How is Bush doing?

Not very well, according to Gerard Baker.

...the US could take the risk of alienating the world and discarding international law only if its leadership was going to be effective. Instead its leadership has been desultory and uncertain and tragically ineffective.

It tried unilateral pre-emption in Iraq, but never really had the will to see it through. So with Iran, it went all mushy and multilateralist. In Lebanon, it thought it would cover all the bases — start by aggressively supporting Israel, then go all peacenik, holding hands with the UN in a touching chorus of Kumbaya.

Now we have the worst of all worlds. Not only is the US despised around the globe, it can’t even make its supposed hegemony work.

It’s one thing to be seen as the bully in the schoolyard; it’s quite another when people realise the bully is actually incapable of getting anybody else to do what he wants. It’s unpleasant when people stop respecting you, but it’s positively terrifying when they stop fearing you.

What we have now is a situation in which the world’s only superpower, with the largest economic and military advantage any country has ever enjoyed on Earth, is pinned down like Gulliver, tormented by an army of fundamentalist Lilliputians.

While a number of people idiotically think of me as a shill for the president (simply because I'm not as deranged with hatred of him as they are), I find it hard to disagree. If he and Condi don't get on the right track, and soon, he will have a catastrophically failed presidency. Of course, that doesn't mean that I would vote for a Democrat, because that would be even worse. I still find it frightening how close John Kerry came to being president. As always, I wish we had better choices.

I've been trying to find places (most recently at Winds of Change) where Democrats were, in the comments, saying that Bush's policies were incompetent and wrongheaded, and things would get better if we elect Democrats. The thing is, I might even come to agree with them: I think the President's strategy was a good try, but I think that it is failing or has failed, and that democratization alone will be insufficient to end the threat of terrorism.

But what I've found is that none of the Democrats I've found are willing to offer alternatives. What they do offer is criticism and platitudes - Bush is alienating the very people we need to win over; you have to work with the local population; and so on. I'm willing to listen to a plan, and think about that plan on its merits, but I haven't heard one.

And I'm afraid that the next Presidential election is going to be the Democrats reprising John Kerry (global test, yada yada yada) and the Republicans insisting that, despite all evidence, things are going exactly as they foresaw.

A pox on both their houses, and where do we turn for real leadership in such dangerous times?

Barring a miracle, "catastrophically failed presidency" is a given. He had a few good moments after 9/11, but before and since it's been largely talk, weakness and ineffectiveness combined with good-intentioned but delusional policies. I wonder if Cheney would be any better. I don't see any Republicans in the bullpen who would be obviously better. The Democrats are insane. There are no other parties. Maybe we need a military coup.

Jim Webb is a Reagan Democrat who fought valiantly in Vietnam. Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan.

Supporting Webb is a step towards transforming the Democratic party.

"...the largest economic and military advantage any country has ever enjoyed on Earth, is pinned down like Gulliver, tormented by an army of fundamentalist Lilliputians."

Ahh, the return of the "pitiful, helpless giant" (Richard M. Nixon, 4/30/70). I can now confidently expect the Vietnam "stab in the back" theory redux (Iraq was going fine until the Democrat Party and hysterical media sapped our will). Then comes "morning in America": there probably won't be any Marines in barracks in Lebanon, so that's OK, but Grenada should probably start worrying.

Let's see... maybe we can get Hezbollah and AQ, Tehran and Pyongyang, to go broke and collapse trying to match our Raptor squadrons and anti-Katyusha lasers?

It seems Monte, like the Democrats, has no ideas either. Just rhetoric. I expect Brian S. to chime in with more of the same any minute now.

Yawn.....

> Jim Webb is a Reagan Democrat

"Reagan Democrat" (noun, according to Bill White): 1) A candidate who advocates policies Reagans would have opposed surrender abroad, economic isolationism, higher taxes, and bigger government at home but claims to be a conservative because he met Ronald Reagan, 2) A shameful ploy to trade off Reagan's name while offering Carter politicies.

Mr. White, I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a hero of mine. You, sirs, are no Ronald Reagans. :-)

Edward,

Ronald Reagan knew James Webb. In fact Ronald Reagan hired James Webb to be his Navy Secretary.

Me? I'm not a Reagan Democrat. Never said I was.

Cheers! :-)

> Ronald Reagan knew James Webb. In fact Ronald Reagan hired James Webb

Reagan knew and hired lots of people, Bill. That doesn't mean that 20 years later, all of them still share his views.

Calling someone who advocates high taxes, big government, economic protectionism, and weak foreign policy a "Reagan Democrat" is dishonest. Reagan did not stand for any of those things, and I'm sure you know that.

If you want to use Reagan's name to sell your candidates, then you should find candidates who share Reagan's political views not just someone who "knew" him. Otherwise, it's nothing but stealing.

I don't see Republicans doing that to your Presidents. There are no conservatives running around calling themselves "Carter" Republicans or "Clinton" Republicans. Come to think of it, I don't see many donkeys calling themselves "Carter Democrats" or "Clinton Democrats," either. What does it say about the left that you prefer to have your candidates associated with the most conservative President in recent memory rather than your own leaders?