One of our fears has appeared to come true - the tradition of a second-term President to move to the 'middle'. When Bill Clinton moved to the middle in his second term, it was an improvement, and he passed a tax cut on capital gains in 1997. However, Bush moving to the middle has been the opposite of the majority of the country had hoped for, and is a contributing factor to his approval rating being much lower than in 2003 and 2004.
Why might this be? Is it because Bush has not continued the same aggressive tactics in the War on Terror that he took in his first term, despite the expectations of those who voted for him on his prior strength on this issue? For example, he has not taken as tough a line on Iran that he took with Afghanistan and Iraq, despite Iran's provocative actions of meddling with the US in Iraq, and support of Hezbollah against Israel? Many Americans recognize the danger that Iran's nuclear weapons program poses to many democratic countries in the world, and 52% of Americans support military action to disarm Iran. These Americans are dismayed at Bush's passivity, despite the fact that we have Iran in a vulnerable position, effectively fighting a two-front war, with the added distraction of US and NATO troops present in neighboring Afghanistan.
This does not mean I am advocating a full-scale war with Iran, but it is important to note that their bargaining position is much weaker than ours is (despite our ongoing campaign in Iraq). For all the media hype of Iran being a powerful nation having 3 times Iraq's population, note that during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran was unable to overcome a stalemate with Iraq even after 8 years of fighting from 1980-88. A conventional war against Iran (not regime change) would be no less one-sided than Gulf War I.
Cox and Forkum always says it best. President Bush has gone from this (March 2003) :
To this (2006) :