In the flurry of endless commentary and analysis that inevitably followed the President’s final State of the Union address, the term “lame duck” was often prominent.  Conventionally, a President in the final year of his final term is so constrained as to render him little more than a place-holder for whoever his successor may be.  So lame is this particular duck that many of us have already turned our attention to more important matters, such as Super Tuesday or even Super Bowl Sunday.

However, we should bear in mind that President Bush has already defied convention on numerous occasions in his presidency.  And now he finds himself in a position to defy convention yet again by exercising more executive initiative in his final year than at any time since the period immediately following 9/11.

On the debit side of the ledge, Bush has the usual problems that confine a late second term President.  In fact he has more than usual.  Not only are all eyes on the upcoming presidential election, but Bush still faces a notoriously hostile Democratic majority in Congress.  And let us not forget that if his approval ratings are any guide, he remains the least popular President in a generation or more.

Still, before writing off Bush, we should take a look at the credit side of his situation.  Congress’ hostility essentially terminates any remaining domestic agenda the President may still be entertaining.  While that is undoubtedly a personal disappointment, it does free him up to pursue foreign policy—which requires much less congressional cooperation—with undivided attention.

Perhaps more importantly, for the first time in memory this second term President has no obvious successor to support in the upcoming election.  Vice President Cheney took himself out of consideration long ago, and the remaining pack of Republican hopefuls have little or no association with this administration.  All of them are running “away” from Bush in some sense or other.  Front runner John McCain, in fact, has been something of a thorn in the President’s political side for quite some time.

Not only is Bush free from the burden of reelection himself, but he has no horse in the race to speak of.  With no electoral constraint whatsoever, he will not feel compelled to behave himself for the sake of political expediency.  The result is a rare opportunity for the President to exercise executive authority without so much as a glance at the public opinion polls.
For those who still expect the President to go gently into that good night, consider Bush’s previous State of the Union address in 2007.  Having just endured his party’s humiliating defeat in the congressional elections and suffering from abysmal poll ratings, both attributable to his unpopular adventure in Iraq, how did Bush respond?  To paraphrase last year’s address, “My fellow Americans, I have heard your disapproving outcry over the war in Iraq and have therefore decided to send over more troops.”

To be sure, the President’s hands are tied in many ways.  As we have said, the domestic agenda is closed.  Beyond that, the investment of troops in Iraq leaves little military bandwidth to employ in other theaters.  But as far as foreign policy in the Middle East is concerned, the President is free to shape an outcome of his choosing without regard to the rest of Washington’s preferences.

An old expression holds that if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it’s probably a duck.  True enough, but despite conventional expectations, no one is quacking or waddling at the White House just yet.