We're waiting to hear the finale to the Tale of Two Congressmen

Congressmen Dave Reichert and Brian Baird certainly had a different few days last week, but only 2008 will tell which Washington congressman made the correct political decision.

Reichert, a Republican whose traditionally GOP district now hangs in the balance, hosted President Bush and raised half a million dollars for his campaign (and the party). Baird, a Democrat whose Southwest Washington district leans Democrat but contains pockets of strongly conservative voters, is defending a change of views on Iraq — moving from war opposition to a more cautious view.

Three hundred or so hardcore Bushies paid from $1,000 to $10,000 each to be in the president's presence, but Reichert's cash windfall may be offset by linkage to the least-popular chief executive in a long time. One 2008 Democratic opponent, Darcy Burner, claims to have raised more than $100,000 on the Internet from Bush's visit.

Generally speaking, money trumps notoriety, but this may not be an ordinary election.

Baird is in the unusual position of poster boy for Bush's supporters, as he urges a slow withdrawal from Iraq after a second trip to Baghdad. Was the congressman snowed by the Bush spin machine, Baghdad branch? If so, he hasn't made the mistake that Michigan Gov. George Romney made after his trip to Saigon in 1968, after which he admitted that he was "brainwashed" by Lyndon Johnson's spin machine.

Will he earn credit for courage in speaking his mind, or will angry voters decide for themselves that he was "brainwashed" and relegate him to Romney's fate: retirement?

Generally speaking, incumbency trumps a policy mistake (but not always a personal-conduct mistake), but this may not be an ordinary election.

What is interesting in these two events is the contrast in how public reaction plays out in very different ways for a president and a congressman.

Baird faced very large and very angry community meetings, and took his lashing with grace and dignity. Bush, thanks to a complex system of crowd control, never faced a protester and probably never even saw one during his two hours in the area.

The message was delivered to Baird in very explicit terms, by some of his past supporters, and he listened. Presumably, the message was also delivered in smaller meetings, perhaps at a lower volume but with equal fervor.

The frustration level of Americans is at fever pitch, revealed not only in polling but also in such safety-valve outlets as letters to editors, which are as angry as I have seen in years. Anger over Iraq piles onto anger over lack of health care, stagnant incomes while the rich party, fear of job loss with accompanying loss of benefits, and housing costs beyond reach.

The president's Bellevue message — tax cuts, economic growth and keeping terrorists from boarding a plane to Sea-Tac — does not address the point of anger. And there is little way for him to understand it, because he lives in an airtight cocoon, into which little reality intrudes.

Enormous effort — and cost — is devoted to isolating the president from the common folk. In Bellevue, he met with core supporters and took no questions from reporters or the general public. There was no talk of the Alberto Gonzales resignation — which took place that day — or of anything not on his talking-points agenda; no meeting with a civic or educational audience.

At home, the president has often stated that he pays little attention to the news. He reads little and is known for taking one-page summaries of important matters. What information reaches him is vetted thoroughly by senior staff and Vice President Dick Cheney. The vice president has his own political agenda, and wields more influence with his nominal boss than any vice president in American history.

Senior staff values loyalty above all — Bush is known for sticking with old friends — and loyalty does not encourage candor. Colleagues who prefer to feed the boss' inclinations and ego rather than tell him he's all wet quickly isolate the political aide who brings bad news. Sooner or later, the bad-news-bringer is gone.

This is the danger of the imperial presidency, and the more we move toward a more-powerful executive, the more this will endanger the democracy, regardless of who is president.

The president needed to face Brian Baird's angry Southwest Washington constituents instead of loyal Bellevue supporters grateful for his tax cuts for the wealthy.

But we are not allowing that sort of confrontation these days. The cocoon is spun, and inside all is safe and well.