Orrin, you're way too optimistic. The president is on the run, his administration is in disarray. If the Dems shoot his 87 billion USD request down (which they can do, because there will always be plenty of frightened Republicans in Congress to help them do it), he'll have to abort the mission in Iraq. Then they'll blame the ensuing violence on Bush and trounce him in the coming election.

Or they'll grant the billions, but extort new taxes from Bush, for which he'll take the blame from his own voters, just like his father did.

The moment Bush had to go back to Congress, all was lost.

Peter:

That's hysterical. Even if Congress voted down the money the administration would just spend it anway and tell Congress to bring the troops home if it can. And a Democrat tax hike that he can veto is a regular feature of Karl Rove's dreams.

No it's not hysterical, it's Anglo-American history teaching that very lesson since times immemorial. The moment the King (or in the American case, the President) has to go back to the Commons (Congress) to beg for money, he's in for a severe beating.

Even a French king (Louis XVI) learned that lesson the hard way.

Bush has said repeatedly that the biggest lesson he learned from his father's presidency was that breaking the no new taxes pledge killed him. For Bush to support higher taxes then would kill his presidency and he knows it. Bush could say Congress must set priorities but then the Dems will scream about roads being paved in Baghdad instead of Boston. We'll have to see what happens.

W could always apply the Nam scenario, we stopped funding it fell, we lost. Why do those oppose spending the money want the same to happen now? What's their agenda?

There's a lesson there.

Is the Democrats tendancy for tardiness anything like Bush/Rove's? You know: stonewalling, then eventually embracing the 9-11 Commission (some of us are still waiting for bits of that one); ignoring a call for, but ultimately creating a Department of Homeland Security; or finally, finally coming clean about Saddam Hussein's non-ties to Al-Qaida?

If the opposition party and the press are a bit behind in publically admitting that the [boy] emperor has no clothes, well, better late than never.

Jimmy:

Those are perfect examples. If you wait long enough the problem goes away on its own and then you pretend to respond. You get credit without actually doing anything.

Jimmy;

I got your "no links" right here. You might also enjoy this article in the NY Times about a grand jury indicting bin Laden and claims he had ties to Iraq from 1998.

The real analogy is 1972. Vietnam was a far more costly and divisive war than Iraq ever was or will be. But by November, 1972 the war had become almost irrelevant. Nixon had made sure that American casualties had fallen to a very low level. His incompetent opponent couldn't see that most Americans didn't care that much about the war, anymore. As usual, they were going to vote their pocketbooks.

Nixon won huge because the average unemployment rate in 1972 was 5.6% and the average inflation rate was 3.2%.

Do these numbers sound familiar? They're very close to today's unemployment and inflation rates. Next year unemployment will probably be lower and inflation may have ticked up a little. As Yogi would say, it will seem like deja vu 1972 (can't resist cheap rhyme) all over again...especially because Iraq will have become even more irrelevant than Vietnam in 1972.

I don't know if Bush will win by 23 points, as Nixon did. Complete incompetents like McGovern don't come along too often. But he'll win.

AOG--My bad, I meant non-linked to 9-11, as Bush, Rice, Rummy all finally, finally admitted last week. Unless they all lied. They wouldn't do that would they? And what about this buck-naked [boy] emperor, eh? What should we do about him? Can't let him stray from the teleprompter. He might admit that he doesn't read the papers, but is briefed by helpers who "probably" do (how Churchillian! I hope that evil Wesley Clark doesn't read the papers himself). Or say something grossly unwise, like "Bring 'em on" in an attempt to sound bold and brash. Or utter the patently absurd, like "we found WMDs," or "he wouldn't allow inspectors." This is truly a dilemma.

Casey--How often do complete incompetents like Bush come along (check his resume)? And coupled with a true genius like Rove? I'm gonna say about once a century--the parallels to Czar Nicholas II and Rasputin are so numerous its spooky. Heck, in addition to similar economic policy (Nick also endorsed tax-cuts for the ultra-wealthy and disliked the idea of overtime pay), I'll bet Bush writes his "R's" backwards too.

Anyone still think Nixon was the one? Wait, don't answer that.

Jimmy:

Good thinking. Keep relying on those analogies with Rasputin. They're EXTREMELY relevant to modern-day American politics. Have you applied for work at the DNC? Be sure to mention Czar Nicholas on the application.

