Well, as a campaign strategy for Democrats at least. It’s hard to be the sunny candidate when Karl, er, George is on the other side acting deliriously, lunching-on-‘shrooms happy. And who would blame them? After carelessly (or is that carefree-ly?) throwing all caution — fiscal discipline, the “very serious” words of the Security Council, etc. — to the wind, they had better be happy. The rest of us, on the other hand, had better not be.

Polls consistently show solid support for cutting taxes, increasing spending, and balancing the budget. The only problem is that it can’t be done.

But, even taken purely as a campaign strategy, there is a problem here: It’s hard to see how any Democrat could possibly outflank the incumbent as the candidate of wishful thinking. The president, after all, is the one proposing to make his current tax cuts permanent; increase domestic discretionary spending by 4 percent; and increase military, homeland-security, and entitlement spending by more than that — all while adding new tax cuts and balancing the budget. In the meantime, he thinks we can fly to Mars, take on $1 trillion in transition costs as Social Security is partially privatized, solve the health-care crisis with tax cuts, help people pay for college with more tax cuts, and further strengthen the retirement system with even more tax cuts. It’s utter nonsense, of course, but it’s certainly optimistic.

Faced with Bush’s “candy for everyone!” politics, pessimism may be the Democrats’ only hope. If things look bad in Iraq and job growth remains weak through November, all the president’s promises will do him little good. But hoping for short-term failure isn’t very optimistic. It’s not a safe bet, either: Bush’s policies are calculated to maximize his short-term electoral prospects while pushing problems into 2005, 2009, or 2013 — when he won’t need to pay a price at the polls.

[Matthew Yglesias in The American Prospect]

And people wonder why I’m so dour.