Noonan on Kerry, Wythe on Bush
I've given up on Peggy Noonan for the most part ... ever since she violated her own credo of not falling in love with politicians and went on to treat Ronald Reagan like a saint. Still, her writing is among the best among political hacks (in terms of style, usage, grammar, etc ...). This article, however, warrants exception from any Noonan-avoidance issues, however.
It's a mistake to make too much of chance conversations with likely voters, especially ones who are a little older than the average. But our conversation suggested a few things to me. One is that it could be a surprising year. That's always true of course, but one does have the sense no one has a lock on almost any group in this cycle. Everything feels fluid.If I were George W. Bush I might be thinking that down the road but not too far down, it might be a good idea to start making clear two things. One, why I am indispensable--a delicate thing to communicate, but something re-elected incumbents always have to get across sooner or later. "I am leading us in the right direction and my work is just begun." And the other is to make the case that a Kerry presidency would not be a lunge toward greater stability, that it would not be a "return to normalcy," that Mr. Kerry wouldn't right things but make them worse, bringing more trouble.
A one-two punch: If you stand with me, I'll get the peace and prosperity we seek; and if you go for him it will make the world less safe and the country less healthy.
While Noonan makes good use of a single offhand conversation (something she does with a bit of frequency, I might add), there's some good and bad in her analysis. The good is that I think she's dead-on with the big picture for the outcome. This is shaping up to be a rather exciting finish, whether each of us likes the outcome or another. For all the talk of a 50-50 nation, the polling suggests that the fluidity that Noonan detects is certainly there. Aside from the admittedly low numbers of "undecideds" there seems to still be an ever-present sign of movable voters who could well impact the finish. The difference between now and then (whenever you choose to point to a "then") is that the movement seems to be coming out of the other candidate's hide, whichever way it moves. That may not be measurably true, but given the closeness, it may as well be.
The thing Noonan gets wrong is that apparently her Reagan fixation is clouding her judgement. In order for Bush to pull ahead, he should not convince voters that he is "indispensable." However, as a member of the other team, I'd love to see him try. Nothing better than to whoop up on someone who thinks they're indispensable. Reason? NOBODY IS. Its all too easy to retort back that the greatness of this country rests with "We, the people" rather than with "I, the President." Even Reagan would have told Noonan this ... were that possible. For Bush to pull ahead, he's got to convince voters that everything we've collectively followed him on: tax cuts & Iraq being issues #1 & 2, that it was the best way to go. Its not an easy sell, obviously. Timing on such things as job growth and signs of Democracy in Iraq are beyond the control of the campaign. But welcome to the world of being the incumbant. You've got to show that you've delivered some benefit. And I suspect that if Bush can convince us to look beyond (or not care much about) the deficits and signs of instability in Iraq, then he'll hang on.