The ponts on Bush’s chances are well taken, with the possible exception of charm. I appreciate Bush’s clarity on terrorism, the war against nihilist fanatics and Sadam Hussein. Still, I react to Bush’s smirky confidence in much the same way we’d react to taking a piece of aluminum foil, placing it atop a filling and biting down hard.
I think I’m alone here. Bush’s gratuitous use of the word “freedom” is as inept as his attempts to keep on message. They are an insult to even modest intelligence or education. If Bush is really the man many say he is, why do the words of Tony Blair -- a cricket-playing, pencil-necked, post-socialist, Euro-weenie -- seem like those of Winston Churchill next to Bush’s unscrpted banalities. One suspects that many of the fine addresses, written for Bush by David Frum and his speech-writing successors, credit the President with resources of compassion, knowledge, analysis and thought that he does not, in fact, posess. If that’s charm, the spell may wear off.
It’s not just a matter of style, but of substance. A man who tries to be so relentlessly on message, may have none of his own, or if he does, may find it hard to change direction when the message is no longer valid.
Bush’s man-of-the-people stance also rings false. The back-slapping, bar-b-queing,, wood-chopping raport may be real, but it doesn‘t come from a place most Americans have every been. The more people realize that, the harder it will be to forget the Kenny-Boys and Cheneys, the Enrons and the Halliburtons who helped pay for the party. The polo set rides ponies not Tenessee studs. A guy who takes private planes to hunt quail, or troll for bonefish may be a decent fellow, but he’s hardly a good ’ol boy. In Abilene and Amarillo there are plenty like George Jr. Their dads and granddads may have been been pistol-totin’, Indian-fighting, wildcatters -- or tax avoiding New England Brahamins -- but despite the snake-skin boots, shotguns and cowboy hats, the Juniors and Sonny Boy IIIs are really just remittance kids with Ivy League educations, trust funds and daddy’s contacts to get them started.
There’s nothing wrong with privledge unless you abuse it or pretend you don’t have it. Noblesse oblige, is fine, noblesse forget is foul. The Bubbas and Juanitos on the wrong side of the tracks like Bush’s tough talk on terror. They may even have a beer with him. But the tax-breaks, the weak economy, and laws helping the FBI peer into their lives, may give Bush trouble with the pueblo.
That doesn’t mean that Kerry has it easy. Bush is vulnerable. Vulnerable on taxes and deficits, vulnerable on weapons of mass destruction (however irrelevant their existence in Iraq is to the wider war on terror), vulnerable on Enron and Cheney, vulnerable in his pandering to the religious right while trying to appeal to “soccer moms”, vulnerable on civil liberties, and even vulnerable on terror. (And he should be vulnerable on his pandering to the steel lobby, on tariffs and quotas, and Mexican immigration, but Karl Rove is as smart as he is immoral here.)
Kerry’s charm may not go far, but his lack of it is at least honest. He’s what George Bush would have been if he didn’t try to hide his heritage and Ivy League education behind academic lazyness, keggers and a Stetson hat. Kerry though has a much more dangerous vulnerablity. Bush has shown more willingness to attack Kerry more than Kerry has shown willingness to attack Bush. Perhaps it’s time for Kerry to stop talking about Vietnam and apply some of the lessons he learned there. Turn the boat around, go back and attack head on. The U.S. needs a new president. Kerry hasn’t shown he’s up to the job yet.

I'm sure Bush has turned off a lot of people. But the things you bring up have not had an effect on me, and as a Canadian I'm supposed to be more sensitive to this kind of stuff. I'm extremely cynical about politicians, but after almost four years of listening to Bush, I still like the guy. When I had TV I'd watch him live at press conferences and be impressed by his knowledge, wit, and ability to think on his feet. I've been disappointed with some of his pronouncements on gay marriage and his social conservatism, but not anywhere enough to even think about consider voting against him (not that I get to vote).

I think Bush is vulnerable too -- to the right candidate. Kerry isn't that guy, and has zero chance of morphing into him before the election. Dick Morris has a good column out saying it'll be a Bush blowout in November, and I have to agree.