The story starts in Slate, then takes an interesting new direction from Matthew Yglesias, expands at Political Animal, and winds up here, where no one will ever read it.

Yglesias asks the most important big question to go virtually unasked in the past three years: Why is George Bush President? This isn't another SCOTUS screed (if it were, the answer would be that almost being elected President is now considered statistically equivalent to actually being elected President), it's a question that attempts to find Bush's own qualifications and electability. It probably goes without saying that Bush is found lacking:

Yglesias's thesis is that Bush, whatever you think of his Presidency, had no reason to be considered for the Republican nomination in 2000, nor even for the Texas Governorship in 1994. This idea, that his presence in the Oval Office is an aberration of the highest order, is something I've been trying to articulate ever since his inauguration. I disagree with the politics of everyone who ran for the Republican nomination in 2000, but victories by the likes of John McCain, Orrin Hatch or Elizabeth Dole would not have made me question the long-term viability of democracy in the United States. How could rank-and-file Republicans, most of whom still actually believe in their party's claimed tenets, have thought this was a good idea? How could they still?

I fear that the answer lies in the ever-expanding fundie/evangelical voting bloc. Conservative Christians might have liked Hatch, if they didn't think Mormons were a godless cult. They might have liked Gary Bauer, if he didn't look like Eddie Munster. Where else were they going to go? The percentage of Americans describing themselves as "born again" appears to be somewhere in the low to mid-40's. Is it a coincidence that, even before he became our God-sent warrior-king, Bush's job approval never dipped below that? In the summer of 2001, Bush pushed his tax cuts through, despite projections that showed them exacerbating the economic downturn; he spent all kinds of time hemming and hawing about stem cells, only to come out with a decision that pleased basically no one; and he spent a month on vacation after having been in office for only half a year, all while sharks decimated our beaches. He'd gotten down to about 50% when the planes hit, just 5-10% above his fundie baseline.

It's important to keep in mind that born again Christians are not part of a hivemind, and a lot of this depends on what individual survey respondents mean by "born again," but still, this is a group that Democrats and even moderate Republicans probably cannot crack in significant numbers. Moderate Republican Arlen Specter just fought a primary challenge from an arch-conservative foe, in large part thanks to support from Bush, whose people surely understand that the hardliner would likely have lost in November and cost Bill Frist a vote in the Senate. But the fact that Specter had to fight so hard illustrates the problem the GOP faces as the future screams into the present. 46% is enough get a hardliner nominated in some cases, but generally not enough to win an office.

The Bush case is a curious one not just because he's a hardcore conservative Christian, but because his religious fervor plants ideological rigidity all over the issue space. Here is a man who, by all accounts, abhors dialogue, nuance and deliberation. His mere presence in the public sphere is enough to undo 1,000 civics classes. So the question I must ask is: Is this what Bush voters wanted? He got about 48% of the nationwide popular vote in 2000; polls now show him generally ranging between 43% and 49%. His people seem to be sticking by him, for the most part. Can we take that as affirmation?