I have long thought that Dick Morris is still shilling for the Clintons.

His columns are full of misinformation and false predictions to misdirect the reader's attention from the Clintons real sleazy behavior.

His "harsh" criticism of Hillary, for instance, is designed to cull sympathy for the poor dear. And you know, it does work.

Big Question: Why does FOX News continue to employ Morris? For comic relief? Surely they know he's a phony.

Morris is..... interesting.

But, particularily as a pollster, success is everything.

Morris castigated Bush for campaigning the way he did, because his favorable ratings dropped ten points due to "partisanship".

BOMP! Oops.

Morris is interesting. The stuff he says is great to talk about over a pitcher of Rolling Rock. But at this point, that's about it.

as the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on thee, fool me twice, shame on me." a year and a half ago, Morris was saying that now that Bush's tax cut had been enacted, he'd accomplished his Raison D'etre and it was all downhill from there. Then the Towers came down and everything changed. I can't believe Morris is dense enough to think that nothing will happen between now and '04 that might give Bush something else to work on.

Pakistan is crumbling Saudi Arabia is extremely unstable, South Korea has Nukes and China has pilots that can't keep their MIGs out of the way of our M-16s. And then there's the stuff we don't know about yet.

On the domestic front, just because he cut taxes once, doesn't mean he can't again. He was in the process of working on a second cut right before Jeffords stabbed him in the back. And this one wouldn't have to be so ridiculously backloaded and might include a capital gains cut, which is the most effective tax cut stimulant. He might also take a run at private accounts again. The people who refused to back down on it, didn't have any trouble being re-elected despite the usual Democrat scare tactics. He might even take a run at tort reform, which would be a nice counter to all the "corporate corruption" BS they tried (and will try again) to tar him with. It would also strangle John Edwards' Presidential hopes in the crib, and he's looking more and more like the biggest opponent for Bush in '04. After seeing what happened to his father, there's no way Bush is going to make the same mistakes, and I can't believe Morris is dense enough to really think this.

Here's an alternative perspective on the oil issue:

1. Saddam falls, a nominally democratic government is built to replace the Baathist dictatorship. Bet: The new regime strongly resembles Turkey's, i.e. military authoritarianism constantly in the background.

2. The reconstituted Iraq becomes the Middle East swing producer, Saudi Arabia resumes full production to stabilize its declining economy.

3. Everything returns to "normal."

Watch.

Modern democracies tend to declare victory as soon as possible and rush the boys home. Remember Operation Desert Storm? Operation Magic Carpet Ride? They also have an inexplicable tendency to drop the pilot right after the cessation of hostilities. You could ask Bush I and Churchill.

Remember especially poor Patton. Whenever I wince at the way Schwarzkopf ceded Saddam his helicopters, I wonder what would have happened if we withheld the Germans their oxcarts.

Just imagine the Presidential possibilities.

I only hope Dickie is right on one score. He said Evita will never be president, she'll just keep her seat for 30 years.

As a North Carolina citizen, I must respectfully disagree with MarkD about Edwards' campaign hopes. It would be a nice thing if, for the first time in three electoral go-arounds, the Democrats could find a candidate who can bring to the table his home state...and Edwards can't. He was elected to replace Lauch ("Pigboy") Faircloth, a truly repulsive human being (... we think). Faircloth was so close to the ideal of unelectable, the Democrats could've beaten him with almost anyone. The fact that they beat him with Edwards does not make Edwards any kind of prodigy. So, what can he bring to the table? "Hi, I'm John Edwards. You don't know me, but I'm young and handsome and deserve your vote for President." Hell, even RFK had more going for him than that.

Via Tim Blair:

"ELECTION ANALYSIS: According to Dick Morris, writing in The Australian, "the media was caught by surprise" by Bush and "never realised the extent of the President's popularity or the degree of national support he commands."

By "media", Dick Morris means "Dick Morris".

The man is a pollster and didn't read it right. And of course, the flyover states are to be ignored.

As an addition, W did learn from GH's mistake. He's going to do his damnedest not to make the same mistake or get in the same position as his dad was. But let's face it, GH's heart really wasn't in it.

If Dick Morris is a shill for the Clintons, does that make him a foot soldier?

David, as you are closer to the problem than I, you certainly have a better take on the man that I did, but I still think it's a mistake to count him completely out. A little charisma and a little anonymity goes a long way, as Bill Clinton showed, and to use your example, the only thing that Stopped RFK from eventually reaching the White House was Sirhan Sirhan.

Being from the South he is a threat to Bush's Conservative hold on it, and while the other Dem Hopefuls where shooting themselves in the foot opposing the War, Edwards shrewdly embraced it. He also had his name on the perscription drugs bill (something popular with the base) and he isn't likely to trip up in the debates the way Gore did. He'll entrance the audience the same way he entranced so many juries, and the anti-corporate feeling plays in his hands too (unless of course Bush reminds people that trial lawyers are even sleazier and more destructive than CEOs). I don't think he can beat Bush if the war and economy goes Bush's way, but I think it would be very unwise to underestimate Mr. Edwards (though you do reassure me that he's not as popular in NC as I feared, but they didn't like Clinton well in ARK either)

The Dems won't have to scare the elderly about prescription drug prices by 2004. "Market forces" and another 30-50% price rise ought to accomplish that quite well.

Only quibble I have with that is that the Saudis are not a people but a ruling family. The best thing to do with that lot is to drive them into the desert with a blind camel and 10,000 unwatched VCR tapes of "Ishtar".