Centerfield

I dunno Tully, I don't think Bush has anything to worry about. He has approval in the 60s, and I think whoever gets the nom is cannon fodder.

I can't help but think that in the end the 2004 election is going to be a referendum on the government's response to 9/11. And on balance a solid majority approves of Bush's agressive response and doesn't feel any of the possible democratic nominees shows the kind of resolve Bush did. At best, they all come across as negotiators, compromisers, enablers, not guys willing to act forcefully when push comes to shove.

And even though kerry is a vet, this plus is blunted by his constant attempts to have it both ways. He comes across as a waverer, an "on one hand, on the other hand" kind of guy, not a forceful actor.

And much though I don't like Bush personally, hate his social outlook and dangerous overspending, I have a hard time believing any of the democratic candidates would have responded forcefully enough to 9/11. Sure, they'd have engaged in a bunch of self-righteous sabre-rattling, replete with "we will find and punish those responsible." But in the end they'd have settled for crumbs, for "proportionate responses."

I expect instead of the current spot we're in, we'd have round two zillion of the weapons inspectors in Iraq, constantly diminishing support from Muslim governments, veiled bravado from the usual suspects. And lots of corrupt lame-o diplomats rushing in to declare that whatever we had done so far was good enough, and that the US needs to "move on." (So they could get back to the business of leeching a good life of one of the various middle eastern kleptocracies. Instead we have an unstable but Hussein-free Iraq, cooperating Pakistan, a chastened Qadafi. Lots of guys we know were up to no good even though we have no legally allowable proof have been locked down. Our diplomacy is now backed by CREDIBLE threats instead of empty rhetoric from flexible waverers, and on balance a solid majority thinks that it's #1 a good thing, and #2 a top priority.

And against the backdrop of a solid majority that thinks the Bush response is on balance the right direction to go in response to terrorism, we have a variety of democrats pandering to their base that Bush's response has been an unmitigated disaster...

I think that the notion that the Bush people where only preparing for Dean is again making the mistake of underestimating the most sophisticated political machine in history.

I think although the poll numbers on Bush's domestic policies are alarming, the media completely ignores the fact that those numbers are the highest for any Republican for a long, long time. W, his dad, and Reagan would have killed to have those numbers in the elections that they won. Not to mention the fact that voters don't vote on issues they vote on emotion, and when it comes to character, leadership ability, and personal likeability Bush's numbers are through the roof.

This man is just not vulnerable, and he never has been. I am not saying it is inevitable that he is going to win, I am simply reacting to the fact that you can count the number of days that Bush's job approval ratings have been under 50% on one hand. That has not been done from anyone else in the modern-era.

Chris Matthews is right: the American people have this image of George Bush on that heap of rubble in New York with that megaphone in his hand. We like that image. We are proud of that image. It is going to take a drastic change in current events or a pretty special Democratic nominee for that to change.

I also doubt that Bush will lose in the 2004 election, but I don't quite agree that his reelection is such a sure thing. Remember that his Dad had far *higher* approval ratings the year before Election Day, and lost badly (with Ross Perot's unintentional assist). I'm also not quite sure the Iraq thing is gonna help Bush all that much. Bush's rapid and vigorous response to 9/11-- bombing the balookas out of the Taliban and smashing al-Qaeda, rounding up 2/3 of their leadership-- will definitely aid his reelection bid, and the war against Afghanistan had broad-based support b/c it was clearly in self-defense. Iraq is a different animal entirely-- very controversial, and the link with terrorism (let alone WMD's) very hard to draw. That's a real wild card here. We just had 2 more GI's killed today, and there are ominous signs of a potential civil war on the horizon. If Iraq does the Yugoslavia thing and GI's keep arriving home in bodybags or missing arms/legs/eyes/ears/peace of mind, *then* Kerry/Clark will definitely have a cudgel to confront Bush and say, "Look, this dolt has no combat experience and sat out the Vietnam War, even going AWOL one year with the National Guard-- that's why he blundered into this stupid war on Iraq against the advice of his own generals in the Pentagon. (cite Jeffrey Record's report here...) I, on the other hand, am a veteran who fought in the teeth of major combat, and know not to send young men and women into a place to die unless there's a damn good reason for it." On top of the major job losses (and *permanent* ones moreover, being shipped overseas), if Iraq goes sour that probably would cut Bush down to size. It all depends on Iraq.

The Spanish Armada revealed: Oft-retold myths, allegations, and things left unsaid about history’s most confused and misunderstood battle