In every debate and in most of their speeches, candidates from both parties are pledging to fix a government many see as broken and not working in matters including the conduct of the war in Iraq, control of U.S. borders and the reaction to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.

Not since Dukakis declared that the 1988 election “isn't about ideology; it's about competence” has any campaign featured so much talk about competence.

It is not surprising that Democrats would raise the issue with its criticism of an incumbent Republican president. And they have been very outspoken. Front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York delivered an entire speech in New Hampshire to promise to “re-establish the competence of government.” The other Democrats routinely pounce on administration missteps.

But it has been the Republican candidates who have been battling most vigorously to be seen as the one best positioned to bring competent leadership to Washington. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson wrote a scathing essay for the National Review  lamenting that “we've lost our ability to take care of some of the most basic duties of government.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani never miss an opportunity to cast what they did in their former jobs as the best preparation for the White House and proof that they will be better managers than what has been on display since President Bush took office.

And the most biting critiques of the status quo have come from Arizona Sen. John McCain. In his announcement speech, McCain said Americans “have a right to expect basic competence from their government.”

In what was taken as a jab at Giuliani's record in New York, McCain said, “They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency.”

McCain has stepped up his attacks on the Bush administration's competence to try to balance his outspoken support for the Iraq war. He wants to be associated with the mission but not the execution of the war. At every opportunity he says, as he did in a June debate in New Hampshire, “This war was very badly mismanaged for a long time.”

For Democrats, the competence pitch seizes a political opportunity. For Republicans, it is the urgent need to open some distance between themselves and the unpopular president from their own party.

The polls tell the story – Gallup shows a large majority disagrees that Bush “can manage the government effectively.” And Pew Research Center found that “incompetent” has replaced “honest” as the word people most often associate with the president.

“Each election always corrects the flaws of the previous president,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. “One of the things about George Bush is that he doesn't seem to be on top of things so the next president says, 'I will.' ”

Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, said voters “absolutely are open to this appeal” because of Bush. “The knock on Bush is competence from Iraq to Katrina. . . . People don't think he has been a good leader and don't think he can get things done.”

Karlyn Bowman, an expert on public opinion at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agreed but said the candidates must be careful to avoid the mistake Dukakis made. Because Dukakis did not project a vision for the country, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush easily mocked his promise by saying, “Competence makes the trains run on time but doesn't know where they're going.” While critics tabbed Dukakis as “Zorba the clerk,” Bush's campaign then raised doubt about his competence as governor of Massachusetts.

“There is a widespread skepticism, particularly among younger voters, about government competency,” Bowman said. “But I wouldn't make it the centerpiece of a campaign because people do want vision. They want something larger. They want you to tell them where you want the country to go.”

That craving for vision is why historians can cite no president ever elected primarily because he promised to be a good manager. Perhaps the closest was in 1952 when President Harry Truman was driven to retirement by cries of “communism, corruption and Korea” and complaints of mismanagement. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the World War II hero, stepped into the void with a stellar reputation for organizing and overseeing one of the greatest management challenges in the history of warfare, the Allied invasion of Europe.

“He won because everybody knew he was a competent guy and a good manager in World War II,” said Lee Edwards, a presidential historian at the Heritage Foundation, who noted an important link between the 1952 and 2008 elections – unpopular wars. Eisenhower could pledge to “go to Korea” and today's candidates can promise to better manage and end the Iraq war.

Iraq is by far the biggest issue in this campaign and is inextricably linked to the competence debate, Edwards said. It also makes it “very tricky” for Republicans who want to promise to be more competent than Bush without alienating Republican voters still loyal to the president.

“They would not take kindly to what they would see as unfair criticism just for political purposes by someone who wants to succeed Bush,” Edwards said.

“They have to tiptoe through the tulips here,” said Kohut, with the Pew center. “They have to be very careful. They can't give the Republican base the view that they are being disloyal to Bush.”