I have to say, I'm starting to think Matt is very wrong on this:
That dynamic [nobody is loyal to Bush anymore because he's not running for anything] will probably get very bad for Bush sometime after the 2006 elections unless the White House political team manages to settle on a favorite standard-bearer and essentially clear the primary field for him.
Matt's been making this argument for awhile now and some weeks find it more convincing than others. This week's not a good one. Bush is currently under 40% in the polls. In Virginia, his existence is proving a negative for Kilgore -- reverse coattails, if you will. So let's say, given all this, and assuming some degree of Democratic pickup in the 2006 elections, Bush and his handlers begin signaling their favored candidate. What happens?
Revolt.
Once Bush picks a candidate, that's it. Every other candidate knows their hopes of a Bush endorsement are over. So what's their probable move? They're not going to give up their presidential dreams just because Bush is signaling away from them. Hell, Bush is massively unpopular and he just led his party to defeat in the last election -- run against him. Separate from the Administration. Run as a champion of restored conservatism (Gingrich, by the way, is almost certainly preparing to do this). Attack Bush on immigration. Assault his handling of the government. Condemn the massive deficit he's created. Lament the growth of government under his tenure. In Bush-talk, git 'em.
