Centerfield

Rick,

Don't you think it's a little early to start drawing conclusions about Bush's 2nd term? The innaugeration was only 4 months ago.

Yes. It's early. But pros like Broder know how it works. This is the best year to get something done. The 6th year of an Administration is leading up to a mid-term election, so Congress gets independent. The 7th year has some potential, but it's late. By the 8th year, everyone is looking to the future.

No kidding, are we even through the first 100 days? I notice that we hear the "lame duck" argument a lot from people who are eager to say I told you so because they didn't vote for Bush in the first place... I am not saying you are one of those, Rick.

BTW, did we listen to the same RNC convention speech from the President?

Many of the big ideas that Bush proposed in the early months of the first term, didn't come to fruition until much later if at all? Faith based initiative anyone? I think there strategy is the same as it was then, propose a lot of ideas and take credit for the ones that are successful. I will say it again, nobody thought he would sign a prescription drug benefit bill in his first term.

Those Democrats who appear to be dancing a jig over the rumored defeat of Social Security reform are either stupid, haven't learned their lesson in regards to this President, or are desperate to point out the positive in anything because, well, they haven't been able to do that in a long time.

I have a slightly different take on Social Security. If you look at polls from before Bush took office, you get a modest majority in favor of private accounts. If you look at the latest polls, it's quite a dramatic reversal.

I think what has happened, in part, is a gradually growing sense of "ugliness" about the implementation of Bush's policies. Iraq got uglier than we were led to believe it would be. The Prescription Drug Bill was a muddled mess, and seniors who've experienced it are none too impressed (my parents opted out). Spending has gotten way out of control, and we've seen the return of big deficits.

President Bush campaigned openly and persistently on his Social Security plan. It was part of his standard stump speech and got quite a lot of press. I suspect most Americans would go for the idea, except they have a nagging lack of confidence in his ability to implement these things.

Pro's like Broder know how things work? Hmmm... It seems your approach to whether or not Bush will be successful in his second term is pretty conventional. I get the point, but remember, all the pro's said that Republicans would lose seats in the last mid-term election because that is what happens to the party that controls the Presidency. How many war time President's squeek out their re-election? My point is that I think this President has defied conventional wisdom in the past.

William,

Excellent observation, but I am not sure the voters are that perceptive, or that it would show in polls if they were? I think private accounts took a plunge because the same fear tactics that have been working for Democrats for years, worked again.

Furthermore, when you ask the question if you think Social Security is a problem or not, many more say it is, now than they did six months ago. People are not saying keep things the same. I think numbers have gone down about private accounts because confusion about how to fix the problem is going up, and confusion gives way to the fear that your Social Security might not be there someday. The President should have done a better job building on his State of the Union speech and providing more details to Americans about his plan. Which, IMO, he has yet to do. When he does, and the Democrats respond with nothing because they have no agenda on Social Security but keep it the way it is, the numbers will go back up.

It's been just over 3 months since the inauguration. Not even the end of the beginning.

Those who oppose Bush are going to encourage the take that Bush has fallen flat. if it gets repeated enough, then it must be true, right?

Let's revisit this come fall when we can look at what sorts of bills have been passed. If Bush aims high and falls short, what he accomplishes may still be substantial, whether it is good or bad. But IMO, it's absolutely laughable to count him out before any substantial ideas have been debated and voted upon in Congress. Debated and voted upon by a congress with GOP majorities in both the house and the senate, in case anyone needs reminding.

Yes, expectations can become self-fulfilling prophecies, so if one can get people to consider Bush a lame duck, he will become one.

Still, the hundred days are traditionally the period where momentum is set, and these hundred days haven't gone so well for Bush.

I certainly wouldn't count his out, particularly on Social Security. But if I were a GOP congressman in a competitive district, I would also be afraid to go out on a limb on Social Security, for fear of it being cut off.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and that never becomes lame duck. But his domestic agenda isn't going well--and that makes sense, because he didn't get re-elected because of domestic policy.

These the same "pro's" that were predicting a Kerry landslide?

I'm sorry but I'm getting a little sick of appeals to false authority....and pundits passing themselves off as "pro's" who know it all because they write alot about politics. If these guys know so much how come THEY have never sat in the oval office?

In my book thier no different then the sports writer who pretends he knows everything about what it takes to be a slugger... even though the last time he held a bat in his hand was little league where he was hitting .135

Those that can - DO. Those that can't write columns about it and call themselves "experts".

Yeah, I tend to agree with you when you put it that way, Rick. My impression is that so far he hasn't gained much traction other than possibly on getting more people to acknowledge that SS is a serious problem.

It is fairly common for 2nd term Presidents to get all "generative" once they have completed their last election, and for their appeals for help to fall on deaf ears when the ones they need help from still have re-election campaigns in their futures.

No doubt, SS reform is going to be a real canker. If I had to predict, I'd guess Bush will get something passed, but it may not be much.

Best case scenario: benefits get re-indexed, SS tax ceiling gets raised, and a small pilot investment program is started, maybe based on 0.5% or 1%, instead of 2 or 3%.

Worst-case secenario: Bush agrees not to cut benefits and to perpetuate existing accounting fictions in return for the beginnings of integrating investment, putting additional burdens on the budget and doing nothing to address spiraling costs. In other words, prescription drug plan deja-vu all over again. That thought scares me.

Regardless of what you think of Bush, I think you have to give him some credit for actually having an activist agenda (even though I disagree with most of it). Most presidents with a limited mandate have drawn in the reins and refused to take chances (eg., JFK with civil rights). Maybe Bush is right-the way to overcome a limited mandate is to govern as if you do have a mandate and actually try to accomplish something. Maybe the Dems could keep that in mind if they ever get back in power.

