IF BUSH DOES WELL, HE'LL GET THE CREDIT

There is a heated vote taking place on semissourian.com.

This week's poll question asks, "How do you rate the first two months of the Bush presidency?"

Early votes registered overwhelming support for the new president. Recent tallies have pulled the numbers closer. In a way, the first few days of voting on semissourian.com reflect some of the sentiment around the country about the initial months of the Bush presidency.

After fashioning a honeymoon when few national pundits thought one would be forthcoming, George W. Bush is facing more criticism. Among the issues: He talked down the economy. He reneged on a promise to enact tough new carbon-dioxide regulations. His tax cut plan is too broad. And he doesn't work hard enough.

In today's hardball political world, criticism is a reality of elected life, and the Bush administration seems undaunted in pressing its agenda. Are there truths to the criticism, however?

Like many economists, the Bush team predicted a softening of the economy last year. The quandary was whether to talk about the softening -- thereby setting markers that the economic downturn began under President Clinton, or put the best face on what was an increasingly slowing economy -- and thereby hope to prop consumer confidence and potentially lessen the downturn.

Complicating matters for Bush is that his father was blamed for not talking enough about the economic downturn in 1991, leading his opponents to call Bush the elder out of touch.

For the fair-minded, there is little question that the current economic stall wasn't caused by George W. Bush. Of course, fair-mindedness rarely seems to inflict demagogues, and they will continue to place blame at the president's feet as long as they believe it will lead to political gain. More complicated is determining whether Bush's pronouncements will help or hurt the pace of economic recovery.

The complication is that, in the end, there really is no way of exactly gauging his comments' impact for good or bad. But at least from a political perspective, it really doesn't matter. If the economy recovers strongly, he will gain credit from the American people. If it doesn't recover strongly, no matter when the downturn began, he will be blamed. More important: What kind of policies will he support to materially affect the economy of the United States?

This leads to Bush's breaking of a campaign pledge about regulating carbon-dioxide gases. While some conservatives have sought to downplay Bush's initial promise, calling it barely noticed when made, the fact is that Bush did say he would enact strict CO2 regulations last year while campaigning. Now he has reversed course. Why?

Scientific experts agree that the earth's climate has experienced a gradual warming during the last century. During the same time, the amount of CO2 in the air has increased. Less clear is how much this warming is due to CO2 or to other variables, but the Bush campaign agreed that curbing CO2 emissions was a worthwhile goal.

The problem about putting this goal into action, especially when much of the world is facing an economic slowdown, is that one of the largest man-made contributors of CO2 is coal-burning power plants, which now generate 56 percent of the United States' electrical power.

To enact tough new standards would be a significant hit upon the economy, and there is already an energy shortage in California. In this context, the administration re-evaluated the proposed policy and called the pledge a mistake.

Is this reversal grounds to be angry? Absolutely, if you believe environmental causes are the most important concerns facing the nation (a legitimate but narrow position), and if you voted for Bush because of his CO2 pledge (probably not too many people in this count). But the reasons offered for making the change are defensible.

On a reassuring note for those who don't like presidents to renege on campaign promises, at least Bush did not seek to blame someone else for this shift. Nor did he deny that the change was made. As befits his promise to bring integrity to the office, his administration announced the change in straightforward style.

Another major criticism of Bush is that his proposed tax cuts are too big, unfair and irresponsible. Many columns could be devoted to these issues, but there is no denying that Bush could make the case stronger that tax cuts -- as they did with JFK and Ronald Reagan -- can help stimulate the economy and thereby raise the tide for all boats.

Is Bush doing enough as president?

Opponents point to his 7:30 a.m.-to-6:30 p.m. days with workouts in between. They point to Clinton's late hours as contrast (of course, that's a two-edged sword). But, again, the issue is more theatrics than real.

If Bush does well, maybe more people will eat dinner with their spouses and bring home less work in the evening. And if he doesn't do well, then he'll have even more time to spend with his family in the long-run.

Meanwhile, at last check: George Bush was receiving a highly favorable or favorable grade from 67 percent of semissourian.com users. His average or unfavorable marks registered 33 percent.

Jon K. Rust is co-president of Rust Communications. He can be reached at jrust@semissourian.com.