Quite a few observers have noted that G.W. Bush’s presidency bears striking parallels to that of Ronald Reagan. Reagan is remembered as a president who loved to cut taxes and who never hesitated to brandish America’s military might on the world stage. Bush established his war-making credentials early on thanks to the madness of al-Qaida, and he has secured his tax-cutting legacy with the recently approved $350 million pre-election year gift to the voters.

Democrats seem committed to play their part in the Reagan redux by producing an updated version of Walter Mondale to play doormat to G.W. in his 2004 re-election bid. None of the nine announced Democratic challengers seem to possess the stature or the charisma to present a serious threat to the incumbent next year. Floridians can breathe easy — there is little chance that the next election will be decided by swinging chads.

What is truly surprising is the conservative nature of the campaigns the Democratic candidates are running to this point. When I say “conservative” I am not referring to the political connotation of the word, but rather to the more traditional definition — something that is marked by moderation or caution.

The Democratic contenders seem wary of questioning the president’s policies or activities in any meaningful sense. Perhaps they are awed by his consistently impressive approval ratings, but they aren’t going to unseat him by being polite. When one is facing an uphill battle, the only chance of success lies in getting a running start, not in shuffling one’s feet.

To have any chance of giving Bush a real contest, the Dems need to give Americans reason to re-evaluate their impression of the job Bush is doing as president. And that shouldn’t be all that hard to do.

Although few would question the necessity of the Afghanistan campaign given the obvious terrorist activities there, Iraq is another story. The main justification for the invasion of this country and the overthrowing of its government — their possession of weapons of mass destruction — seems to be losing credibility with each passing day. Therefore the Bush administration has shifted gears and framed the Iraq campaign as an altruistic effort to free the Iraqi people from an evil regime.

The problems with this explanation are obvious. There are many bad governments in the world — exactly how many of them do we plan to invade and overthrow? Also, it would be worthwhile to know how the Bush administration plans to ensure that democracy flourishes in Iraq so that it does not end up as another fundamentalist Islamic hotbed of terrorism without turning the country into a U.S. colony and establishing a permanent military presence there.

The tax cut also presents an opening for Democratic challengers. Although it is risky to question tax cuts during an election year, polls show that most Americans favor long term fiscal discipline over short-term personal financial gain. Alan Greenspan and many independent financial analysts agree a tax cut at this time is financially irresponsible given the need to finance overseas military operations and the looming insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs.

The game is winding down and the Democrats are way behind — it’s time for them to stop playing footsie and start delivering some licks to their opponent. And if Democrats lack the fortitude or the intelligence to do so, then it may be time for them to fade from the scene and allow a new political movement to fill the void.

— Bill Ferguson is a columnist for the Macon (Ga.) Telegraph.