Just a Gwai Lo fun within prescribed limits [?]

George Lakoff, Marc Ettlinger and Sam Ferguson: “The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush’s management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.”

See also:

• The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectaions which linked to Ryan Overbey on Bush and Howard Dean
• The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations II which links to Joe Weisburg's 2004 article in Slate

Thomas: “Ferguson -- a Glaswegian by birth -- must have a weak grasp of American political history. Parties in this country hold onto power by holding onto it, not by abdicating it. Thus the Jeffersonian Republican dynasty of 1801-25, the new Republican dynasty of 1861-85, the Democrat hegemony of 1933-69 (broken only by Ike's winning popularity), and the Republican hegemony of 1969-2005 (interrupted only by Carter's one-term debacle and Clinton's Perot-assisted two terms).”

Pejman Yousefzadeh: “Ferguson assures Republicans that John Kerry is a weak candidate--just like Neil Kinnock (the British Labour Party leader in 1992) was, and therefore, that he is fated to serving only one term as President. How he comes to this conclusion is a mystery. Many Democrats consoled themselves after the 2000 election, believing that George W. Bush was fated to only be a one term President, but here he is, with a fighting (and some might say excellent) chance at being able to serve another four years. Many Republicans consoled themselves after 1992 in believing that Bill Clinton would only serve one term as President. That belief was only strengthened by the disastrous performance of the Clinton Administration in its first two years, and with the election of Republicans to majorities in both houses of Congress in 1994. You know what happened next.”

Both are in response to Niall Ferguson's argument that the Republican Party is better off in the long run if George W. Bush loses in November

Niall Ferguson: “The lesson of British history is that a second Bush term could be more damaging to the Republicans and more beneficial to the Democrats than a Bush defeat. If he secures re-election, President Bush can be relied upon to press on with a foreign policy based on pre-emptive military force, to ignore the impending fiscal crisis (on the Cheney principle that "deficits don't matter") and to pursue socially conservative objectives like the constitutional ban on gay marriage. Anyone who thinks this combination will serve to maintain Republican unity is dreaming; it will do the opposite. Meanwhile, the Dems will have another four years to figure out what the Labour Party finally figured out: It's the candidate, stupid. And when the 2008 Republican candidate goes head-to-head with the American Tony Blair, he will get wiped out.”

Among other great quotes in this essay by Photodude is this one:

It’s the first thought I have when I hear someone who is still decrying how Bush “stole” Florida to win the election, as the Democrats had the power to make Florida totally irrelevant. Gore lost his home state. Gore lost his boss’ home state. Gore lost every state in the South, when winning just one would have made him the undisputed President.

Gore lost. Period.

It's a really great post. He discusses much of interest in it: the American South as a political landscape, the future of the Democratic Party, primary politics, and Dean's comment about white guys in pickup trucks with Confederate flags. In the comments, Bruce thinks it's 1984 all over again and Tim is worried that Sept. 11 and the "war on terror" will be "focus-grouped" to death by the Democrats.