I admit that I would like to see the Republicans fail, especially since I am thoroughly tired of the conservatives. But I do think Bush has turned conventional wisdom on its head; people complain that the politicians never do anything once they get in office because they are afraid of failure. Maybe the way to approach things is not to become paralyzed with fear but to become more aggressive.

I do think, however, there is some validity to the idea that he will have problems getting stuff done in the second term. He was a lame duck the moment he took the oath for the second time and I think that has to have some effect on how his opponents and his own party reacts to him.

A comparison between Kennedy and civil rights and Bush and Social Security reform is not fair. If Kennedy had lived beyond 1964 and was re-elected, would he have been more aggressive with civil rights? Second term presidents tend to think 'legacy' and are unafraid of political fallout.

The polls on Social Security reform reflect what Bush says on his 60 day tour: 'Social Security is in trouble but private accounts don't fix the problem.'

I have to echo some of the other thoughts...this is not someone to be counted out that quickly. I was reading a column on his brother, the Florida Governor, this morning who was told by the Republican President of the Florida Senate to "watch his mouth." I had to chuckle simply because, while Democrats and Republicans are running around trying to line of their respective gubernatorial campaigns, seven years into his term(s), Jeb Bush is still driving the political agenda in this state. George is no different. I don't expect him to sit quietly by for the next 4 years. He won, and just like Jeb at the state level, he's going to milk it for all its worth.

I agree with others that the constant punditry about "who's ahead" is like sports talk. And I agree that there's a desire on the part of the Dems for GW to be seen as a lame duck.

However, I think GW's lame duckery may stem as much from the right wing of the Republicans as the Dems. On of AZ's Reps is openly criticising GW regarding immigration and demanding an apology for his (GW's) vigilante commetns. Now this is a guy who wants to run for Governor in a year. He must not be worried about the influence of GW in the state Republican Party.

This lame duck phenomenom should be an issue that centrist should be VOCALLY AGAINST. Work needs to get done, regardless of who's in the majority and who's not; who might win the next election and who won't. By "playing along with the pundits" we perpetuate the problems with partisan, party politics.

Rick,

I would caution the 'lame duck'ers not to misunderestimate GW. As you pointed out, the pre-election polls seemed to favor Kerry, but Kerry is, right now, back in the Senate, sitting on his kicked ass.

And without a specific plan, GW has just about shamed the Dems into coming to the table to negotiate SocSec (Wasn't it Kerry who just said something like, "We do too have a plan. We are so not plan-less!" Or something like that).

As for Broder, if you look at his predictive powers over the last five years, you'd be forced to conclude that he is a "pro" at Getting It Wrong in just about every aspect of the Bush administration.

There are too many good examples of SocSec combined with private accounts - Australia's Superannuation plan, the Chilean plan detailed in the NYT - to count this out just yet. In order to make any headway in the 2006 elections, Dems are going to have to have a positive view of something, foreign or domestic, and they are going to have to engage the Repubs in substantive debate. So far, they have identified themselves only as opposed to the administration and to the Repubs. That is a recipe for elective disaster next year. I'm sure they will figure that out in a while. In the meantime, GW is setting the agenda for debate topics, and the Dems are sitting on the sidelines.

I don't think GWB is a lame duck. He has a huge mandate. His party controls both chambers of congress, the majority of state houses and state legislatures, and to the extent it is possible, the judiciary.

The dems are playing the only card they have left; psychological gamesmanship. It's in their political interests to create the perception that Bush is toast. I don't blame them for trying. But in the end, Bush will get much of what he wants; he has the votes.

However, there is the danger of overreaching. We've already seen some of that. There's also the possibility the public will tire of the GOP. I'll believe that when I see it.

There's even the possibility the public will wake up and realize there may be alternatives to fixing the entitlement problem/budget problem/ spending problem that doesn't involve continued tax cuts and a philosophy of emasculating government.

30 years ago I thought we would have inflation forever. Now I think we'll have budget deficits forever. I'm not optimisic about future budgets. But maybe I'm no better at analyzing things than Broder.

It is funny that this entry was appropriately titled "overreach".

It’s remarkable how much he is getting done for a lame duck. I also think the Dem’s are going to get it real bad during 2008 over the Social Security issue, since mathematically it is only going to get worse. They will be forced to come up with ideas or back-peddle. There hostility of today is going to be reminded to voters in 2008 that they are “waffling again.”

Uh, Matthew, LR, Norge....
The last time Bush declared an "emergency" was when he said Saddam was going to nuke us with cleverly hidden WMDs. Remember that one? That's when the White House told us that "we will be greeted as liberators" and "oil revenues will pay for the invasion." We had to go into Iraq RIGHT NOW!!!!!
So two years later, what do we have? A quagmire that costing us a billion a week, an American life a day, and God knows how many maimed and wounded.
And those WMD?
Ooops. Never found.
Bush did get a nice photo op, though.
Now, y'all might not remember that, since it was all of three years ago, but there are millions of Americans who do. That's why his poll ratings are tanking like the Titanic. And that's why we're just a little bit leery when Bush suddenly declares SS has to be fixed RIGHT NOW!!!!
If Bush is so good at coming up with solutions, let's see him come up with a solution on Iraq first. Then we'll talk Social Security.

Blue Jean,

Rather then get into a factual debate about Iraq with you.... I'll simply point out the obvious. 6 months ago, Americans went to the polls and voted. More of us voted for George W. Bush then his opponent.....and we voted in more Republicans in both Houses of Congress then Democrats. You can yammer all you like about "poll ratings" and lack of trust for Bush and the GOP.... but just look at who's still occupying the chairs in the oval office and Congress. Clearly whatever Bush and the GOP are doing is good enough to get thier contracts renewed.