Junto Boys

PEGGY SUMS IT UP

If Peggy Noonan is still writing Bush's speeches, she needs to stop. Poetic language sounds contrived and forced coming out of Bush's mouth. It is not the way he naturally talks, and when he makes a speech, it sounds like he's reading words rather than speaking from his convictions, and it is when he speaks from his convictions in plain language that he connects with people who agree with him that these are demanding times that require resolve and sacrifice.

But Noonan says today what I was trying to say yesterday. All the Dems have in their bag is "we hate Bush" and they are hoping 51 percent of the electorate does too. It has long been said that all politics is local. This year all politics is national. But by focusing all their attention on Bush, they are handing over the keys to their own bus, and possibly misunderestimating him again. Has anyone noticed the shrinking number of seats that remain in play?

I think that Americans have pretty much stopped listening to him. One reason is that you don't have to listen to get a sense of what's going on. He does not appear to rethink things based on new data. You don't have to tune in to see how he's shifting emphasis to address a trend, or tacking to accommodate new winds. For him there is no new data, only determination. He repeats old arguments because he believes they are right, because he has no choice--in for a penny, in for a pound--and because his people believe in the dogma of the magic of repetition.

Pundits and historians call Mr. Bush polarizing--and he is, but in some unusual ways. For one thing, he's not trying to polarize. He is not saying, "My team is for less government, your team is for more--my team, stand with me!" Mr. Bush has muddied what his team stands for. He has made it all come down to him--not to philosophy but to him and his certitudes.

What is polarizing about him is the response he elicits from Americans just by being himself. They have deep questions about him, even as he is vivid to them. And yet: You know he means it when he says he is trying to protect America. You know his heart is in it. You know he means it when he says there are bad guys and we will stop them. And that has meaning.

With all this polarity, this drama, this added layer Mr. Bush brings to a nation already worn by the daily demands of modern individual life, the political alternative, the Democrats, should roar in six weeks from now, right? And return us to normalcy?

Well, that's not what I sense.

I feel the Democrats this year are making a mistake. They think it will be a cakewalk. A war going badly, immigration, high spending, a combination of sentimentality and dimness in foreign affairs, and conservative writers hopping mad and hoping to lose the House.

The Democrats' mistake--ironically, in a year all about Mr. Bush--is obsessing on Mr. Bush. They've been sucker-punched by their own animosity. "The Democrats now are incapable of answering a question on policy without mentioning Bush six times," says pollster Kellyanne Conway. " 'What is your vision on Iraq?' 'Bush lied us into war.' 'Health care? 'Bush hasn't a clue.' They're so obsessed with Bush it impedes them from crafting and communicating a vision all their own." They heighten Bush by hating him.

One of the oldest clichés in politics is, "You can't beat something with nothing." It's a cliché because it's true. You have to have belief, and a program. You have to look away from the big foe and focus instead on the world and philosophy and programs you imagine.

Mr. Bush's White House loves what the Democrats are doing. They want the focus on him. That's why he's out there talking, saying Look at me. Because familiarity doesn't only breed contempt, it can breed content. Because if you're going to turn away from him, you'd better be turning toward a plan, and the Democrats don't appear to have one.

Which leaves them unlikely to win leadership. And unworthy of it, too.

That's it exactly. The Democrats stand for nothing other than ABB and the usual disingenuous subplots of tax cuts for the rich, protecting the little guy, make love not war, etc. I heard Neil Cavuto interviewing Charlie Rangol last night and he couldn't get Rangol to answer where he or his party stood on any issue. Rangol's answer to any question about anything was "Bush lied into Iraq," "There is no connection between Iraq and the war on terror," and all the usual blather. He is a cardboard cutout, and so are all his colleagues. At least there is honest division within the Republican camp. There is some humanity and integrity in that.

Sure the people may want change, but change to what? As a voter I have not yet been presented with an alternative and I'm not sure whether to expect one.

Bush says "stay the course" and portrays his opponents as the "cut and run" crowd. He keeps it simple and presents a choice between one thing and another. All the Democrats have offered is a choice between something and nothing, and nothing is only motivating if the something is sufficiently painful to enough voters in the right places. I wonder if the constant and relentless ABB barrage has numbed Americans to the point where they are no longer animated about it. I know in my office everyone still hates Bush but now they speak of it rarely, and I wonder if the lack of fire will cool the Democratic gains that everyone but me has been expecting and fearing.

I think Republicans are going to do just fine in 2006 and in 2008 as well.