I suppose the ruckus about Bush resigning early could be traced to a couple outlandish, but true, statements made just after the election. They were both made to NPR, the first by historian David Fronkley. From NPR’s post-election story:

“The world has gotten so speedy,” says historian Douglas Brinkley, “that even though Obama will not be inaugurated until Jan. 20, 2009, people will assume that Obama is the president on Wednesday morning, the day after the election.”

President Bush “is the lamest of lame-duck presidents we have ever had,” says Brinkley, a professor at Rice University and editor of The Reagan Diaries. “Bush is completely ineffective.” The economy is unhinged; wars rage overseas; the president’s approval ratings have gone to seed.

Sure, it may take a while to get a transition team in place, but it is so clear that Bush is a lame duck and gives us two months of ineffectual leadership in a time of extreme crisis that there are rumblings out there for Bush to resign. I suppose the comments by Bill Frenzel, former Congressman and deficit hawk, apply to the situation as well. Also from NPR’s post-election coverage:

Former Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-Minn.) says that as soon as Obama gets into office, he must shore up the economy.

“Whatever stimulus packages are still needed will make him look like a Santa Claus,” says Frenzel, now a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.

But then Obama will have to do a most unpopular thing — present a budget. During the campaign, Obama promised to go through the budget, line by line, and strike off programs that don’t work.

“He will find that the cupboard is not quite bare, but he will also find insufficient resources to do many or most of the things his constituencies expect him to do,” Frenzel says. “Nobody will mind a deficit of from half a trillion to $1 trillion in the first year, but if it doesn’t decline in the out-years, he’s got trouble. He will have particular trouble funding his healthcare program.”

The problem Frenzel didn’t see is that the economic situation has gotten far worse in just the 20 days since he made his comments. It isn’t anymore a worry about the kind of deficits Obama will be running, but whether he will enter office in time to put any sort of economic recoverty package in place. Whatever one thinks of the auto bailout, it’s clear both Bush and the Congress haven’t the will to lead on the matter, and we are in desperate need of just that, a leader. Indeed, Congress looks to succomb to gridlock rather than address some dire problems. So we’re hearing calls for Bush to resign early, or something to that effect. Here’s Tom Friedman on the subject in today’s Times:

If I had my druthers right now we would convene a special session of Congress, amend the Constitution and move up the inauguration from Jan. 20 to Thanksgiving Day. Forget the inaugural balls; we can’t afford them. Forget the grandstands; we don’t need them. Just get me a Supreme Court justice and a Bible, and let’s swear in Barack Obama right now — by choice — with the same haste we did — by necessity — with L.B.J. in the back of Air Force One.

Friedman is concerned that two months from now, when Obama finally hits office, that our economy, and more importantly our faith in our economy, will have eroded so far as to be unrecoverable. His colleague at the Times, Gail Collins, just two days before suggested that Bush resign as a gift to all Americans on Thanksgiving. Collins was a bit tongue in cheek, but it certainly would give us something to be thankful for in a season where we worry about two wars, rampant foreclosures, tanking stock prices. . . and consumer demand, spurred by the lowest confidence rratings in years, that is threatening to cripple the holiday sales season. Here’s Gail Collins from the Times:

In happier days, Bush may have nurtured hopes of making it into the list of America’s mediocre presidents, but somewhere between Iraq and Katrina, that goal became a mountain too high. However, he might still have a chance to avoid the absolute bottom of the barrel, a spot currently occupied by James Buchanan, at least in my opinion. Buchanan nailed down The Worst President title in the days between Abraham Lincoln’s election and inauguration, when the Southern states began seceding and Buchanan, after a little flailing about, did absolutely nothing. “Doing nothing is almost the worst thing a president can do,” said the historian Michael Beschloss.

If Bush gives up doing nothing by giving up his job, it’s possible that someday history might elevate him to the ranks of the below average. Better than Franklin Pierce! Smarter than Warren Harding! And healthier than William Henry Harrison!

Maybe we could have a whole bunch of historians come forward and validate Collins’ words so Bush himself thinks that maybe, just maybe, he can save his name for posterity by doing the right thing at a crucial time, and the right thing is QUITTING.