagan economic record. Another difference, says a veteran of the 1988 campaign, was that "at least we had 'no new taxes' " as a central, positive appeal. This time there is a vacuum at the heart of the Bush campaign and Administration. That is what allows Clinton and Gore to dominate the television news and set the political agenda, at least for now. It is also the main reason why so many Republicans, unable to persuade Bush to aggressively address the problems of the economy, are seeking a scapegoat in Dan Quayle.