> The thing I think most of today's politicians lack and, ironically, the one thing that most of today's voters look for in a candidate is principles. Convictions. Opinions on an issue that are based on something that person considers solid and are nigh unshakeable.

This post put a lot of definition to my growing respect for Bush. Lumping him together with Joseph Lieberman was a jarring shock, but, you know, you're right. Whatever else Lieberman lacks in my eyes, the man's got convictions, and I can respect him for that.

But do you really think that today's voters look for that in their candidates? I'd rather have a wishywashy President in office than one who marches unstoppably in the wrong direction. Well, maybe. Depends on the situation, I suppose.

Anyway, as you say, Bush's determination to deal with Iraq is not the most political thing to do, regardless of whether or not it's the *right* thing to do. If it's not the most political thing to do, doesn't that basically imply his chances for re-election in 2004 are less than if his actions were more in line with popular opinion?

Then again, maybe I'm my own counterexample. When I voted for Bush in 2002, it was because I knew he and I shared more values than Gore and I did, but I wasn't enthusiastic about the choice; I did not then have the confidence that he would be a "strong" president. I have *so* much more respect for the man as of the wake of 9/11, now that his unswerving determination has been demonstrated. Maybe that means that people a little less conservative than me, who were more on the fence in 2002, are behind him now.

But I still have to think a lot of people have swung the other way, too.

And then the point may be made that practically nothing of today will impact the 2004 election anyway. Voters have short memories; Bush's actions throughout 2004, and the state of things with the economy then, are what will decide the election, not his unflinching principles from way back in 2003.

His father knows all about that. The Gulf War came one year too early for him. Bush Sr. had phenomenal approval ratings in 1991. By 1992, all anybody was thinking about was the recession.

Unless significant developments with the war on terror occur in 2004, I'm guessing that Bush's prospects for re-election will depend almost entirely on whether or not the economy has recovered by that year. Even if his economic plan works but takes more time than that for the benefits to become manifest, even if his plan works except that a weak global economy drags the rate of recovery down, he'll take all the blame if voters aren't richer in 2004 than they are now.