Even to the basest of his base, says this conservative analysts, "George W. Bush's time to get big things done has passed. Even his most ardent fans, the ones who wish him the best, are looking forward to Jan. 20, 2009."

So is it "abandon ship" - or "man overboard" for the Republican Party? I found this article overly simplistic as to the reasons the party faithful have for wanting to distance themselves from this President. If they are to have any political capital at all for the '08 election do they really have any choice but to try to pin the blame on the lame duck? How convenient for the Republicans in Congress who could have acted as a check against this President, to now blame him for the ... More »

A confusing article which completely misses the fundamental concept that the failure of Bush-Cheney is actually the failure of ultra conservatism. It speaks of Bush's need to convince his base that the latest strategy for Iraq is actually working and his failure to do so, "would put him in danger of losing control of the war." What control? What victory? Those were squandered away years ago even before Bush's "mission accomplished" debacle on the aircraft carrier.

A view of republican views regarding bush. Episodic without polling or statistics. Perhaps overly sympathetic with him regardless of any sociapathy of his policies, but an interesting perspective.

this is a 36,000 ft overview of Bush as lame duck and specifically in light of his less than decisive actions on immigration and Libby with regard to his base. It does state the obvious, and in that way is simplistic, but it's mildly useful in a culture that includes those that see a monolithic Right. The most interesting question IS begged: what is the Republican Party doing to replace its lame duck and how will they manage to run against their own 8-year legacy?