Well, only a weekend ‘till the U.S. election. I’m wary of predictions, but if I had to bet, I’d take Bush.

Having said that, a few late developments are making it an interesting contest. The most notable to me is the fact that a number of erstwhile Bush commentators in the U.S. have come out in favour of John Kerry. I’m doubtful of the ability of certain select pundits to influence an election outcome, but if their thinking is reflective of any kind of current in the American electorate, the Democrats may have an outside chance.

To use a baseball analogy, a few on the American political right seem to think that Bush is like the starting pitcher in a baseball game. He took them through the early innings and got some key outs. But now his arm is getting tired, he's throwing some wild pitches, and his attitude is pissing off the umpires. Time to pull him and put the relief guy in.

Here is right wing blog star Andrew Sullivan:

“If Bush is re-elected, even Britain will likely shift toward withdrawal in Iraq, compounding American isolation there and making it even harder for a new Iraqi government to gain legitimacy. In the essential tasks of building support for greater international help in Iraq - financially, militarily, diplomatically - Kerry is the better choice. No, other countries cannot bail us out or even contribute much in the way of an effective military. But within Iraq, the impact of a more international stamp on the occupation and on the elections could help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis. That battle - as much as the one on the battlefield itself - is crucial for success. I fear Bush is too polarizing, too controversial, too loathed a figure even within his own country, to pull this off.

“...One of the great benefits of being a democracy at war is that we can change leaders and tactics to advance the same goals.”

Note that Sullivan is not anti-war. He is for the war in Iraq. He just doesn’t think Bush can finish the job. This could be a real problem for Bush. Republicans are countering that it doesn't matter who's in the White House; the French, Germans, and whoever else aren't going to help in Iraq in any case. But with support for Bush faltering even in Great Britain, where the opposition Tories are no keener on him than many in Tony Blair’s increasingly restless Labour party, the relief pitcher mentality could be factor.

Let's switch to a hockey analogy. When he coached the Canucks, Harry Neale made a controversial trade to secure Dave 'Tiger' Williams from the Toronto Maple Leafs. Though lambasted for the trade, Neale felt that Williams was the type of player who, by the very fact that he was so hated by opponents, would be valuable to the Canucks.

"If they're on the other side," said Neale of players like Williams, "you hate 'em. If they're on your side you like ‘em."

Indeed, for a while Williams was the Canucks' leading goal scorer, a pugnacious catalyst who gave the team some determination and grit.

It seems to me that Bush is seen by many Americans in the same light. They don't care if everyone else hates him. His blinkered determination and stick-it-to-em style are seen as key assets during a tough time.

The problem for Bush, though, is that a few of his former supporters are starting to look at him as a net liability. Kind of like when Tiger Williams took a dumb penalty, or when his yapping pissed off his teammates or kept the refs from giving his team the benefit of the doubt.

If enough Americans start to feel that Bush's style, or, as another pro-war pundit, Christopher Hitchens, puts it, his ‘excruciating personality’ is getting in the way, he'll be in trouble.

Add to that the fact that many conservatives feel that he's well off track. They can't stand the huge deficits he's running up. They're irritated that he's expanded certain social programs (or entitlements as they're called in the States) in order to nail down support from seniors in places like Florida. Some of them don't like his social conservatism, seeing it as unwarranted state meddling in the private affairs of citizens. And they're irritated by his immigration policies, which they see as giving a free ride to queue jumpers from Mexico as a way of shoring up the burgeoning Latino vote.

Taking the long view, some feel that a Republican defeat this time round would be better for conservatives down the road.

‘If Bush loses,’ says Andrew Sullivan, ‘the fight to recapture Republicanism from Big Government moralism will be given new energy.’

It’s one thing when Michael Moore and company wants you out. But when your own camp starts turning on you, you may have a problem.

As a final note, keep a few things in mind.

Americans, unlike a lot people from a lot of other countries, don't necessarily associate Republican presidents with war.

Think about it. Americans were led into almost every major conflict they have faced over the past 100 years by Democrats. Woodrow Wilson led them into World War I; Franklin Roosevelt led them into World War II; Harry Truman took them (with U.N. approval, mind you) into Korea; and Lyndon Johnson heavily ramped up JFK's efforts in Vietnam.

True, it was George Bush Sr. that went into Kuwait, but not without massive (including Arab) diplomatic and military support.

The guy who was supposed to the biggest maniac of them all, Ronald Reagan, had to content himself with bombing Khaddafi and locking down Grenada. Even Bill Clinton, with his attacks on Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan, was able to drop more ordinance. (This is excluding, of course, the support Reagan lent to various goon-squad regimes in Central America.)

Perhaps Americans feel that the more ornery and crazed their leader looks, the more everyone else will step back. Again, a bit of hockey tactic, akin to Gretzky always making sure he had a Semenko or McSorley on hand.

The biggest problem for Americans is that they need a higher calibre of player altogether right now.

‘They are both second-tier politicians,’ says Andrew Sullivan of Kerry and Bush, ‘thrust into the spotlight at a time when we desperately need those in the first circle of talent and vision.’

That’s just it. The U.S. needs brawn AND brains right now, the whole package. They don’t need a Williams or a Semenko. They need a Howe, or a Messier, or an Orr.

Regrettably for all of us, there doesn't seem to be one on the horizon.