Editor’s note: This column, written by Chris Potholm, was published Sunday under the wrong byline. We regret the error and offer the column again in its entirety.

It’s truly unbelievable.

I probably know too many liberal Democrats. But still, Bush Bashing this year seems to have gone over the top.

Never, ever – not even in the heyday of Nixon hatred – in my experience have Democrats in Maine and nationally gone so nutso over a Republican figure. He is the Prince of Darkness. He is Darth Vader. He is the Devil’s Spawn. The hatred of rabid Democrats is palpable.

The Patriot Act? A heinous crime against America. Keeping terrorists at Guantanamo Bay? A heinous crime against humanity. The Department of Homeland Security? A bad joke. Any credit for throwing Osama bin Laden out of Afghanistan and getting rid of the Taliban? Forget it, America’s amazing success in Afghanistan is considered almost irrelevant or simply all lost in the Iraqi sauce. Dethroning and catching Saddam Hussein, the man who killed more Muslims than anyone else in history? Who cares? Libya gives up weapons of mass destruction? Only because Bush isn’t being Bush!

The president simply gets no credit for any of his many accomplishments in the global war on terror.

Recently, I have even seen a number of bumper strips that say “Anybody but Bush.” That captures the irrational way many, if not most, D’s are judging Bush.

“Anybody but Bush”? When it comes to leading the fight against global terror, I find it nearly impossible to imagine a majority of American voters believing that any of the Democratic candidates could do a better job or have a more efficacious strategic vision.

Al Sharpton? Please.

Dennis Kucinich? Pretty please.

Howard Dean? Anyone who complains about the American presidential primary system should look at this case history exposing a candidate variously termed, “A prairie dog on speed” and “Mr. Rogers with rabies.” This man should not be entrusted with the office of first selectman in a small Maine town, let alone have his finger on the nuclear trigger.

Wes Clark? He now says we didn’t need to go to war against Saddam Hussein. He says – with a straight face – that he would simply have gone and arrested him! We often forgive naiveté among our generals but this piece of foolishness goes beyond the pale. And please remember, Clark is the only person I know of ever fired by Bill Cohen, one of nature’s all time softies. How’s that for a negative recommendation?

John Kerry? An often epigonic chap seemingly controlled by his vibrant and powerful wife and his media handler. He was very, very lucky in Iowa. Joe Trippi got it right on election night in Iowa: “Gephardt killed his own campaign and he almost killed Dean’s.” Besides, it will be child’s play to paint anyone who votes with Ted Kennedy nearly 100 percent of the time as another Massachusetts ultra-liberal. In his beginning is his end.

John Edwards? Could be the best of a poor lot, I think. He may not be quite ready for prime time, but he seems to have the grace under pressure we require in these troubled times. Also, strategically, he would be Bush’s toughest opponent since he would challenge the president in his base areas. But in their present state of near-mania, liberal Democrats seem quite unlikely to nominate someone with that much whiff of Dixie this time around.

So.

Anybody but Bush?

I don’t think so.

Bush’s State of the Union message said it all.

We are at war. We need the will to persevere. We need an ongoing emphasis on power, security and force projection. We need to finish the job, fight the international terrorists wherever they are and protect our homeland by taking the fight to the enemy. We need a leader who will stand fast and firm, and get the job done and not be dismayed by setbacks or unpopularity. We need someone who recognizes the centrality of security to our future.

I know there are some Democrats who would rather risk another Sept. 11 than give Bush credit for setting in motion policies to prevent another terrorist attack. Certainly they seem almost joyful about any setback in Iraq. They want Bush to fail so badly they wish calamity without end in order to prove their point. Or they want to abandon Iraq as soon as possible.

In this regard, it is enormously naive to assume that militant terrorists from whatever society would call off their war simply because the United States withdrew from Iraq and/or stopped projecting its power globally. In fact, I would argue that it is the global reach of the United States that is what is standing between the world and much greater and more destructive levels of violence. How much better to fight al-Qaeda in Baghdad than in Chicago.

We are in a decades-long contest of wills with a group of dangerous, ruthless global adversaries. If we do not prevail over the course of this struggle, we shall be subject to continuing and escalating attacks. It is impossible to protect the United States proper from every possible terrorist plot and plan. It is therefore necessary to continue the forward strategy which seeks out terrorists wherever they are and neutralizes them before they strike in this country. We must succeed in this or face a most unpleasant future.

The powerful rhetoric of Bush’s State of the Union message resonates loud and clear over the din of petty and partisan minds: The first priority of the Republic is to defend itself. That is currently why the American people, by a 2-1 margin, say the Republicans are more trusted to handle security matters, without which nothing else matters.

Therefore

National security is central to the future of this country.

Security is essential for our prosperity and progress.

In November, security will trump carping and other issues.

That is why Bush will be re-elected.

Chris Potholm is DeAlva Stanwood Professor of Government at Bowdoin College and the founder and president of a national polling company. He can be reached by writing to: The Potholm Group, 182 Hildreth Road, Harpsell, ME 04079 or by e-mail at [email protected].