The author mistakenly refers to "two years more" of Bush's term in office. Who's the dummy?
Ummm...No, not quite. Go back and re-read the article. The author is saying that most second-term U.S. presidents are only relevant for the first half of their second term. Then mid-terms and the race for a successor takes hold of the public attention, and the lame duck finds it difficult to accomplish much. The author then says that's not likely to be the case with President Bush, who now has MORE power than when he first took office in 2001.