The Bush Bubble by William Saletan

Well, I’m violating a promise I made to myself that this blog wouldn’t get involved in the largely meaningless and inconsequential quadrennial quibbling we call Presidential politics. If there are any Bush supporters reading this (and there probably aren’t, if you’ve followed my ideological bent as previous postings reflect it…), William Saletan (in Slate) thinks you’re not thinking for yourself: “Here’s what George W. Bush has accomplished: He won the

governorship of a big state without Republican opposition in a

year in which every palatable Republican nominee was swept

into office. He administered that institutionally weak office

during a national boom that poured surpluses into state

treasuries and enabled governors and legislators to cut taxes

without cutting spending. He accumulated enough time in

office to become a plausible presidential candidate just as the

country’s Democratic president was discrediting his heir

apparent with yet another scandal, and just as Republican

congressional leaders were discrediting themselves by

reducing their agenda to the president’s impeachment, thereby

clearing the Republican presidential field for Bush.

You were supposed to vote for Bush because everyone else

was supposed to vote for him. In New Hampshire, they didn’t.

Bush says it’s just a blip in the market, and you should keep

holding his stock. But he’s already lost most of his lead in

South Carolina. If he suffers another defeat there, people will

begin to ask why they should vote for him even if he’s not

inevitable or more electable than his rivals. McCain, Alan

Keyes, and Gary Bauer have spent two years explaining why

you should vote for them even if nobody else agrees with you.

Bush ought to be able to answer the same question.”