Customer Reviews

Mad As Hell: Revolt at the Ballot Box, 1992

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have always been a fan of Jack Germond. For years, I have watched him on news programs such as "McLaughlin Group" and "Inside Washington." His comments, dry humor, and honest opinions of the situation have often been a sharp contrast to the more partisan voices heard on those programs. However, until I read this book, I had no idea he was such a talented writer. I had of course read some of his political commentary over the years, but that is really not a test of someone's ability to write a book.
From the book, three facts about the 1992 presidential election are strikingly clear:

*) Bill Clinton is a masterful politician, he understood exactly what the electorate wanted in 1992. Despite all his personal, political baggage, he managed to handily defeat an incumbent president.
*) George H. W. Bush is a terrible politician; he understood almost nothing about what the electorate wanted in 1992. Bill Clinton didn't beat him; he lost to Bill Clinton. The best line I have ever heard about him was uttered shortly after he was elected, "The American people wanted a caretaker president and they got one."
*) Ross Perot is a genius at making money, running a business and getting things done in a business context. However, if he were placed in a situation where he couldn't control everything, such as being president of the United States, he would have been a disaster.

Germond and Witcover take you through the election of 1992, which was rocked by some of the best scandals and pseudo-scandals of modern political times. I am a political junkie and thoroughly enjoyed the frolic back through the stories of Gennifer Flowers, Bill Clinton and the draft, Ross Perot's accusations of how the Republicans planned to disrupt his daughter's wedding, Bush's glance at his watch during one of the debates, Admiral Stockdale's being utterly clueless during the VP debate, and what the issues really were. As the Clinton people so famously reminded themselves, "It's the economy stupid." Despite all the other mindless fluff, the presidential election was ultimately decided by the performance of the economy. Which is a credit to the American electorate.
It is clear that the authors were almost constantly inside the political tents, having a wealth of firsthand knowledge about how the campaigns were handling themselves. I learned many new things about the campaign, how disorganized the Bush campaign really was, how George H. W. Bush was so clueless about the country outside his privileged position and how the Clinton people worked. I came away with renewed appreciation for how talented Clinton's political operatives were. While he is a master politician, he cannot be given all the credit. They knew what to do and how to handle all types of problems, from "bimbo eruptions" to facts about the economic performance of the country.
This is the best book on a presidential election that I have ever read. Not only are the authors experts at political reporting, they also excel at putting the words together to prove it.

Germond and Whitcover carry on the tradition of Theodore H. White's "Making of the President" series with their recap of the 1992 election. Theirs is the most complete recap available of the campaign that put Bill Clinton in the White House. They are experienced and vetran reporters who have seen many campaigns and are able to capture every nuance in a complete and readable manner.

The Germond/Witcover series is the best set of "campaign books" in recent years. And while the solid reporting continues in this effort, there's something missing. Many political junkies rank 1992 as the oddest election in memory, stranger even than the de facto tie of the 2000 race. Why? Two reasons: the inexplicable buoyancy of Bill Clinton, and the Perot phenomenon -- that brief springtime period when a businessman on a third party ticket shot to 40 percent in the polls while the Democratic nominee fell to third place (less than 25 percent!) and then recovered to win the election -- and oust an incumbent Republican who had polled a 91 percent approval rating less than two years earlier. Germond and Witcover tell the whole story, but the sense of the bizarre that pervaded that election is lacking.

The 1992 election was a godsend for the media. After the exceedingly dull contests in '84 and '88, 'the '92 election offered compelling stories. "Mad As Hell" covers the entire process from beginning to end- the rise, the fall and the resurrection of Bill Clinton; the collapse of George Bush's seemingly insurmountable advantage after the Persian Gulf War; and Ross Perot's bizarre candidacy.

Germond & Witcover are long on narrative, but short on analysis. Why did Clinton really win? The results of the '94 and '96 contests put Clinton's victory in a somewhat different prespective. One wonders when, or if, Germond & Witcover will ever get around to giving us the story of 1996 and 2000.

This is a straightforward narrative of the 1992 Presidential campaign. Authors Jack Germond and Jules Whitcover describe the political events in that year, giving readers a feel for the USA and its major issues. Prior to 1992 many saw President George Bush (Sr.) as unbeatable given his high approval ratings following the Gulf War. But Bush was hurt by a sluggish economy, his less than stellar political acumen, and a primary challenge from right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan. Democrat Bill Clinton of Arkansas was a successful governor, one whose charisma and centrism were enough to overcome extra-marital affairs and having avoided military service. The year 1992 also saw business tycoon Ross Perot surge to a lead in the polls that Spring as a third-party phenomenon before inexplicably and temporarily quitting the race. The authors also examine the political strategies of various candidates, and the year's surge in voter interest and turnout. Some suspect that Clinton's win led to added bitterness from Republicans, who saw that their "lock" on the White House was weaker than assumed.

This is one of several talented campaign narratives by the journalist team of Germond and Whitcover. The authors offer crisp analysis and readable prose, and occasionally show their liberal leanings. They don't quite match Theodore H. White's MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT series, but they do a solid job.

I have read the bulk of the Germond/Witcover (G/W) series and most of the books have been very good. This one was no exception. G/W take you through the strange politics of 1992 where a womanizing, draft dodging, uninhaling dope smoker won the election against an incumbent who had posted a 91% approval rating just 21 months earlier.

The Good: they give you the close-up story of Ross Perot's pyrrhic attempt to buy the White House, Clinton's favorite color as "plaid," and Dan Quayle's inability to spell potato. They also go into the weeds by viewing the election through the lens of abortion politics, implying that Bush was behind because of his pro-life stance. That leads us into the bad.

The Bad: It becomes obvious from reading the book that G/W hate Bush for some reason. They refer to him as "ever-whining" and repeatedly bring up Bush's 1988 election where Bush "went negative" against Dukakis with "racial politics." But they NEVER MENTION Clinton's race baiting by critcizing Bush's Haitian policy by saying, "I wouldn't be shipping those poor black people back." Since the book was published in 1993, they had a chance to tell this story and set the record straight: 400 people died just days after Clinton's inauguration trying to come to America because of CLINTON playing racial politics. For all of Bush's "Willie Horton," Bush never hurt a single person with his campaign. They also pillory the pro-life position and imply that although the voters split evenly on abortion, there are enough Republican women who will vote Democrat if the other issues are clearly defined. This fails to explain the so-called "angry white male" that supposedly appeared out of nowhere in 1994.

The Ugly: For some reason, when George Bush went out with balloons and slogans and Arnold Schwarzenegger, it was "politics as usual." When Bill and Al rode through the Rust Belt like two good old boys looking for the Jack Daniels distillery, it was "a bold stroke." Apparently, Democrats are permitted to "play politics" but Republicans aren't.

The Unmentioned: Why didn't G/W mention the following things that would have made Gore and Clinton seem just as ignorant as Quayle: 1. Gore referring to that great Tennessee President James Knox (note: it was James Knox POLK); 2. Clinton saying, "I hope you'll give Al Gore and I a chance (this from a Rhodes scholar who should have known it was "Al Gore and me"); or 3. Bill Clinton's history of "reinventing" himself. They take Jerry Brown to task for it in the book, but remain silent on Clinton doing that very thing.

Still, it is a worthwile book, just be aware of their own prejudices.