Now that Bush’s approval rating is bottoming out somewhere in the 40’s, the long task of rebuilding this presidency must begin. Certainly, Karl Rove knows better than I, but here’s my case for Bush.

Bush needs to be clear about Iraq, because the media and the Democrats won’t be. Did Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction? No. At the worst, he had bad intelligence, which is to say that Saddam Hussein did a good job fronting about his weapons capabilities for the sake of self-preservation in the region. Bush didn’t need to make the case to invade Iraq. The UN made it again and again. The US shouldn’t be asked to bear the burden of a weak international community’s inability to police its members. Bush made the best argument he could, and in the end, America and the Middle East is safer. The only people who really believe that Bush needed to make a case for invasion are the ones that would have refused whatever he brought forward, so don’t even pretend to be shocked if your expectations haven’t been met.

While it is unfortunate that the US must bear the burden of paying for the reconstruction and police work in Iraq, I suspect the long-term savings in regional stability will be worth it. What’s more disgraceful is the media’s insistance on mis-reporting the situation in Iraq.

Bush’s Middle East policy has been brilliant because it stops pretending all the players are morally equivalent. He’s the first president to call for a Palestinian state while at the same time making Arafat’s non-involvement a prerequisite. The more stable Iraq becomes, the more stable Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, etc., will become.

Bush needs to stress the long-term nature of thr war on terrorism — a war that is ultimately won when democracy is brought to the Muslim world. That’s the same way we killed communism. If the ripple effect in Iraq is that Iran and others see the benefits of free market democracy, then it was worth the risk.

On the economy, Bush needs to stand firm. Tax cuts will make a difference given time. There are no short-term fixes in this economy. Things will begin to right themselves at some point, but unless Congress is willing to curb spending, the deficit will increase.

Perhaps Bush’s biggest strength in this campaign is that none of his Democratic challengers have any original ideas, charisma, or credibility. Dean has been leading the pack because of his willingness to build a grassroots campaign based on tired, far-left ideas. The rest of the field, save for Clark, don’t stand a chance. Kerry is exactly what Democrats don’t need — a northeastern liberal (think Dukakis or Tsongas). Clark has almost no qualifications to run on and zero ideas. He was a sloppy commander in the Balkans who was disliked by his colleagues for being too political. He is a PR nightmare with no money and no grassroots support. He’ll fade early in the primaries if not before.

Bottom line, if Bush stands on his record against terrorism and doesn’t let the media or the Democrats try marginalize his successes, then he’ll see his numbers rise. It’s better to be Bush in 2003 at 45% appproval than Bush in 1991 with 90% approval. We remember what happened to that guy.