Since May 1, the phrase "lame duck" has been used in British newspapers on the Guardian's cuttings database (including all the main nationals apart from the FT) in 124 stories. This does not seem too great when you compare it to "Brussels" (1,156) "Celebrity Love Island" (713) or "political correctness" (186 stories, rising to 330 if you also search on "politically correct"). But, for supposedly lame ducks, it is quite a leap on the 38 in the same 52 day period up to May 1.
Before May 1 the lame ducks were Kevin Keegan, the Longbridge car plant and Tony Blair if he won the general election. After May 1, it was Tony Blair (he won the election) and Michael Howard because he said he would resign the Tory leadership without specifying when. Away from this island were Gerhard Schröder and Silvio Berlusconi for looking certain to face defeat in upcoming elections, and Jacques Chirac for losing France's referendum on the European constitution. We're all lame ducks now.
George Bush, if you do a Technorati search on the phrase, is the latest edging towards the club.
There should be some question marks over this – as there should with Mr Blair, since a politician who has recently won an election is less of a lame duck than one like Mr Schröder who could soon be out of office – but a second senate vote against John Bolton, Mr Bush's choice to be Washington's ambassador to the UN, appears to have taken another bite out of what looked like the US president's previously commanding position. It was only on November 4 that, re-elected to the White House with Republican control over both houses of Congress, he declared: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."
Normally, the transition from "second term" to "lame duck" president takes around two years in the US political cycle – roughly the period between the presidential election and the mid term congressionals, but Mr Bush is limping a little, just over six months on. Before the Bolton vote, as this New York Times piece recalls, there were "political dings that can be patched up", but also more serious matters such as stem cell cloning and plans for US pension reform that "could have lasting consequences for his standing." As for Mr Bolton, Mr Bush can now either battle on (possibly offering concessions to the Democrats) or temporarily appoint him to the UN without the senate's approval. He could choose someone else, but that would be an admittance of weakness.
There will no doubt be a spike in the British newspaper lame duck index over the next week as broadsheet commentators mull over the US president's political authority, but here are some thoughts.
If Mr Bush massages political bodies and procedures to get Mr Bolton where he wants him, does that make him a lame duck or a politician, albeit a politician more in the parliamentary tradition? Second, did the mood of triumphalism among Mr Bush and his supporters at the end of last year (see the political capital quote) effectively set the president up for a fall if he failed to achieve all his goals?
There is no doubt that Mr Bush will eventually follow the path of his predecessors and use the clout of his office for diplomatic purposes (Condoleezza Rice's speech on democracy in Egypt shows Middle East reform is still a priority, much as Bill Clinton wanted to advance the Northern Irish and Israeli-Palestinian peace processes) but we should be wary of throwing the "lame duck" phrase around too freely or giving it too wide a meaning.
If all the claimed lame ducks since May 1 had lost their political clout, the only leaders at the G8 summit who could actually do anything would be Vladimir Putin of Russia, Junichiro Koizumi of Japan and Canada's Paul Martin. Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right.
