As the Cult of No-Personality around Chimpy the Prez finally weakens, it's doubly important that Democrats articulate an alternative vision

For 10 minutes, the talk show host grilled his guests about whether "George Bush's mental weakness is damaging America's credibility at home and abroad." For 10 minutes, the caption across the bottom of the television screen read, "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT'?"

But the host was no liberal media elitist. It was Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman turned MSNBC political pundit. And his answer to the captioned question was hardly "no." While other presidents have been called stupid, Scarborough said: "I think George Bush is in a league by himself. I don't think he has the intellectual depth as these other people."

This is the opening of a report in today's Washington Post by White House reporter Peter Baker, "Pundits Renounce the President; Among Conservative Voices, Discord." We should let Mr. Baker continue:

These have been tough days politically for President Bush, what with his popularity numbers mired in the 30s and Republican candidates distancing themselves as elections near. He can no longer even rely as much on once-friendly voices in the conservative media to stand by his side, as some columnists and television commentators lose faith in his leadership and lose heart in the war in Iraq.

While most conservative media figures have not abandoned Bush, influential opinion-makers increasingly have raised questions, expressed doubts or attacked the president outright, particularly on foreign policy, on which he has long enjoyed their strongest support. In some cases, they have complained that Bush has drifted away from their shared principles; in other cases, they think it is the implementation that has fallen short. In most instances, Iraq figures prominently.

"Conservatives for a long time were in protective mode, wanting to emphasize the progress in Iraq to contrast what they felt was an unfair attack on the war by the Democrats and media and other sources," Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, said in an interview. "But there's more of a sense now that things are on a downward trajectory, and more of a willingness to acknowledge it and pressure the administration to react to it."

Baker goes on to quote squabbling cons and neoncons, which is entertaining in its way but not of prime importance to us. Eventually he comes back to Scarborough:

Few have struck a nerve more than Scarborough, who questioned the president's intelligence on his show, "Scarborough Country." He showed a montage of clips of Bush's famously inarticulate verbal miscues and then explored with guests John Fund and Lawrence O'Donnell Jr. whether Bush is smart enough to be president.

While the country does not want a leader wallowing in the weeds, Scarborough concluded on the segment, "we do need a president who, I think, is intellectually curious."

"And that is a big question," Scarborough said, "whether George W. Bush has the intellectual curiousness -- if that's a word -- to continue leading this country over the next couple of years."

In a later telephone interview, Scarborough said he aired the segment because he kept hearing even fellow Republicans questioning Bush's capacity and leadership, particularly in Iraq. Like others, he said, he supported the war but now thinks it is time to find a way to get out. "A lot of conservatives are saying, 'Enough's enough,' " he said. Asked about the reaction to his program, he said, "The White House is not happy about it."

My old friend Milt Shook of "The Daily Weasel" might point out here what he has argued since GWB's backers installed him in the White House: the signal importance of publicly debunking the policies of this administration rather than the personality of the president. These developments, Milt might note, remind us that the policies can survive even after this particular lummox is gone.

I've always sympathized with the argument. It would be wonderful if we could bring a working majority of the American electorate around to an understanding of the wrong-headedness and dangerousness of this administration's policies. But I've never seen any possibility of that happening without a loosening of the grip of the Cult of No-Personality that has built up around our own Minimally Maximum Leader.

Except insofar as GWB openly preaches hatred, warmongering, bigotry and reaction, I remain convinced that his supporters, or former supporters, not only never really supported his policies but never really knew what those policies were. I think the country supported the military involvement in Iraq, not because people believed in it, but because they believed that a worthless, barely human sack of dung who should have been institutionalized as a psychotic ignoramus was in fact their personal savior.

I think Milt is still right that the case about Bushpolicies needs desperately to be made. In fact, I think it's only now that the halo is dissolving from over Chimpy's doody-brained head that it's become possible to begin making that case. I'm not talking necessarily about laying out every nuts-and-bolts detail of Democratic policy. That's too much to present to voters--although some carefully selected particulars, like a plan for Iraq and a plan to fix the prescription-drug-plan fiasco, might be in order.

The natural impulse is to let the Republicans self-destruct. It could very well happen. But even if it does, the triumphant Democrats will still have to do something when they take over Congress and all those governorships, en route to possibly retaking the White House in 2008. And then when they accomplish that, the heat will really be on to actually govern.

Of course, you know you won't hear a peep from the likes of "Joe Lieberman Fighting for Joe Lieberman," or from his "reactionary lite" ideological kinfolk of the Bush-enabling DLC, or from Schumer-fave soon-to-be Dem senators like Pennsylvania's Casey, or from any of the "Republican lite" candidates recruited to run for Congress by Boss Rahm Emanuel. They'll be trying to hold hands with voters while getting down on their knees together to pray for an even better George W. Bush than this original, now apparently defective one.


POSTSCRIPT--IN CASE THIS ISN'T TOO OBVIOUS . . .

The kind of thing I've said I would like to hear from candidates is, of course, just the sort of thing that Howie has been looking for in evalutating candidates all over the country: a clear, specific, credible progressive vision of how government can be made to work for all the people of this country.

I would add my customarily skeptical caution that nobody really knows what people are going to do once they're in office. Still, you have to start somewhere, and if candidates aren't talking the talk at this point, what are the chances that they're going to walk the walk if they get elected?

And I think it's significant that so many of the candidates Howie has found are not people seeking a lifelong career in elective office. They're people who have done good work in their present callings, and want to transfer that competence and determination to the problems of government.

Is there any downside to giving people like this a shot at changing the way we do government? Not that I can see.