It would be unreasonable to say, “Nothing.” A sitting POTUS is the acknowledged leader of his political party. In a sense, everything he does is intended to help his party win elections; a stronger party is a president’s reward for governing well. And the president always travels around the country at election time – at the taxpayers’ expense – to stump for his own party’s candidates. That much is completely routine, traditional, and noncontroversial.
But with the attorney-firing scandal, and this, and this, and this, it appears the Bush Administration has gone further than any in living memory to advance its own party’s electoral prospects by any means available, including means certainly unethical and arguably illegal.
In a perfect world, a stronger country would be the reward for governing well.
The President’s first allegiance should be to the country, with his party being much lower on the list. So what do I think the POTUS should be allowed to do to help his party win the next election? Nothing. Anything more than that is detrimental to the office.
In helping his party, IMHO, a President may do anything that is legal, and seemly, and does not reflect badly upon the office.
Dubya is among the worst by this standard, but he’s not alone. Off the top of my head, Clinton did some unsavory fundraising in '96. Bush the Elder derided VP challenger Al Gore in '92 as “Ozone Man.” Reagan joked about Michael Dukakis’s mental-health counseling in '88. LBJ all but called Goldwater a mad bomber. Going even further back, Lincoln made full use of Federal patronage and mandatory donations by Federal workers to win reelection (see Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency by John C. Waugh for more details). Before civil service-reform in the late 1800s, Federal workers were routinely leaned on to help the guy in the White House.
Even the best Presidents may cross the line when the political chips are down, and Dubya is far from the best.
