until krugman and delong yell "unemployment numbers are a farce; more people are 'discouraged'; blah, blah, bleat, bleat" and morons start to agree.

A - I agree the Dems and the media will reprise the 1992 meme of the worst economy ever. We'll see what Friday's employment report says - job growth over 100K for the 2nd month in a row if it is the beginning of consistent job growth should shut people up.

This is the "economy" campaign ad I'd like to see:

"Hi, I'm George W. Bush. I happen to hold the office of United States president -- a position designed by this country's founders as one of limited power in direct response to well-reasoned disgust with monarchy and tyranny.

"Throughout this campaign, you've probably heard partisans of all stripes bandying about economic figures, comparing such-and-such numbers during the time I happened to be president with such-and-such numbers from some time when somebody else happened to hold some office.

"Let me make this clear: I am not meant to be a king or a dictator. I am not meant to 'run' the economy. Bill Clinton was not meant to be a king or dictator, and he wasn't meant to 'run' the economy. If John Kerry becomes president, the same applies to him.

"America was designed as a place of freedom, and free markets are part of that. While it's fine for Americans to argue about the country's economy, it shouldn't have anything to do with Clinton, or with Kerry, or with me. That's because we shouldn't have anything to do with the economy. That's not our role.

"I am thus moving to end this pseudo central-control of the country's finances, thus returning America to the state of freedom she was designed to enjoy, and thus returning the power of the presidency back to the low level at which it was intended to operate.

"American presidents aren't supposed to be economic choreographers. They aren't supposed to be 'the CEOs of the United States,' no matter how clever that characterization has sounded these past few years. They aren't supposed to be omnipotent demigods who get blame or credit when somebody loses or gets a 'job.'

"No president is meant to 'run' the economy. And so I will stop trying to do it. And you all can stop bickering about arbitrary details that happen to coincide with arbitrarily cherry-picked four-year periods involving the arbitrary citizens who happened to be in office during those periods.

"I'm just another dude, like the rest of you. I'm not a king or CEO or demigod. Okey doke? Good night, and may God bless America."

No, see, I want Bush to win the election.

Why do you want Bush to win the election? Is it because you're a Republican? And that's your "team"? And golly, more than anything else we all like our teams to WIN? (Or win, as you wrote it.)

I could be constructing a straw man here, but with a single nine-word post you reveal you're interested more in the gamesmanship of horse-race politics than in core conservative principle. What's the point of a Republican win if it doesn't produce the stuff Republicans are supposed to stand for -- including the limited government power I outlined in my fantasy campaign ad above?

Look, I too want Bush to win ... if he's going to turn into an actual conservative sometime before 2008.

The 20th century brought communications technology. That technology brought a focus on image and celebrity. That focus led to the elevation of presidential power, because it became kinda fun, really, to turn our presidents into stars.

America once viewed its presidents as citizens-turned-temporary-statesmen. A president's role was limited not just by a constitution that was respected with more than rote lip service, but by ordinary Americans' own inherent concept of that role.

Contemporary Americans, on the other hand, embrace the idea that the president is the national dad, the national CEO, or whatever -- unaware that as they turn the president into a king, they're giving away their own freedom.

Roosevelt's Fireside Chats should be viewed not as soft-focus nostalgia, but as stark symbols of America's dangerously mutating relationship with its presidents.

If you would honestly spurn a Bush speech like the one above -- simply because it could hamper Bush's chance to "win" -- then I have to ask: I know you're a Republican, but are you really a conservative?

(Again, sorry if I've misinterpreted your post, or jumped to conclusions and thus set up a straw man.)

Tomcat -

The President IS more than the CEO of the Nations National Security. Bush is top at that role.

You are righ that many overstae the role of the President as CEO of the economy. In fact, biggest mistakes are made by those (Carter, Nixon, FDR) who seriously believe that.

On that simple basis, were you to help elect Kerry you would sure get the worst of both worlds.

tomcat:

The point isn't which of us is most conservative, but how conservative America is. The purity you demand is that of a 1% party.

"Core conservative principle" means diddly squat if you don't win the "gamesmanship of horse-race politics." It's a harsh reality, but that's democracy for ya.

Core conservative principle" means diddly squat if you don't win the "gamesmanship of horse-race politics."

OK, so let's say Bush really is a conservative, and we want him to win so that he can accomplish conservative goals.

I don't know about you, but I'm disturbed by the idea of Bush (or anybody else) putting on a false front, or withholding truths, just for the sake of winning. In sales we call that bait-and-switch; in day-to-day life we call it lying; I guess in politics we call that ... politics.

Look, my only real point in this thread is that the U.S. president should not be the steward of the economy -- and shouldn't be expected to be one.

I was looking this morning at Mickey Kaus' site, where he describes a Los Angeles Times exit poll he took while leaving a voting booth yesterday. One of the questions was: "Does Edwards care about people like you?" That's infuriating to me, because it starts with this unquestioned assumption that a president's job is "caring about people" -- i.e., doing things for people -- in the first place.

This mentality has become so entrenched that I don't know if it can be combatted any more. And that's sad. We now elect presidents based on how well we think they can choreograph everything in the name of a "better" society. So much for individual freedom and making your own way.

tomcat:

People don't want just freedom--they want security too.