Back in what resembles the real world, Bush actually approaches the 2002 election in a much stronger position than Nixon did in 1972. The Republicans were still a weak, minority party as Nixon sought re-election. The country was only eight years removed from the enormous Democratic presidential and Congressional landslide of 1964.

The Dems controlled both houses of Congress with solid majorities...as Nixon would find out to his chagrin in 1974. Pollsters like the Harris organization found that the Dems held a 15-20 point edge in party identification among voters compared to the Repubs.

Now that gap has closed almost entirely. The Repubs hold Congress, albeit by slim majorities. What's happened is that party identification has gradually come into line with ideological identification over the past thirty years. Conservatives have always outnumbered liberals substantially over these three decades. The Republicans have reaped the rewards.

So with economic conditions very similar to 1972, Bush is set to enjoy what every incumbent running for re-election since World War II with a misery index under ten has enjoyed...a comfortable victory. No, I don't think the Dem nominee next year will be as hopelessly incompetent as McGovern. At least the Veep selection will get investigated properly. My guess is that Bush will win by 8-10 points, pretty much what Clinton did in 1996 with similar economic numbers.

Oops, meant to say that Bush approaches the 2004 election in a much stronger position than Nixon in 1972. Not that Bush did that bad in the 2002 election. That decades-old trend towards the Repubs paid off nicely for him last year.

What was wrong with Nicholas II?

Well, maybe he should have called himself Nicholas Jr.

Might have appealed to the Joe Six-Vodka voter a little more.

Come to think of it, maybe "Nick" would have been better. Or just "Nicky". That's it. Nicky Romanov, your man in the Winter Palace...er, Camp Winter.

He could have called his evening fundraisers "Nick At Nite."

Lemme get this straight. It's OK that W's an incompetent boob because he's gonna win? Like winning the '72 election made Nixon OK? Gee, I dunno, with hindsight, wasn't he kind of a paranoid, power mad, Jew-hater, unsuitable to lead the Free World? But because he won that makes it OK? Does this mean I have to start root root rooting for the Yankees (the organization, not the players, many of whom seem to be good guys)? Say it ain't so!

Jimmy:

Nixon was a loathsome liberal and should never have been president.

Jimmy:

Ad hominem attacks are a sure sign of a bankrupt argument.

And, they encourage the attacker to underestimate the opposition.

Jeff--

What, it's not OK to attack Nixon? Did Ann Coulter write another book or something?

And I shouldn't worry that the guy with his finger on The Button doesn't read the papers because "they have opinions," and gets his "objective news" from people "who probably do read the papers"? This concerns me. Should it not? FYI, I'll never underestimate Karl Rove. The guy's really, really clever. In a Lex Luthor kind of way.

Jimmy:

When the attacks become exclusively ad hominem, to the point of caricature, then they point towards an empty argument.

On the other hand, analyzing policies, their impacts, and alternatives will, to the extent they are true and convincing, cause those persuaded to draw their own ad hominem conclusions.

In contrast, it seems most of the Left's discourse is indistinguishable from a particuarly hysterical bout of playground name calling.

Jeff--What about the fact that the [technical] President is an incompetent boob? This is the question at hand. (I'll shelve in-depth analysis of disastrous economic decisions, grossly ill-advised foreign policy, and backward social worldviews for later).

Jimmy:

Incompetence can't be our test for presidents and their rivals; all we'd have left is Washington, Coolidge., and Robert Taft

Jimmy:

When it came to winning the 1972 election Nixon was extremely competent and McGovern was extremely incompetent. If you don't believe me, look at the election returns. Competent candidates don't get wiped out by 23 points.

Goldwater was the Repub's answer in the incompetence derby. He also got clobbered by 23 points. Even worse, his party got drubbed in the Congressional elections - something the Dems were able to avoid in 1972. (Many Dems, of course, distanced themselves from McGovern. They weren't fools.)

Since you don't address any of my substantive points about political trends in this country over the past three decades, I'll assume you prefer not to look at the numbers. The blunt fact is that Bush is riding economic numbers that are decent now and will probably improve next year. Even more importantly, he is moving with (not against, as Clinton had to do) the historical drift towards the Repubs over the past thirty years. This makes his re-election very likely.

Nothing is politics is a lock. But Bush has things going his way.

Robert Taft? Now there's a blast from the past. Too bad Vandenberg wasn't more of a national figure (and also that he died when he did).