Dan RatherIT IS the sort of thing that does not get much talked about in public, not during a week of mourning for a popular and much-beloved former U.S. president. But in private, and in unguarded conversations last week, political operatives and the pundits who watch and try to predict their every move have been trying to reckon the effect that President Reagan's death will have on the presidential race. In bad taste? Perhaps, but don't hold it against them - it's their job.
In the main, the conventional wisdom among these folks and others has been that if Reagan's passing has any measurable effect at all on the presidential campaign, it will redound to the benefit of President Bush. In the longer view, goes this line of thinking, since the current president considers himself ideological heir to the Reagan legacy, it doesn't take all that much imagination to envision a Republican convention that combines tributes to Ronald Reagan with an implied passing of the torch to President Bush. And in the short term, the weeklong period of official mourning for President Reagan 'changed the subject' from what was beginning to seem like a relentless barrage of bad news for the president, primarily from and related to Iraq.
In general terms and by any reasonable analysis, the conventional wisdom seems self-evidently correct. But there is a specific issue, in the wake of the emotional outpouring for President Reagan, that could prove politically awkward for President Bush: that of stem-cell research. This week, the nation was reminded of former first lady Nancy Reagan's recent calls for the lifting of restrictions that President Bush has placed on embryonic stem-cell research. Mrs. Reagan's plea has found echoes in two separate letters to President Bush in which 206 members of the House of Represen-tatives and 58 senators also asked for existing controls on such research to be loosened.
It is hoped that stem-cells could eventually provide revolutionary treatments for Alzheimer's disease, from which President Reagan suffered, and a number of other neurological ailments, including Parkinson's disease. But for Christian conservatives, who form the hardest, most loyal core of President Bush's support, the potential benefits of stem-cell research do not outweigh the ethical problems associated with their use.
So far, President Bush has indicated that he will not change his position, and first lady Laura Bush has also expressed her opposition to a shift. But what if Congress were to take it upon itself to change the stem-cell laws? Would President Bush sign the bill and risk alienating his base? Or would he wield a presidential veto, and risk being portrayed as an ideologue?
Political implications aside, the stem-cell issue is by no means an easy or obvious one. Feelings run strong on both sides of the debate, and having the memory of President Reagan in the equation only adds to the emotional quotient and to the political delicacy that might be required by President Bush.
With such serious considerations involved, with deeply held moral convictions placed alongside the hurts and hopes of patients and families desperate for cures, political speculation seems almost in bad taste. But you can bet that those who assess such things for a living are engaging in just this sort of speculation right now. In a democracy, particularly in a presidential election year, such thoughts are never very far away. And with the passing of President Reagan into history's pages, today's political leaders must nevertheless contend with a complex legacy that is still very much alive.
Dan Rather is a television news anchor(c) 2004 DJR Inc. Distributed by King Features Syndicate.
