361 Days to the Election: What do you have to do exactly to be half as popular as the most unpopular president in history?

A whole lot of nothing, apparently.

Wishful thinking or whistling past the graveyard in the Washington Post? You be the judge:

One year out from the election, congressional Democrats are increasingly confident they can tighten their hold on the House and Senate.

Although public approval of Congress has dipped dramatically since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took control early this year,

Let me interupt right there for a moment and go to the recent poll numbers from NBC/WSJ:

Bush: approve 29%, disapprove 66%,
Pelosi/Reid led Congress, approve 15%, disapprove 78%

Are there other polls showing Congress (and Bush) a little higher? Yes, but those numbers speak for themselves.

But it is interesting to note how the Washington Post's style book has defined "dramatically," as in "New York Times revenues and circulation dramatically sets new records," and "Iraq situation dramatically turns worse for Democrats."

Back to the tape:

Democratic operatives believe they still can expand their majorities in 2008 by running hard against President Bush and his war policies. Republicans are also hampered by mounting retirements of veteran member and a huge disparity in fundraising by the two parties.

"I'd much rather be in our shoes than their shoes," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "George Bush and his legacy will be on the ballot."

The item that's true is that retirements are going to make it difficult for the Republicans to take back Congress. But what Mr. Van Hollen hasn't perhaps realized is that George Bush will not be on the ballot: years of fantasizing about ReputhugliKKKhan fascist plots to the contrary, it's leftist darlings Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin who are staying past their constitutionally defined terms, not George Bush. Bush's legacy will certainly be in the air, but it won't be on the ballot: the Democratic Congress will have to run on its own record of accomplishments, which includes:

raising the minimum wage

wait, I'm thinking...

Ah yes, having the courage to force the president to change strategies and commanders to bring about the successful shift in Iraq strategy. Remember, they don't call it Schumer's Surge for nothing...

Increasingly you're going to find Republicans putting those 1/20/09 bumperstickers on the insides of their trunk lids---Bush heading back to the Ranch (and the Bush family leaving national politics for a generation at least) is the best thing that will happen to the Republican Party in DC and in the country.

UPDATE: The crisis spreads to Germany, where Der Speigel notes---with horror!---that Bush's political fortunes are rising:

In fact, he is doing the opposite by recovering. Instead of destroying the president, the ongoing public hostility has only made him stronger. Bush, the man who has become firmly ensconced as a wartime president, has scored three successes recently. One can either welcome them or feel threatened by them, but to ignore them would be a mistake. First, there has been noticeable improvement on the Iraqi war front. Unless the Pentagon statistics Bush recited on Friday in a speech to soldiers at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, are made up, the new Iraq strategy appears to be working. The number of weekly bombing attacks on US troops has dropped by half, and the number of US military deaths is the lowest in a year and a half. At the same time, US forces are arresting or killing more than 1,500 terrorist "thugs," as Bush called them, each month. If the military successes continue, public opinion toward Bush and his Republicans could soon improve. Americans are not against war itself, they just don't like losing.

Second, Bush dominates his party's search for a suitable presidential candidate, and he does so without voicing a preference for any of the candidates. Instead, he exerts control by dictating the job description. According to Bush, the right man for the job would not be an economic expert or a seasoned diplomat, but a sheriff, a man with nerves of steel, a man who can lead. Of course, for Bush being a strong leader means, first and foremost, leading the nation into war.

All of the Republican candidates are going to great lengths to display at least a minimum of toughness and boldness, along with a healthy dose of lunacy. Vietnam veteran John McCain dubbed his campaign tour the "No Surrender Tour." In an article in Foreign Affairs, former New York Mayor and current Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani offers an outline of his foreign policy that practically reeks of blood.

America must revamp its military, Giuliani writes, adding that it "will not be cheap, but it is necessary." For him, Afghanistan and Iraq "are only two battlegrounds in a wider war." The next president, Giuliani writes, must "mobilize the 9/11 generation for the momentous tasks ahead."

Giuliani is currently polling just behind Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, which brings us to the president's third, most spectacular success, most clearly visible on the other side of the political spectrum. The issues important to the Democrats -- poverty, healthcare reform and the looming climate catastrophe -- pale in comparison to the Iraq war.