First of all, thanks for the thoughtful reply, and I think I noticed you saying on another thread that you either were or are in the Service, and I want to take this opportunity to tell you how grateful I am for men like you, and to say thanks, as pathetic a show of gratitude as that is.
Now, on to your counterpoints:
First, Bush's perception by the public cannot be media driven. There are only a percentage of voters who base their opinions upon media reports. The general public has a very short attention span and even shorter memory.
I think it is media driven for that part of the electorate that holds the winning hand, that 6 to 20% number of independents that's always out there. However, your point about attention span is not arugable.
Second, never forget that Bush owns the 'bully-pulpit' and can make or change the agenda, and the nation's focus anytime he wishes. There is no story in today's media that will be the focus in November.
As far as the War is concerned he can't really make or change the agenda, events drive that and he can't control events for the most part. And your general point about the 'bully-pulpit' while accepted is not this President's strong suit IMO, because he doesn't seem to like it or take advantage of it as he should.
Third, the facts are these. We are actually winning in Iraq, despite the media's best efforts to deny it. We are also winning on the economy. Bush has barely begun to fight back, and as before this is NOT the time. He needed to stop Kerry's momentum last month and did so with ease.
I don't think you can really say that we're 'winning' in Iraq presently. We're holding our own would be as far as I would go in characterizing the positive aspects of this War. Please see, if you're so inclined website called Cella's Review, and scroll down to piece by N. Millman regarding Rumsfeld and the War. Long but very informative piece. But I will agree that the media is painting this as a fiasco, and as yet, I'm not willing to take that view. But as you see, the media can control perception.
Fourth, WMD and OSAMA are still variables under Bush's control, not Kerry.
Agreed!
The point is, the election is and always has been Bush's to lose, and what happens in November is really in his hands. If he wants to win, he will. Its just that simple.
I'm sure I said pretty much the same thing in my original post.
I'd have to say it appears to me that though the result in November is very much an open question, the administration is certainly in much more difficulty position than even a few months back. For example the presidents overall approval rating is now even or slightly negative, and on some issues (such as the War) it's clearly negative and becoming more so - a significant factor as negative approval ratings for an incumbent (irrespective of party) drive voters into the "undecided" camp, and such voters tend to break strongly for challengers once they get into the voting booth.
I'd also have to agree with Albion Girl that events in Iraq are driving Administration War policy more than the other way around – that as a high ranking officer recently noted there is no way we can lose this war militarily, but there is also no way we can win it militarily, either.
So where does it go from here?
I simply don't know.
It appears highly unlikely to me that this President will attempt any sort of political accommodation with critics of the current strategy, either within the Republican Party or outside it - that he will back his present foreign policy and civilian military advisors and their program pretty much irrespective of the course of events in Iraq.
In terms of Washington politics this is in some ways a pretty strong position, and I expect that Congress will continue to support his efforts. (To appreciate the dilemma confronting congressional skeptics of the war consider Kerry's position - he's mouse-trapped. He can't be looking forward to having to support additional appropriations for the War effort - which will cost him votes on the anti-war left – but voting this way but is a requirement if he is to remain a viable candidate to Democratic and independent voters to their right).
OTOH, saving some sort of dramatic reversal of fortune (for example, the emergence of a really popular coalition government able to quell the worst of civil unrest after June 30) IMO it seems likely that approval of the current policy (as opposed to more general support of a strong US and US troops) will eventually be reduced to the 40% (my guess) or so who will support the president irrespective of events in Iraq, and Republicans will be faced with high negatives on the issue, with all the attendant problems noted above.