August 6, 2004

THE LOVE THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME--BUSHOPHILIA:

The Right Rev. George W. Bush: Among the worshippers at the president's traveling revival show. (Chris Suellentrop, Aug. 5, 2004, Slate)

"I feel like a talk-show host," President Bush says midway through Thursday's first campaign event. He's standing next to a stool and a lectern, and he paces in circles to address the audience seated on all sides around him. Even from a distance, I can see why Bush charmed the press corps during his 2000 campaign. He's likable, winning, and self-deprecating. He's also quick on his feet, not with an instant recall of statistics but with snappy retorts that break up the room. This event was billed as an "Ask President Bush" forum, and although there didn't turn out to be much time for questions, from the outset the intimate setting made it more interactive than a typical presidential visit.

The president didn't get it quite right when he called himself a talk-show host. He opens more in the vein of a revival-tent preacher, albeit a subdued one, and he concludes as a standup comic. "I think you have to ask for the vote," Bush says near the beginning, as he always does. "You got it!" yells someone, the first of many call-and-response moments. Then Bush segues into something that sounds more like a sermon than a stump speech.

"All of you are soldiers in the army of compassion," the clergyman-in-chief tells the crowd. "And one of the reasons I'm seeking the office for four more years is to call upon our citizens to love your neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself." After his usual endorsement of the Golden Rule, Bush speaks of souls, which also isn't unusual for him: "We can change America one soul at a time by encouraging people to spread something government cannot spread, which is love." [...]

After last week's Democratic convention, I felt that John Kerry had become the favorite in the presidential race. Now, after only two days with President Bush, I'm not so sure. He's that good. Unlike many people, I'm not threatened by the president's religious rhetoric. It must be the Midwestern Catholic in me. Like the people in the audience, I find it familiar and comforting. I can see why so many people believe the president is "one of us," no matter how rich or how elite his background. And I can see that Kerry will have a tough time besting Bush in all three debates.


any.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 6, 2004 2:45 PM
Comments

Any of the debates? Maybe, maybe not. I think Bush would do a great service to the country if he would refuse to debate. I hate those things. I'm always afraid my man will fall flat on his face. (unless Bush can hire a great comic writer, since usually the winner of the "debate" is the one who has the snappiest retort)

Bush should demand (just to show his sense of fair play) that Nader be allowed in the debate.

Posted by: h-man at August 6, 2004 3:09 PM

"I can see why so many people believe the president is "one of us," no matter how rich or how elite his background."

Given that the President is the, ahem, poorest of the four national candidates, the Dems really can't capitalize on this too much.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 6, 2004 3:15 PM

H-man I agree with you if Nader is on the ballot in all States. Debates are tricky. Some of us old timers remember the Kennedy/Nixon debate. Nixon looked like he was coming off (or still on) a three day binge so he didn't fare too well.

Posted by: Tom Wall at August 6, 2004 3:29 PM

They aren't debates in the true sense of the term. They are joint appearances.

What I would like to see is a three hour time period where there are no audience questions, panel, or moderator. Not even a bathroom break/intermission. Just the two (or three or four) of them going at each other, asking each other questions, interrupting, or laughing at, or shouting down the others. In general, trying to make the other guy(s) look foolish without returning the favor. Now that's entertainment!

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 6, 2004 4:27 PM

The third debate -- the one with the audience questions -- will be the most interesting in terms of unknown factors. That was really the debate that did in Bush 41 back in 1992, while four years ago, the pro-Gore questioners were almost as sneering toward Bush as the Democratic nominess himself that it didn't do their own cause any good. Given the way the Democrats have acted towoards Bush over the past 18 months, an even more intense version of that type of attitude by those opposing him at this year's debate will be really bad news for Kerry.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2004 8:10 PM

I have heard excerpts from the contenders speeches on National People's Radio.

Maybe it's just I, but the President's speeches are over cheers and applause.

Kerry's are over funereal silence.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at August 6, 2004 9:44 PM
« ALL TRADE, ALL THE TIME: | Main | DON'T FOLKS EVER GET TIRED OF BEING WRONG ABOUT THE SHI'ITES?: »