Bush is a long way from home. The Democrats are not resting a moment-- not a minute-- in desperate scheming to undermine the election. And they might do it. Watch out. The slightest sign of a comeback and you can bet the headlines from New York to Chicago to L.A. will be blaring, in wartime sized type, "GORE CLOSES!", or, nightmare, "GORE TIES!!", or whatever.
ABC is going to give an _hour_, yes, one solid hour of prime time television, to Barbara Streisand the Friday before the election for her to explain why she so desperately wants Gore to win the election. It's incredible, I know. No pretense anymore of anything less than all out campaigning for Gore. But so what? What will they have to lose? I'm not kidding about the content, for anyone who hasn't heard about this. Babs made ABC "agree" to this as a "condition" of her doing the interview. This is going to happen.
I don't say these things to inspire hopelessness, nor do I mean to say something merely perverse. I just point out that the Democrats have advantages that Republicans just don't have, and they're going to use _all_ of them in the next two weeks. So, be ready.
For those of you who are working in swing states, don't let up. Anyone who hasn't kicked a few bucks to the GOP national fund, now's the time. And of course our friends at the NRA can always use a few more dollars to campaign in PA, WI, and MI.
(In case _anyone_ has any more doubt about the NRA, wake up and join the living. The NRA has lifted Bush noticeably in PA and MI in particular, crucial states with lots of gunowners. Even Gore was falling all over himself in the debates to sound as much like Bush on guns as he could. There are only three reasons for this: N, R, and A. HCI has said it's "angry" with Gore for dropping guns like a hot rock. And it's all because Gore understands he's like a fleeing deer in Heston's sights-- the NRA is gunning for him in those states like it's never gunned for anyone in my life. This will _never_ be reported widely, but everyone in the DNC knows Gore is hurting on guns in those states and everyone in the GOP knows it too. If Bush carries those states the statists will be feeling a good, hard blow for long time. They'll be reeling, and in awe, of NRA for a while to come. This is it. This year is why there's an NRA, and why it sure as hell matters that it be supported. If you've ever wondered why, now you know.)
Do not get complacent. Two weeks is _forever_. It's _ages_. Think about two weeks _ago_ compared to now. I hate to think about it, but it's true!
Still, on the side of confidence-inspiring, the Democrats seem in trouble not just because of the polls. Their columnists and pundits are fresh out of ideas. They have nothing. They don't know what to say, what to suggest, what to do, except the instinctive, unthinking, almost irrational response: Send Bill! Help!
That is a good sign. If there were good advice coming from any of them, that would be more of a concern. When Bush was faltering in August and September, you may remember, Republicans were bugged. But they had good ideas. How often did they scream that Bush should attack Gore as a liberal, as Gore invited at the Dem convention? That was not just griping; that was a good idea.
The Democrats don't have one now, at least not one that I've heard. Win or lose, this has been funny to see. Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the Democrats still don't _understand_ why they're behind now? Odd or not, they clearly don't. There's little helpful or useful coming from them now. What I hear, from guys like Shields and every idiot at the NY Times, is just this inane repetition of things like, "Clinton's the greatest retail politician of our era", "Even Reagan couldn't do it like Clinton", etc. This to me is hilarious. It just speaks volumes about how _empty_ their tanks are now. These remarks are supposed to be in service of the idea that Gore should have Clinton campaign for him now. I don't know that I think it's so clear he should, but leave that aside. The fact is that all of this talk about Clinton is not really advice, per se. It is already a reminiscence for the time when Clinton was untouchable. Already it seems a long time ago to them. They don't know _why_ things are different now, in summer of 2000. All they know now, all they have left after every stupid thing they said about Gore's "advantages" on the issues has turned out to be wrong, is that it used to be different. It used to be otherwise. When it was, Bill was in the center of things. Now that he's not, things are different. So, they say, bring back Bill! Not that they have any idea what, exactly, Clinton will do. Not that they have much idea of any of _how_, exactly, Clinton will help Gore. All they have really have left is this instinctive reach for him in a desperate lunge to recapture the lead.
If Gore loses, and it's still a big if now, it will be because the Democrats didn't take Bush's conservatism seriously, especially the economic conservatism. They treated it, and Bush, like a joke. Now, no one's laughing. If Gore wins, it will be because he managed in the last two weeks to ditch the class warfare, scare Grandma stuff and reclaim the responsible steward of the economy mantle. Rather than complaining about the "top ONE per--ssssent" and the _structure_ of Bush's tax cut, Gore will have complained about the _size_ of the tax cut. Gore will say _less_ about what specific bribes he will pay to particular voters-- all of this just sounds dishonest-- and say more about the debt, and staying the course. Gore should introduce some new family intiative, too, something to remind people of a genuine strength of his: he's a solid, loving family guy. Good husband, good father. Any use that might have been to him has been lost with all of his flagrant fundraising in Hollywood.
Will he do any of this? I doubt it. But he should.
Can I just say something else? If there were a single, honest columnist with half a brain anywhere outside of the National Review, he or she would be running a column now about Bush's campaign of _ideas_. What no one will say, because most of the people in the media are arrogant jackasses, is that Bush's campaign has been a brilliant and bold one of _ideas_. _That_ is why he's ahead. Bush has proposed not just a shockingly large tax cut, but the _privatization_ of social security! And at the center of his campaign! This would have been thought suicide even two years ago, even a year ago, particularly after the problems the Republicans had with Medicare in 1996. But it's worked-- he's got the public's attention. Bush is what he advertises, at least on these issues: a reformer. His personality, engaging, likeable, complements his platform. He inspires calm, comfort, and good humor where a more aggressive, strident personality campaigning on these issues would inspire nervousness and unease. So good has this combination been that every stupid hack in the country has been focusing on Bush's (admittedly embarrassing) tendency to mispronounce, his ignorance of foreign affairs, and his "likeability", and all the while his almost radical platform gets no attention at all.
That's why Bush is ahead. He's proposing what people know instinctively is needed: some reform on these bloated entitlements, but manages to inspire confidence about it. He's so good at it that most of the idiots in the press don't even realize that that's what he's done. They don't even _notice_ the platform now.
Hopefully, they will start noticing. Around November 8.
But that's still a _long_ way away! Do NOT forget that!
