I happen to disagree with O'Sullivan about Bush's domestic standing. Bush has actually been taking issues off the table that the Dems were going to use in 2002. For instance, his actions on steel tariffs didn't go down well with conservatives, but they did go down well with industrial state steelworkers and the Union. Had he chosen not to slap on the tariffs, union voters would have been motivated beyond measure to "send a message" to Bush in the fall. Further, we have a chance to capture many of these union guys for 2004. We have also neutralized the "soccer mom" issue of education for the fall of this year and beyond. Besides, when you have an obstructionist like Tom Daschle holding the reins of power in the Senate, you tend to have problems getting conservative legislation through the Senate.
But O'Sullivan is dead on about leaving Saddam in power. He won't be there in 2004. There is more at stake than just Bush's reelection. Saddam is working on a nuclear capability, and he must be stopped. Besides, the conquest of the Iraqi regime will alter the strategic balance in the Middle East away from militant Islam and the Rejectionist Front states and towards the United States.
For these reasons alone, we're going to Baghdad.
Be Seeing You,
Chris