I am a little (pleasantly) surprised by what the speech failed to address- the discontent on the populist right in the Republican party.  The people who are mad enough at Bush over immigration to make waves know the issue very well. They will see threw the dog and pony show the gaurd deployment is. The two glaring omissions that will have them up in arms are the lack of any language calling on the Mexican government to take action, and the absence of a crack down on employers that provide jobs to illegal immigrants.  The message is clear to people who watch the issue closely, Bush doesn't want to upset the business part of his coalition, and is only willing to make symbolic gestures to appease the part of his base that is drifting away. That has to be good news for us.

cheney-11 years in the house, leadership position
gore- served in both chambers of congress
quayle-haha shouldnt matter but he was a senator
bush- served in congress
mondale- senator

some people think this is because campaigns want some kind of balance on the ticket. I suppose that is possible, but I personally think very few people vote based on a the vp candidate. What I think gets these type of people on the bottom half of the ticket is that the guy at the top (in this case 4 out 5 of their bosses were ex governors) realizes he needs someone that has experience steering legislation through congress.  

However, there are reasons that governors make better candidates, and I think you may have overlooked them in your post. Here are 3 thoughts that come to mind:

1.While it is true that HW was the only VP in recent history to be elected (and he lost reelection) i think the example supports the polemic against senators as candidates instead of debunk it. The reason I think this is because in the modern american political dynamic senators and vps are somewhat similar in that they are washington insiders.

2. Yes, pre-Carter governors had a lousy track record. However, political climate may have much to do with this. From FDR up through Watergate, Americans seemed to believe much more in what the republicans have since demonized as "big government". There was a sense that goverment could do good things for people and it was a good idea for an expereinced washington mind to be in the white house. Vietnam, the social chaos of the 60s, and then watergate soured many people on the washington establishment. We all know the common-man-outsider thing is bs, but it has had a hand in electing every president since watergate with the exception of HW. Its not a mistake that all the succesful candidates have tailored themselves to this outsider approach.  

3. You are right to point out that governors also have a political track record. However, the very nature of their job in the executive branch as opposed to the senators legislative role gives them less to shoot at.  They do not have to do the horse trading and compromising that often sinks other candidates. While they may take the blame for failures, as the name that signs the bills they are also able to flaunt credit for successes.

One thing that does kind of worry me a little is that the next two senate rounds in NJ may have strong Republican candidates. Tom Kean jr. looks to be a formidable opponent next year. It just means we have to do our work, but I don't think its going to be another Forrester type situation

Can Bush regain the ground he has lost? Of course its possible, but its extremely unlikely. Especially when one considers how he would manage to pull it off by following the script above. Two huge obstacles:

A)The two others presidents were not in situations in which the general direction of the country was going poorly. I am sure most of us would have been unhappy with Reagan in the 80s but the general sense was not that Iran-Contra was just the last thing to pile onto a colossal pile of failures. Similarly, America in the 90s under Clinton was a pretty okay place, and people were not desperately seeking a reason to stick it to him.  Contrast this with W's current situation. The ongoing debacle in Iraq, tangible revulsion against the US throughout the world, an economy that brags of growth but gives little to common people, the Katrina fiasco, the SCOTUS issue. The leak and the controversy it has provoked are just what has put the administration on the brink of irrelevance, but there are many things that brought it there.  Tough hole to dig out of.

B)Reagan and Clinton achieved success abroad, but it was not out of the blue. It was the culmination of things that had been happening since their first terms. Reagan had always held a personal distaste for nuclear weapons and the decline of the USSR in the short-medium term had been predicted as far back as the Carter administration by Brzezinski. Clinton's brokering of peace in both Northern Ireland and the Middle East began early in his term. When you look out at the next three years, it is tough to see a foreign policy saving grace for Bush.  Even if a miracle occurs and things straighten out in Iraq tomorrow, the American public already thinks it was not worth it in terms of blood treasure. Anyone with a modocum of common sense knows the entire region is teetering toward instability, and if the Sharon goverment falls (or even if it doesn't) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is VERY far from providing the photo-op symbolism peace that Bush would need.  

If Democrats are smart, they will capitalize on this and go for the kill. I can honestly say I don't fear Bush reclaiming his powerful position of a few years ago. What I do fear is a lack of Democratic intiative that opens a window for another right wing Republican, one with more tact and a cleaner resume, to sneak in and command national attention on his way to the white house in 2008

Its clear that if her campaign defies all logic and takes off the national RWNM will lick their lips at taking shots at Hillary Clinton, but as you pointed out its a two way street this time.  Still, I am pretty sure Hillary walks away with this one.

Someone mentioned this upthread from here, Warner has a huge advantage in not having cast a vote on the IWR or having staked out a major position. This will allow him to enter the Iraq debate(if he is the nominee) from an advanced position with hopefully a coherent strategy on moving forward that emphasizes how to get out. I am not sure what they have on public record but I think this advantage would also apply to Vilsack and Richardson. Personally, I am not crazy about those two but its something to think about.

As for Wes Clark denying him the military vote...I wouldn't be so sure.  He might, and I hope he does if this scenario comes to pass but its not something you can just assume. McCain may never have been a general, but he draws more war-hero sympathy than Clark. Also, it is no secret that much of the military community was not crazy about Clark as a general. Will this matter? I have no idea, but its somethign to think about. Clark would still be one of my top choices for the nomination but I think its foolish to assume a military career washes away all sorts of potential liabilities.

There are many problems I have with Bayh for sure, but I would certainly vote for him. That isn't the point of my post though. Although this is MYDD which slants left and this isn't a scientific poll, seeing that number just now was pretty shocking.  If a candidate is so unpopular that a third of the people on a democratic website would not vote for him in a general election, he has serious issues to deal with.