I was going to put a footnote on my comment re: GW's intellect. It's relative, of course. But I do believe his chosen style of leading is based in part on his situation. He has attained high level positions, but then again, with his dad, and his connections, you have to take it with a grain of salt. In fact, his deferential style means you have to take it with an even bigger grain of salt. If all he does is defer to Tommy Franks, then who deserves the credit? You can credit him for staying out of Franks' way, I suppose. And I'm not falling for the old "Republican presidents are stupid" saw, in case you're wondering. Ronald Reagan was brilliant, as his speeches and letters now confirm beyond any reasonable doubt (I've read several biographies of Reagan, and his autobiography.) But I still don't think GWB has a lot of knowledge. He has some basic principles, and some core values and strengths, but he's been entirely reliant on the expertise of those reporting to him, with mixed results. That's my view on it, anyway. So when I say he's not sharp, that's not compared to the grocery clerk who can't make change in her head. It's compared to other people in leadership/policy roles. Tony Blair, for instance, runs circles around GWB.
Yes, Blair is sharp and he may be smarter than Bush.
But Bush has gigantic balls, much bigger than Blair's, or anybody else's in world leadership.
In fact, I don't think it matters to him one bit what his polls say. He's going to do, or at least try to do, what he wants to do over the next two years, and dare the Congress to stop him.