When Bush and Bertie took that walk around Dromoland, did they by any chance discuss the perils of misunderestimating them? Bush's verbal gaffes are legendary, writes Breda O'Brien
He was at it again this week, telling top Pentagon officials: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Our Bertie has mangled a fair bit of the English language in his time, though his preference seems to be for idioms.
Frank McNally of this parish once got an entire column out of Bertie's innovative use of "two hells" , as in the opposition not caring "two hells" about the disadvantaged.
Do such things matter? Well, it depends on where you stand on the language-mangler. For the many Bush-haters, it is evidence of his idiocy. For those who like him, it is endearing evidence that he is just a "regular guy".
It is a hard concept for people this side of the Atlantic to come to terms with, but a lot of the American public like George W. Bush. Liberals have driven themselves into frenzies trying to figure out why Bush is so popular with blue-collar workers, the ones who arguably have been most damaged by his blatant favouring of the rich when it comes to tax cuts.
Blue-collar jobs are under threat. The public schools their kids attend are being crippled by underfunding. Friends, sons and daughters arrive home in body bags from Iraq. How could they still think America is safer in Bush's hands than in Kerry's? But many do.
Kerry's Democratic convention speech provides a clue. Kerry's main attraction for Democrats is that he is electable, and he is not Bush. Just as Republicans had a visceral hatred of Bill Clinton, many Democrats believe that Bush is a home-grown axis of evil.
So what does Kerry do for that all-important speech? He starts stealing Bush's ideological clothes, while all the time condemning him. So the man trading on his anti-war veteran past demands a strong and well-funded military and does everything possible to reassure the American public that he will not be a foreign policy wimp.
One can just imagine Vincent Browne let loose on Kerry, with a variant on one of his favourite questions for Irish politicians: "What makes you any different to the opposition? What difference is there between you and George Bush?"
Should Kerry survive that, a likely follow-up might be: "Is there as much difference between you and George Bush as there is between you and yourself?"
George W. exploits this vacillatory aspect of John Kerry, his seeming inability to give a straight answer to a straight question, by amiably suggesting: "If you find you don't agree with Senator Kerry, maybe you just got him on the wrong day".
Early in the campaign Kerry declared that he had thrown away his medals earned in Vietnam, in protest against the futility of the war. Then he said he had only thrown his ribbons. Then he said he had thrown some medals that a veteran unable to attend the protest had entrusted to him. Kerry said that he didn't think it was right to throw away his medals, but he still threw some anonymous veteran's medals away? What kind of complicated moral reasoning is that?
It seems to be the case with many important issues. Kerry voted in favour of the war, then voted against further funding for it, and now wants a strong, well-financed military. The charitable explanation is that, as commander-in-chief, he would not have to worry about what Bush would do with the increased capacity. A less charitable explanation is that Kerry tailors his message to his audience, a tendency which Bush's team gleefully characterises as flip-flopping.
Not that the President hasn't done some notable flip-flopping. The man elected as the "education President" has seen the public education system severely affected by cutbacks, and many third-level institutions forced to drop courses. He campaigned on the fact that he did not think America should be involved in nation-building, and it has become America's favourite, if not terribly successful, pastime.
Bush should be destroyed in the polls by now. Kerry should have a clear lead. Fahrenheit 9/11, which skilfully mixes documentary-style film-making with ranting polemics, is packing cinemas. Described as The Passion of the Christ for the left, Bush critics point at it and yell: "There you go! Evidence that he really is as awful as we have been saying!"
But just as The Passion of the Christ left unbelievers unmoved, if you don't buy the underlying thesis, no smug, self-satisfied conspiracy theorist like Moore is going to persuade you. In fact, if you are interested in rational discussion, Moore's film is so blatantly biased that it actually damages the very real case to be made against Bush's policies.
The fact that Bush and Kerry are just about level-pegging should worry Democrats, given non-existent weapons of mass destruction and budget deficits.
Bush has one thing in his favour. You may like or loathe his policies, or even cringe at some and approve of others, but you know what he stands for. Kerry, on the other hand, is seen as slippery. For example, he uses the anti-abortion slogan that life begins at conception, but remains pro-choice. He seems unable to answer whether he takes sugar in his coffee or not without at least a paragraph of explanation and qualifications.
Despite his equivocation, commentators seem more perturbed by Kerry's woodenness and lack of charisma, which is a far less reprehensible failing. TV demands that everyone be able to project effortless charm, not always the most reliable indicator of personal worth. John Edwards has charisma aplenty, and it is a scary sight.
Kerry has come from behind to win many elections. However, given that he has blanket approval from 98 per cent of Hollywood, and the support of some of the most influential media organs in the country, he should be farther ahead than he is. Americans have an unenviable choice. A choice between two hells, perhaps?