Bob Graham, the Fulcrum
_ Florida’s Loss Could Be America’s Gain _
by Shelton Hull
The sudden decline in Florida Senator Bob Graham’s political fortunes is curious, to say the least. As late as six months ago he was telling reporters definitively that “I will be the next President of the United States,” and reasonable scribes like the great Jimmy Breslin were rooting for him. But, within a month Graham had not only ended his presidential bid (on Oct. 8) but announced that he would not be seeking reelection to the Senate in 2004. An obvious loss to Florida, and perhaps a sign of things to come.
As a citizen of Florida, descended from a long line of Graham voters, I wouldn’t have minded Graham vacating his Senate seat to occupy a comfy leather chair behind the Kennedy desk. Graham appeared to be a decent compromise in an anemic Democratic field loaded with political has-beens and never-weres with secrets and scandals to spare. It was widely speculated that Graham was the top contender for the Vice-Presidential nomination, a notion that gains utility under the Gancarski “brokered convention” theory, which others have not yet dared to take up.
Graham’s announcement could be interpreted as foreshadowing that the spot is indeed his, given that none of the current Democratic candidates (except perhaps Howard Dean) could serve the party effectively anywhere else but at the head of the ticket. With Democrats the minority party in both houses of Congress, it would be pure folly to further pare the talent pool in order to fill a position that, legacies of Bush and Cheney aside, is mostly ceremonial.
Here’s a theory for you: Maybe the reason for Graham’s pending “retirement” is that it is not possible for a Democratic nominee to win the White House without Graham effectively ending his own political career. Why? As ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and co-chair of the Independent 9/11 Commission, Bob Graham is the most likely designated keeper of the information pertaining to the greatest unsolved mystery of our time: Who is providing strategic cover for Al-Qaeda’s activities, and why does it persist despite the best efforts of America’s security apparatus?
While the economy and the occupation of Iraq are certainly fertile areas for the Democrats to score points against the incumbent, I would posit that it would take some truly extraordinary developments for any Democrat not named Hillary Clinton to beat George W. Bush in 2004. There is no Ross Perot to swipe 10-15% of Bush’s votes, and there is no Bill Clinton to capture the hearts and minds of young voters. The success of Howard Dean in overwhelming the weakest Democratic field since 1988 is certainly the political story of the year, but this is not an election yet. Dean’s recent backtracking from correct comments about the southern vote make it clear that he is easily manipulated away from his strengths, which may benefit an incumbent who will need to dictate the pace and parameters of public debate to win in– assuming, of course, there is an election in 2004.
Bush’s opponent will need to attack him at his strongest point, which is the rapid consolidation of executive power that resulted from the attacks of 9/11. The War in Iraq, for example, occurred primarily because none of the Democratic opposition was interested in challenging Bush before the mid-term. Now, if 9/11 happened exactly as we assume it did, then Bush cannot be beaten, period. If it happened by any other means, then the nature of everything that’s happened since is changed, and the nominee would have immediately fortified his (or her) positions if such information came out.
Graham has at times referenced certain anomalies in the Administration’s cover story of 9/11, that it was orchestrated by Osama bin Laden and friends, protected by the Taliban with some financial assistance by elements of the Saudi elite. All that may be true, but it doesn’t explain why these people are still a problem for “the West,” even as the Bush’s ultimate legacy will depend on whether bin Laden can be killed or captured during his Administration. The United States has installed what some have characterized as a “police state,” launched two expeditionary wars, alienated many longtime “allies,” sacrificed nearly 300 soldiers and wrecked its economy in the name of counter-terrorism, yet terrorism (of the retail variety) has only increased since 9/11. Why? Bob Graham is one of very few people who could provide a practical answer, but clearly he won’t.
The emergence of Katherine “Kabuki” Harris as a potential successor to Graham is hardly a coincidence; indeed, it points directly at the nature of the 2004 campaign and of Graham’s still-developing role in it. Unless the Democrats do what they are expected to do, which is to nominate someone whom the President can stomp by a minimum of 15 points, the election will of necessity come down to dirty tricks. And why not? It’s not like the American people care one way or another how their man wins; they simply don’t want to be killed by cave-dwellers and their anonymous benefactors.
Florida’s interest in all this spans several fronts. While it has not been targeted by a terror attack, several key 9/11 conspirators lived here, and its profusion of military personnel (many of whom are overseas now) makes it a likely target in a prolonged war. And we all know, or think we know, what happened here in 2000. Florida is the largest state in the Union that’s up for grabs in 2004, and who wins it will likely depend on what Bob Graham has to say in the coming months. At this point, readers may mutter darkly about “conspiracy theory” if they feel so inclined. I can only quote the late, great Packers coach Vince Lombardi: “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” This lesson was internalized by the Republican Party promptly, in 1968, and Democrats have yet to do the same; at least, that’s how it looks from Florida. Bob Graham, his folksy eccentricities notwithstanding, has never lost an election in his life. It appears he never will. As he enters the final chapter in his political career, the only question left is will he finish that career on his own terms, or not?
