It truly makes me queasy to think there soon may be another Bush in the highest elected office in the free world.

One was bad enough. I never quite understood what the hell George Bush was talking about while he was in office; the repeated phrase “1,000 points of light” still baffles me.

True, he was the man of the people after he shut Saddam down, although there still are problems in the Middle East that the Persian Gulf War-Band-Aid did not solve.

But despite his one-time 90 percent approval rating, Bush was sent packing to start a post-White House lifestyle including sky-diving and helping his sons buy elections.

Today, Texas Gov. George W. Bush is leading the Republican race with his multi-million dollar cash cow and his lack of ideas. I don’t want to hear blanket statements that he wants to restore control of schools, focus on basics for education, appoint judicial conservatives and his big, bad plans for Social Security, which, if he’s anything like most other Republicans, means slash and burn. I’m sorry; he’s trying to “modernize” Social Security.

What the hell does that mean? I’m not trying to target the Dubya as the only candidate who hasn’t offered concrete plans for his ideas; no presidential candidate has really made the effort to do so.

In fact, it’s pretty unnerving when you realize Pat Buchanan may be the only candidate who makes it clear where he stands — namely, that Hitler wasn’t such a bad dude.

That’s why Bush’s popularity confuses me. Not his lead — his popularity. If you’ve got millions and millions stashed away to help seek the White House, it’s not surprising that you’re forcing other candidates (read: Quayle and plaid-wearing Lamar) out of the race and making the others, with the exception of billionaire Steve Forbes, realize their campaigning days are numbered.

Presidential candidates are supposed to inspire people. That’s why I can’t understand Bush’s popularity; what is it about him that makes people excited or believe that the system can work again?

I can understand Buchanan’s popularity because he inspires his whack-job supporters. He’s a powerful orator, and although many in his own party can’t deny that he’s gone way past an acceptable form of being right-wing, he does stir emotions in people.

They’re all the wrong type of emotions — namely hate and paranoia. But they’re still there.

I can understand Elizabeth Dole’s support faction. She’s an accomplished woman, a powerful speaker and although it isn’t classy to say, her gender alone makes her a novelty and would lead people to follow her to whatever straw poll she may travel.

Even Steve Forbes’s popularity is understandable. At least he states his ideas, even if items such as a flat tax are infeasible. People who are dissatisfied with the way our government is working now are more than ready to latch onto anything unorthodox, hence the popularity of Forbes and Reform Party-fringe politicians.

But where does Bush’s popularity come from? There’s so much hype surrounding the man, but where’s the substance?

It makes me wonder if Bush’s popularity largely stems from the fact that people are just tired of the Clinton-Gore administration, the scandals or almost-scandals or should-be scandals. I don’t think Gore is the answer either; in fact, it makes me believe that come November 2000, we’re going to have a Battle of the Bland.

The problem with Gore is the same that I perceive with Bush, who in all fairness is beating Gore by at least 18 points in some recent head-to-head polls. He can’t inspire people, either.

At least with Bill Clinton in the White House, there was very little difference of the range of opinion. You either love or him or hate him, or at least that’s the way it used to be. Now people are tired of him, and by the transitive property, tired of Al Gore before he’s gotten a chance to say what he would do if he was in the big office.

If Bush is elected, without his declaring any real sort of platform, it will just confirm my real nightmare about American politics.

We don’t elect leaders any more; we just elect talking heads. We don’t care about a message or a platform.If there is a platform, we don’t care what the candidate would do to enact the said platform.

We care about politicians with brand-names or their fathers’ names.

---

Kate Kompas is a sophomore in journalism and mass communication from LeClaire. She is head news editor of the Daily.