miller's crossing

Miller's Crossing.

Two thoughts before bed. One, from all accounts, it looks like Zell and Dick poured the negative juice a wee bit heavy tonight. A bit shrill for the undecideds tuning in. My theory, the smeariness works on tv commercials, but not in convention speeches. We'll see what the media does with this Thursday; but, for tonight, I need to visit picturesofnicethings.com to get the snears of Cheney and snarls of Miller out of my mind's eyes before falling asleep.

Two. I got to thinking: I came closest to liking Bush during his interview with Matt Lauer, where the President said "I doubt you can win [the war on teror].

I've heard from native Texans that Bush didn't talk in jingoistic dummy-hoods when he was Gov. Rather, his language conveyed thoughtfulness, maybe introspection. I've always known he sees complexity beyond the rhetoric. And really, I think his remarks on the morning show interview were a glimpse at the Bush I could have liked. We can't "win" the war; rather, we must work to diminish to the extent possible terror's effect and propensity (not his words, but close). By 'could have liked,' I mean respected. Policy disagreements would remain.

But Bush's within-24-hour retreat from a thoughtful remark, spurred by the Kerry campaign's pounce, brings us back to the Presidential Bush; ie, simpleton.

Political campaigns always rely on jingo and stupid simplicity. Certain candidates, however, really work to overcome the hurdles of pop-voting--to wit, the sloganering shows some attempt at capsulating nuggets of thoughtful policy. In my mind, Edwards is best at this, Kerry's alright, and Bush (or his handlers) could give a damn. And what's funny: the GOP Convention (and some readers of OR) hold the opposite view. Ain't that a dandy.

In any event, this Times editorial says point two in more suave language. Give a read.