I've posted so often about my views of President Bush that if Dan's readers aren't tired of reading them, they should be. Here I'll just say that describing Bush's economic policies as Nixonian is rather hard on Nixon, who unlike Bush always faced massive Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and also had to cope with the less developed understanding of markets prevalent throughout American politics at the time.

This may be good news discussing Bush...

">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187307,00.html/"> Dubai Company to Give Up Stake in U.S. Ports Deal

One thing I can't figure out about Bartlett's book: why is Bush an imposter? His campaign of compassionate conservatism and the general stance on the role of government in such a philosophy should have been a bright neon light that spending would increase. If you thought spending and the role of government would decrease, you're stupid, Bush isn't an imposter. With themes of fraud and betrayal, Bartlett sounds like a jilted lover. Conservatives may not like it, but stop pretending that Bush is something he never was.

I'm not sure the excerpt you quote reflects very well on Bartlett. The "finger in the wind" charge is preposterous - look at his poll numbers (OK, there were the steel tariffs, but look at his dogged defense of the ports deal). And how could the creation of the Medicare drug benefit be worse than the creation of Medicare itself? And within the logic of Medicare's existence (I'm no fan of the program, but if we're going to have it, and we are...) it makes no sense to cover things like hospitalization but not cover things that, in a lot of cases, can prevent hospitalization and are much, much cheaper. And failing to establish a successor? McCain would probably win in '08, Rice would in a blowout. Does Bush have to overtly groom somebody for them to be competitive?

As to how damning the book is, there's a difference between didn't and couldn't. Given Cato's attitude about Iraq, to name one issue, the White House was probably as likely to send a representative to a Democratic Underground convention to "rebut" things. There's little point in arguing with a choir that wants to be preached to. To piggyback on Norman's comment, is it possible to betray a legacy you never had allegiance to?

Well, there is that point. Frankly, one might well have made the same argument about the first President Bush, with his instinct for passivity and reaction and his strong sense of personal entitlement, not being a worthy heir to President Reagan either.

As a matter of fact, I did make that argument; it's why I supported Senator Dole in 1988, and one of several reasons why I supported John McCain in 2000. I'd express my reasons in other language than Bartlett uses, since the worst things about both Bushes in my view are precisely that sense of entitlement and the absolute priority they assign to the mechanics of campaign politics when the going gets tough (and, in the case of the younger Bush, even when it doesn't).

I can't read Bartlett's mind (and haven't read his book), but I'm guessing that he thinks Reagan's legacy -- or at least the principles he espoused and promoted, at least some of the time -- still has a following among Republicans. He may think that once they can get past their instinctive reverence for any Republican President who appears as a strong leader and stands up to liberals and the media, they may take the GOP back in Reagan's direction. I'd like to think he's right about that.

> but I'm guessing that he thinks Reagan's
> legacy -- or at least the principles he
> espoused and promoted, at least some of
> the time -- still has a following among
> Republicans.

Ah, the Grown-Up Republican(tm) theory. I would be inclined to take it a bit more seriously if those who espose it showed any signs of acknowledging that there is another possibility: that they are being used as useful idiots by the Radicals. I am not asking that you agree with or accept this possibility - just acknowledge that it is a reasonable hypothesis which does fit the observed facts of the W Bush Administration.

Cranky

Finger in the lobbyist winds then.

An administration that doesn't care about policy. Right or left? Doesn't matter.

Whoever/whatever props up the leader and his powerbase wins. Policy coherence and consequences to the country are simply not important.