[ QUOTE ]
Darkaway said:
I seem to recall another President Bush whose popularity soared after a different Iraq War. It subsequently plummeted and he was defeated by a Democrat in the next election.
I would like to see George W. serve another term but it's way too early to predict anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was a different time with different dynamics, specifically Bush I was essentially serving out the end of the Reagan term. By the time the election came around people were ready to move on. Throw in the (sorry but it was rather small) recession and the "Golly, he cares about ME!!!!" warm fuzzy perception of Clinton and George SR. didn't have a chance.
Bush II on the other hand has these dynamics working for him, his presidency is following Bill Clinton. Given the younger Bush's rising to the challenges a terrified America faced on 9-11, this positions him favorably in comparisons with the trivial self-indulgent sycophantic culture of the later Clinton term. People perceive that the Clinton presidency was chiefly about Bill Clinton and what it could do for him. Because of this atmosphere around the White House hard decisions were put off for fear they might prove "unpopular" (see above) IOW Osama Bin Laden, the dot-com bust, the accounting scandals personified by Enron, Iraq's WMD program, and Korea's nuclear program weren't Clintons fault, he just did nothing about them while he was president. GW on the other hand appears to many to be doing what he is doing, despite political heat, because he thinks it is right for the country.
Additionally the current Bush team appears to be triple-contingency planning things out to minimize politically exploitable mistakes. Hence when the congressional Dems think they have an issue to jump on it usually backfires making them look both foolish and ridiculously partisan.
Remember how Thom Daschle was "Deeply Troubled" (tm) by the president's planning of a (cue dramatic music) Shadow Government without telling congress? Obviously everyone in America was supposed to turn their gaze to the White House and be "deeply troubled" by this sinister secretive president. 'Course then it came out that not only was Daschle himself briefed about the contingency plans in case federal leadership was taken out, but that he had actually BEEN IN the facility in which it was to be housed! Guess he "forgot" that little tour. Funny how the story dropped off the presses after that...
Example two: Sen. Daschle was recently "Deeply Saddened" (tm) by the "miserable failure of foreign diplomacy" that led us to war with Iraq and how it was going to wipe out our credibilty and influence in the world. 'Course since then, the Iraqi public welcomed us with tearful hugs in the streets of Baghdad, Syria agreed to close its borders to Iraqi officials and military resources, Kim Jong Il dropped his demand to negotiate directly with Washington and now agrees to negotiate in any fashion Washington sees fit, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon acknowledged the formerly inconceivable possibility that Israel may have to give up some of its West Bank settlements for peace, and France and Germany are trying desperately to kiss and make up with the U.S. so that they can have a "vital" part in the rebuilding of Iraq. No comment on if these were the post war developments that "Deeply Saddened" (tm) Sen. Daschle.