There are no new jobs, people think the war is over because there were no new attacks (and when there's a new attack, Bush's incompetence is proven) and Bush doesn't have anything like a new set of goals for his next term. Even his ads get slaughtered for mentioning 9-11. He's toast, even against a mediocre challenger like Kerry.

Other than privatizing Social Security and Medicare, voucherizing public education, getting rid of the civil service, making us independent of foreign oil, restricting abortion, gay marriage, biotechnology, etc, democratizing the Middle East and removing Kim Jong Il, Castro, and Hugo Chavez, going to the Moon and Mars....you're right--he has no plans.

The problem is the press is doing a really poor job at making those plans clear, and the first wave of ads had absolutely no definiting, but instead was an attempt to take the "high road", no mention of how Bush responded to it, or how policies carry espoused caused, and he was rewarded for his manganimity by being slammed for mean spirited ads and using the tragedy for political gain. Three years of reaching out to liberals, it's gotten him nothing but smear after smear from the press and a knife wounds in the back from Kennedy and Daschle. If he doesn't wake up and start fighting soon, Bush (and the Country) is gonna lose.

Mark:

Issue ads are useless at this point in a campaign--no one is paying any attention. This is warm-fuzzy time--Morning in America...

Right.
Get the perceptions set early that Bush is a warm-fuzzy guy who'll keep us safe. Keep that theme up as a constant background, and the impression sinks in to those people (the 95% of the electorate) who aren't political junkies like us. They are not paying close attention, just listening with half-an-ear to pick up whether the background music is calm and soothing or harsh and edgy.

It's called "anchoring" and it's a very effective technique. By the time they do start paying close attention, most of them will be looking for a reason to vote *against* one or the other. And when they see Kerry they'll associate him with harsh, whereas they'll associate Bush with "morning in America".

A new terrorist attack in America isn't necessarily a negative for Bush.

It depends on how it occurs, and especially when it occurs. The closer to the election, the better for Bush, as voters rally to authority.

The Dems have been hitting on the Prez for the last few months with stuff like that in the first posting above. There no point in doing a point by point rebuttal against such a list at this time, not just because people aren't paying attention,but because things will change in the next six months, and what seems important now may be irrelevant then. Better to set the foundation for what the discussions will be about when they matter.

If anything, the manufactured outrage against "exploiting a national tragedy" will work in Bush's favor-- people will wonder what's going on, and look for themselves, and mostly conclude, "you mean, that's it?". And so become innoculated just a little more against all the outrage the Dems are going to try to gin up in the next eight months.

As for the next terrorist attack-- the key will be how organized is it. If this a series of synchronized bombings across the country, for example, that's bad for Bush, because that's the sort of thing Homeland Security is supposed to prevent. But if it's a single spectacular and novel attack, then the response will be what matters.

Make no mistake, I support Bush, but I'm afraid that he lost a lot of the panache he had in the first two years of his term. The way he acted upon his tax cut pledge (while the CW was that he would be humbled by the Florida mess and would keep very quiet, hoping that people would more or less forget about him), the way he dealt with the Taliban and Saddam and the way he campaigned hard for Republican candidates in '02 (while the CW was that the Reps would get beaten the living daylights out of them, taking a campaigning president with them): all of that was superb. Especially because he managed to get fast track authority on trade (something the supposed genius William J. Clinton couldn't get) and laws that laid the foundations for vouchers and the privatization of parts of social security (and that only Ted Kennedy and Hillary Rodham seem to have understood for what they really are : terrible defeats for the left).

But these achievements are also more than most two-term presidents have realized in 8 years. So maybe it's no wonder that Bush has lost focus and that people seem to be tired of him.

Back to the Original Post, i thought that was one of the worst articles ever. You could just feel the reporter grasping for straws to try to justify Kerry as anything other than a weathervane. My favorite came at the end of the article:

"Mr. Winer, the former aide, who worked with Mr. Kerry on terrorism and many other issues, described Mr. Kerry's complexity as right for the times.

'Between the moral clarity, black and white, good and evil of George Bush that distorts and gets reality wrong,' he said, 'and someone[Kerry] who quotes a French philosopher, André Gide, saying, `Don't try to understand me too much,' I'd let Americans decide which in the end is closer to what they need in a president, in a complex world where if you get it really wrong there are enormous consequences."

If Bush uses that in an ad, would Kerry claim it was a personal attack.

If a Republican ad quotes Andre Gide, I will be impressed.

And if they make it sound like Will Rogers, I will be more impressed.

Kerry has spend his life since 1970 not wanting to be defined. His problem is that, unlike Bill Clinton, he believes it is a virtue and wants to sit down and tell you why.