YOU KNOW YOU'RE a president in trouble when...the Comedy Channel carries your State of the Union address with live commentary. When you have to make self-deprecating remarks in that address about yarfing at a state dinner. When you go to New Hampshire and get so giddy with that down-home-in-Texas crap that you babble obtusely about the "Nitty Ditty Gritty Nitty Dirt Band."

Yes, it's been a glorious few weeks. It's been a time in which the once (and probably still) impossible hope of a Democratic win has actually looked plausible. Still, amid the stupidity and humor of Bush's difficulties--the very fuel of those hopes--there's more at stake. Some profound changes for our politics--or at least long-lasting trends--lurk underneath the quirky fissures in Bush's support network.

Among the more intractable and trend-revealing problems:

George Bush versus the White House. John Sununu's still on the payroll in the West Wing, and everyone still hates him. Even so, the new chief of staff, Sam Skinner, is holding a tight leash on his predecessor. Since December, CNN has been trying to get Sununu to take Buchanan's place on "Crossfire" (or simply to appear on a show), but he always has to "check with Sam," and Sam never lets him play.

Meanwhile, Skinner is not much better than Sununu was at improving the president's image. The Japan trip was a fiasco, and Skinner let budget director Richard G. Darman talk Bush into stalling on new economic proposals until last Tuesday, during the State of the Union address. The yearly snoozer of a speech was probably watched by lots of people. Some may have even paid attention. None will remember it.

In the meantime, Bush was stuck lamely with saying things like, "I probably have made mistakes in assessing the fact that the economy would recover.... I think I've known, look, this economy is in freefall. I hope I've known it."

Even considering the huge lexicon of Bush misstatements, this is particularly idiotic. To take even partial blame for the economic decline--and to use the harsh terms of the Democrats to describe it--is suicidal in a state reeling as much as New Hampshire. He should beat up on Congress, liberals and anyone else who comes to mind. Just not himself.

All of this delicious confusion may help (minimally, at least) to defeat Bush next November, but it's symptomatic of larger problems.

Bush's is the de Tocqueville presidency. The model is simple--get a bunch of rich, white, big-headed blowhards together, mostly lawyers, to run a country too complex for all those smelly voters. Not only does their silly bickering effectively shut out from Bush's narrow view the troubles and concerns of minorities and women. It's also a stupid, inefficient way to run a government.

And instead of reinvigorating the place with new faces and new ideas, Bush seems to insist on hiring only those who've passed some absurd loyalty test.

Witness the appointment last week of Massachusetts native Andrew H. Card to replace Skinner at the Department of Transportation. In the 1988 race, Card urged Bush to use the Willie Horton story and Michael Dukakis's veto of the Pledge of Allegiance bill when both had been largely forgotten. They were winners. Loyalty oath passed.

GEORGE BUSH versus Pat Buchanan. The latest polls (by the American Research Group, a New Hampshire firm) show the isolationist and "probably" anti-Semitic (William F. Buckley's conclusion--not mine, which would have been something like "Goebbelsesque") Patrick J. Buchanan to have broken the 30 percent mark.

Of course, 30 percent isn't a win. It's not really close. But Buchanan's numbers will probably go up, and Bush's will keep sliding. Former Nixon speechwriter Buchanan has bought tons of TV time in New Hampshire (about three and a half hours, according to The New York Times)--more than even the well-financed Bill Clinton.

On the other hand, Bush has bought nada so far. In fact, the president plans only two more swings through the state before the primary on February 18.

In addition, Buchanan has the staunch support of The Manchester Union-Leader, the only major state-wide newspaper. In a front-page editorial January 22, the paper unequivocally endorsed Buchanan (they actually printed the endorsement sentence in bold type), citing cartoonishly his belief "that America should be first" and "that we should remove ourselves from all foreign entanglements except for those that directly benefit the United States."

Finally, Buchanan is not a bad campaigner. Earlier this month, he showed up at what one might expect to be a hostile arena for a right-winger--an Ivy League school. But according to David M. Herszenhorn, a reporter for The Dartmouth, Buchanan's visit to the Big Green received "surprisingly positive" reaction.

"Some critical questions were asked," Herszenhorn said, "and some people tried to get him to admit to being racist or sexist or homophobic." But Buchanan has learned the political game too well. He walked out with "appreciative" praise.

From a let's-beat-Bush-At-All-Costs perspective, I hope Buchanan will rake in around 37 percent. The last few decades show that no incumbent can give up that much in New Hampshire and still go on to win in November--Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson (who actually quit the race when Eugene McCarthy bagged 40 percent in the Granite state) are recent examples.

But in the hopes that Buchanan will steal Bush's fire, we can't forget that he has shown us in recent national polls that cleaned up David Duke rhetoric can appeal nationally. Too harsh? I'll grant that Buchanan is obviously not an avowed Nazi, but too often putting "America first" seems to mean we must accept the white Catholic values he grew up with as those of a patriotic America.

Only Jews wanted to fight the Gulf War, he said last year. As Michael E. Kinsley '72 pointed out recently, he thinks Americans sympathize with Russians because they, like "us," are "white people."

It's not uncommon for politicians to blame ethnic and racial minorities for poor economic times. Like the Bush administration infighting, the attack on Bush from the right may help defeat the president in the fall. But also like the White House wrangling, the rebirth of the politics of race and isolation in America warn of deeper problems.

GEORGE BUSH versus the Supreme Court. Last week, the mostly Reagan-Bush Court agreed to hear a Pennsylvania case that could possibly result in the reversal of Roe V. Wade. More bad news.

The 1989 Webster case from Missouri, which only weakened Roe, is credited with giving Democrats Jim Florio and Douglas Wilder the edge in their narrow elections that fall.

But with the additions of David H. Souter '61 and Clarence Thomas, the Court is even more conservative than in 1989. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's middle-of-the-road tie-breaking position prevented an overturn in 1989, when four justices were prepared for reversal and four were opposed. Now two of four supporters of Roe are gone.

The Court usually adjourns for a break in June or July, and since arguments for this case won't begin until April, the Court probably won't rule until just before leaving for the beach.

An overturn of Roe next summer would surely set the tone for the July and August nominating conventions in New York and Houston--as civil rights issues did in 1948 and as the Vietnam War did in 1968. The difference is that this time, the Republicans will have the convention-floor bloodbath. And the Democrats will benefit.

But, again, at what cost? Perhaps the 1992 race will find a Democrat the victor partially because Roe is overturned. But the legacy of the Republican Right's Court will be the end of a women's right to choose--far more important for many than the legacy of the 1992 election.

THESE SHORT-TERM MISSTEPS are both cause and symptom of a failed presidency. Of course, later this year--say, around the time George Bush turns 68 in July, when short-term remedies bring the economy up a bit and when the Bush campaign is running full-speed--Bush won't look so bad. Few will remember the poor appointments, the unwillingness to create a long-term economic strategy, the erstwhile Buchanan challenge.

But the long-term consequences of his difficulties will still be around. And unfortunately, so will George Bush.