Andrew Stephen of the London Observer has a big clue:
The prophets of doom, whom Cheney exemplifies, are precisely right about the importance of this election. But the momentous decision awaiting Americans is not whether they return to power a President who is uniquely qualified to protect the US against terrorism, as Cheney et al would have us believe. It is whether they re-elect a man who, it is now clear, has become palpably unstable.
Stephen rates Bush's twitches, grimaces, aggression and eyeblinking as proof positive that he is unstable. Worse, he says, the president is living practically in a "Nixonian cocoon" where everything is scripted for him. Then he relates:
A senior Republican, experienced and wise in the ways of Washington, told me last Friday that he does not necessarily accept that Bush is unstable, but what is clear, he added, is that he is now manifestly unfit to be President.
I'd sure like to know who this senior GOoper is, because according to one of the amendments to the Constitution, if the president is deemed unfit to serve, he should be speedily succeeded by the vice-president. In this case, it would be Cheney. What's the deal here? What does he know? What are they waiting for? The election? Is Kerry really their savior, too--saving them from the spectre of Cheney? I know this story (and others) is probably not too reassuring, not only to the British but to the rest of Europe.
This, too, is a view that is widely felt, but seldom articulated and then only in private, within the Republican as well as Democratic establishments in Washington. Either way, the choice voters make on Tuesday fortnight should be obvious: whether he is unstable or merely unfit to be President - and I would argue that they amount to much the same - he should speedily be turfed out of office.
We can only hope. Comments?