The Audacity of Hanks

 

We have two lovely people living in our small town who are not just well connected, politically, to both state and national Democrats: They are Democratic power in these parts. On their living room and study  walls are photos of one or the other of them standing next to, sometimes touching sometimes just smiling alongside every big time Democrat you can name who has ever made it to New Hampshire in the last 40 years, and most of them have passed through New Hampshire, because, you know, the New Hampshire primary, we once had here.

A couple of days after the debacle debate, I found myself riding my bicycle on a route which took me near their house--I'm not sure it was an accident I took that route, or fate or magnetic pull-- and there they were out working in their yard.  

Mrs. Democrat waved at me and called out my name with a question mark--I was wearing my helmet, protective riding glasses--and I waved and said to her: "Well, I think we saw the real final episode of West Wing the other night. The one written years after the TV show ended."

She had no idea what I was talking about. She is an ardent fan of "West Wing" and can recite Aaron Sorkin lines at will, as if it were Shakespeare or the Rocky Horror Picture show. 

"I mean, you know. The President has this debilitating disease but his wife and others in the White House are covering it up, but in this case, they can't hide it because it becomes so visible during the debate."

"Oh, that," she said. "Well, one bad night. Presidencies aren't really about debates. And very few people watched it. The lowest viewership of any debate ever."

Oh, I thought, I had just heard these lines from Christine Pelosi on the podcast plugged into my right ear I had been listening to riding over here.

"But everyone on social media will be seeing the most dismal clips. It's all gone viral," I told her.

"Well, it's too late now," she said. "The nomination is settled."

"But nobody knew who the nominee was going to be when JFK went to the convention and he won."

"There's no one else, even if the President decided to throw in the towel."

"Tom Hanks," I said. 

Both she and her husband spontaneously laughed. 

"Oh, how could I have forgotten Tom Hanks?" she said.

They thought, of course, I was joking.

But I was not joking.

Because:

1. Joe Biden's performance was not just one bad night. It was the culmination of suspicions he's in decline and the many clips showing his debate in 2020 to the 2024 debate showed a different man. The debate was supposed to show the real Joe Biden--the State of the Union Joe Biden and what we got was a frozen, incoherent Joe Biden, who, as Trump said, "I don't think I know what he's talking about. I don't think he knows either."

2. We cannot beat Mr. Trump, who is now on his victory tour, with any standard politician. 

One of the things I hear every day up here in small town New England is politicians are all corrupt, in it for themselves, making themselves millionaires by trading on inside information. Donald Trump won on that theme. He is so rich, he is incorruptible. And he was not from the Washington set. Trump got voted in for not being part of the ruling class, for not having worked his way up, for not being entitled or anointed.

That was part of Obama's appeal as well, at least to some segment of voters. 

Trump was famous for years before he ran for President, having had no political or governmental experience.

So is it really so audacious to recommend someone who has held no prior political office?

Is it not possible that someone with a clean slate is better situated to run for President now than someone from inside Washington?

Is suggesting that the most famous, trusted, beloved man in the country, namely Tom Hanks, more audacious than suggesting we nominate a man whose middle name is Hussein and who looks Black and who held office only one term before being nominated for President?

The problem the Democrats have is the powers that be are powers because they have done things the safe, expected way. Can we expect Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, even Bernie Sanders to set aside their own rigidities or ambitions to get behind an entertainment hero? Are elected officials, Washington insiders even capable of thinking straight on this one? 

If I had the entire Democratic caucus sitting in front of me in some room in the Capitol and gave my 30 second pitch on why it was better to nominate the guy who saved Private Ryan to save our country, would they not react the same way my Democratic stalwart fans of West Wing reacted: With a dismissive laugh?

When Amy Klobuchar visited New Hampshire running in the primary for the Democratic nomination Biden eventually won, I asked her how she intended to run against a candidate of charisma (Trump) as she tried to be a candidate of policies. She was stunned. Clearly, in all the events she had done, nobody had ever asked her that question. She knew all the questions, having done innumerable events like this one. She stopped, thought a minute and then said brightly, "Well, I think I have plenty of charisma!"

Not a bad try, but, unfortunately not true enough.

None of the Democrats in power seem to have thought about this question in all the years since Amy struggled with it in 2020. 

And now, once again, I'm posing a proposition which none of them have given any thought to: What about going for pure charisma against Trump? The most respected, beloved American we've got.

But who ever heard of a Hollywood actor running for President anyway?

And don't tell me about being the Governor of California. That's not an advantage running for President. Just ask Gavin Newsom.

P.S.

You know Mr. Trump's nickname for Mr. Hanks will be "President Gump." And you know Trump would be scared to death of standing on the same stage as Mr. Hanks.

I'd bet biggly on Gump beating Trump.