On one issue, I think he ought to respond directly on the Iraq threat--all of these Liberal arguments about why it was a mistake to invade Iraq; all of these issues about the 500+ who lost their lives in military service for America; are the same arguments made by the Liberals led by Nelville Chamberlin in the 1930's, including the Liberal Democrats in America, about why the world should not take military action against Hitler.
The same Liberal position wound up costing us millions of lives in World War II which could have been avoided. Painful for the 500+ and their families but preferable as a policy choice to what would in the modern world be loss of millions of American lives as well as millions more througout the world if we did not act.
Point is, as George implied, you need to confront real threats when you identify them, not when it is too late. Iraq was the easiest most fruitfull target of the international terrorist community and the attack has been successful. WMD were not the only issue--they were not even the most significant issue. Saddam was a central mover in the international Moslem terrorist attack on America; he was the most vulnerable enemy; he was the correct initial target. One of the consequences has been limitation of another target (Libya). Removal of Saddam's support for the PLO is also likely to have favorable long term results.
I dispute his position (Irving Kristol and the neo cons) that the United States has an obligation to build nations and fight AIDS throughout the world--I am not interested in having my 19 year old son in the military to build nations and fight AIDS; neither am I interest in paying taxes to support expansion of American hegemony.
If the Iraq people do not perceive sufficient return on a stable united country government to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve it, we break the country up; give the Kurds the oil producing areas north of Mosul; give the areas adjacet to Kuwait to an expanded Kuwait; establish a core central country in the Tigris Euphrates river valley; another northern core area for the balance.
I am downright opposed to having troops scatterd all around the world in diverse places in which America has no direct interest. If military threats develop in those areas, we have sufficient rapid response troops available to deal with direct threats and should be free to use them, even if we need to also use battlefield or theater limited yield weapons.
On the Economy, George is wrong also but Russert does not have either the intellectual or technical capability to address the issues. The Economy in fact rolled over in the third quarter of 1999; the cause of the continuing contraction is creation of excess debt by the fed in the period from 96 to 99; the burden of debt and debt service will continue to cause economic contraction until the debt is liqudated which is likely to take twenty years. Problem is not George's fault; but he is not doing anything about it other than promoting the idea things are getting better which they are not.
If the election were held in March, Bush ought to win based on the kind of performance he delivered this morning. But his ability to do that depends on the ability of the fed and the Treasury to hold the economy together an additional eight months--I tend to doubt they can do that.