From the ever fruitful Knight Ridder Washington Bureau comes this:

Bush's performance under scrutiny

By RON HUTCHESON
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush's performance as commander-in-chief was supposed to be his strong suit in the November election, but questions about his leadership suddenly have forced him on the defensive.

With the week only half over, Bush had reversed course on the need for an investigation into prewar intelligence in Iraq, reluctantly agreed to extend an investigation into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and fended off questions about his military service.

In a clear sign of potential political damage, a new Gallup poll shows that voters trust Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts - the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination - more than Bush to decide when U.S. troops should go to war. And, for the first time since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, fewer than half of Americans - 49 percent - say the war was worth it.

"If that goes below 50 percent and stays there, it's a real significant problem for the Bush administration," said Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief. "All the discussion about the rationale (for war) is beginning to have some effect on Americans."

The poll, conducted for CNN and USA Today from Jan. 30 to Feb. 1, also showed the president's overall approval rating at a new low of 49 percent. Any approval rating below 50 percent is considered a clear warning sign for a candidate seeking re-election.

Bush has made his wartime leadership the centerpiece of his re-election campaign, but Kerry's emergence as the Democratic front-runner and continuing problems in Iraq and Afghanistan could complicate the Republican game plan. Democrats already are trying to draw a contrast between Kerry's status as a decorated Vietnam veteran and Bush's gap-filled record as a member of the National Guard.

On Wednesday, the president used a routine speech on Winston Churchill to defend his own wartime leadership.

"In some ways, our current struggles or challenges are similar to those Churchill knew," he said at the opening of a Churchill exhibit at the Library of Congress. "We're at a point of testing, when people and nations show what they're made out of. ... We will do what it takes. We will not leave until the job is done."

But Bush has had to surrender ground on issues related to his leadership. Much more at link

The gloves are now officially off. Yesterday, the NYT reported that Ed Gillespie(Chair of the RNC) has been lashing out at Kerry, saying Kerry was "out of sync" with most voters, "culturally out of step with the rest of America," and a man who votes with "the extreme elements of his party."

I know Kerry's voting record pretty well, and it's hardly that of an 'extremist.' WTF does being "culturally out of step with the rest of America" mean? Is it that Kerry doesn't go to NASCAR races, watch BassMasters while beating his dog, and yelling at his wife to bring him another 'cold one?' Is this the message that 'honest Eddie's' pitching to us?

Nonetheless, should Kerry get the nod, we all know who the extremist in the general election is going to be. Lest one his many scandals currently on the stove should go aboil, and result in his hasty departure.

Here is what some of Kerry's guys reportedly said:

"We welcome a debate with the likes of Ed Gillespie, Karl Rove and this White House about who's out of sync with Main Street America." David Wade -- Kerry spokesman

"Their tired old G.O.P. attack dog just won't hunt," Mr. Wade said, adding that Republicans would be running against "a Democrat who fought for his country in war, put criminals behind bars as a prosecutor, stood up for balanced budgets in the Senate," and "kept faith with America's veterans."

Another Kerry adviser was more blunt. "This is not the Dukakis campaign," the adviser said. "We're not going to take it. And if they're going to come at us with stuff, whatever that stuff may be, if it goes to a place where the '88 campaign did, then everything is on the table. Everything."

Everything. I like it.

Bush comparing America today with Great Britain under siege by the third Reich? Talk about dogs that won't hunt. That canine hasn't had a pulse in years. Yes, Bush is certainly Churchillian. There is nothing routine about Bush giving a speech, unless one is referring to his wanton destruction of grammar, diction, and wholesale slaughter of the English language. That's routine.