That Was The Week That Coulda Been

In a different news environment, last week would have been all sunshine for Bush. First, presumptive nominee John Kerry pander-flopped on the question of whether he might appoint pro-life Justices (who even knew it was a question?). Then, he suggested that he would mock our highly regarded campaign finance laws and our even more highly regarded John McCain by adopting a hyper-legalistic, no controlling legal authority approach to the Democratic nominating convention. And he brought us through the weekend with a reminder that he is not well described as a person of warmth and grace. None of his deficiences as a candidate will come as a surprise to his supporters, by the way - as this WaPo article makes clear, a nicely dressed department store mannequin clearly labelled "Not George Bush" could probably attract as much support as John Kerry, with no appreciable dimunition in credibility or campaigning skills. Our favorite quote comes from Baghdad Jim McDermott (D-Wash), who brushes off Kerry's puzzling posturings as "campaign rhetoric".

Oh, well. The news environment was what is was, and serious problems in Iraq overshadowed Kerry's minor problems at home. However, in our unrelenting quest for the silver lining, we are reminded of the famous Winston Churchill quip - the current news is bad for Bush, and Kerry is a deeply flawed candidate, but the news can change.

And we will see just how Bully a Pulpit the Presidency is when Bush tries to change it. We are encouraged by the news that he will be addressing substantive issues - Iraq and the Middle East peace "process" - rather than attempting to change the subject to something like gay marriage.

Can the President convince us that he has a coherent plan for Iraq and the team to implement it? Good question, and my reassurance on this point takes on a certain Zen quality. There are lots of ways to lose an election. If, for example, the economic recovery was still tepid, or if a right-wing third party candidate took away his support, or if the Democrats were nominating a charismatic spell-binder - i.e., if it were 1992 - then Bush might be poised for defeat even if he were delivering encouraging successes in the War on Terror. Those scenarios lead to unpleasant episodes of 'bitter-pill-swallowing'.

However (Sports Metaphor Alert!), the President's current situation takes me back to the seventh game of the 2001 World Series, which I know you remember as vividly as I do. Seventh game, ninth inning, the incomparable Mariano on the mound protecting a one-run lead for the Yankees... the Yankees lost, and I was over it in less than five minutes. When your best guy gets beaten, waddya gonna do?

Obviously, a Presidential election is a bit closer to reality than a baseball game. But the central focus of the election seems to be Iraq. If Bush loses because he cannot convince this country that he can see his historic gamble in Iraq through to victory, even though the Dems have an unappealing candidate and a third-party problem, well, maybe, just maybe, I have to trust the wisdom of the electorate.

But it's only May! ("Yes", said a discouraged Rep friend of mine in response to that bit of cheer, "except for changing the month I have been saying that since December"). Five months for Bush to show us he can make this work and deserves re-election. Bring 'em on!

Comments

[Cecil Turner]

Obviously, a Presidential election is a bit closer to reality than a baseball game.

Repent sinner! Repent, repent!

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Yeah, Cecil's right. I've never seen anyone talk their way out of a Randy Johnson slider

[Crank]

On the waiting-for-better-news front, I'm also reminded of Will Saletan's comparison of Kerry and Edwards:

"The good news for Edwards is that experience is easy to acquire. The bad news for Kerry is that caring and honesty aren't."

[WillieStyle]

the current news is bad for Bush, and Kerry is a deeply flawed candidate, but the news can change.

Not for nuthin' but maybe the news is bad for Bush because he is a deeply fl...

[gurgle]
[thud]

...strong and determined leader who will stay the course on the ship of acomplished missions; seeing us through to mroning in America again with honor.

[TM]

Willie, save some of that Kool-aid for me, please.

[SamAm]

Tom-

Fair enough post, and I really, really don't mean to put this on you alone, but did last night's speech really convince you, or something like that, or did it sound like the same (great, I'll tell you, it is great) rhetoric we've come to hear from Bush.

The news may say he's addressing important issues, but how much of that is spin? If we can't trust the press to give us the straight story on Iraq, can we trust the White House talking points to the media?

Isn't it ultimatly more important that the president come up with a coherent plan and less important that he convince us he has one.

I know policy merits are never, ever self-evident in today's environment, but still, as someone who's not going to vote for him, I will believe that the extent Bush has fallen in the polls stems from the fact that the "convincing" is more important in the administration's mind than "coherent."

[bob]

The american people by and large want Bush to win.They like him and want to vote for him so if iraq can just get marginally better or hopefully a lot better..i think Bush will be on his way but of course the press will be the usual whores they are

[TM]

... did last night's speech really convince you, or something like that, or did it sound like the same (great, I'll tell you, it is great) rhetoric we've come to hear from Bush.

The short answer is no. I think Bush needs to create an appearance of confidence and competence in order to rally a bit of public support, but I think reality will drive events. Yes, the perception of reality is important, and the press is in love with the "Iraq=quagmire" theme, but eventually, if we are making progress on the ground in Iraq, people will see it here, and Bush will win.

I happen to think that Bob is right, and that there is residual good-will for Bush. It is also true that roughly 75% of Americans supported this war at the outset, and that Americans like to believe we are both the good guys and a can-do, problem solving nation of high achievers. All of that plays to Bush, whose basic message will be, you were right to support this war, and if you continue to support it we,as Americans, can do graet things.

That is not an unappealing message. It may be unrealistic, but it is not one I would be in a hurry to campaign against, which is why I think that, if the news ever does turn, Kerry could be in serious trouble. Trouble that his pleasing personality cannot solve for him.

[sym]

"we,as Americans, can do graet things."
Oh, the jokes I could make if I was a little more anti-American...

[TM]

OK, pretty funny. You try typing the way Bush speaks some time.

[al]

Bob: Comparing the press to whores is unfair and
demeaning to the ladies of the evening.

[Brandon]

Thank you for reminding me of the 2001 Series. It was pleasant to close my eyes and see Luis Gonzales bloop that single in again for the winning run.

It is still May. hardly anyone is paying close attention right now.