I have to say that, while I disagree with Mike Huckabee about almost everything, he is a good debater. He's witty, and quick on his feet.

Unfortunately (and I don't have a solution to this problem--it's endemic to a republic) the qualities that are necessary to win the presidency are not necessarily those necessary to be an effective or good president. Bill Clinton is one of the most notable examples of this. Sadly, and conversely, Fred Thompson may be as well, though ironically, if he never becomes president, we'll never get a chance to find out...

Rand, you might enjoy the archives on www.DickMorris.com

As a fervent Hillary-Opponent, and a former consultant for both Mike Huckabee and BIll Clinton, Dick Morris is in a position to say interesting things.

His list of articles includes:

"Mike Huckabee Is A Fiscal Conservative" (Nov 28)
"President George Bush Supports Hillary Clinton?" (Nov 23)
and
"A Plan To Take Down Hillary" (Oct 9)

And lest you think I missed the point of your commentary, I acknowledge that Dick Morris contributed to the advancement of the problem you discuss in your second paragraph. But as you allude to, the problem started in 1840 ("Tippecanoe and Tyler too...")

Hmm, and Arkansas Governor supported by Dick Morris? Been there, done that.

The reason that Thompson sounds boring is that he is a tired actor reciting a tired Reaganite script. You won't get the 80s back by casting a remake. The voters have changed. So has the luck of the Reaganites --- Iraq is the turning point in their dream in which gorgeous Scheherazade morphs into Shelob. Hurricane Katrina and the real estate meltdown haven't helped either.

Hurricane Katrina is a great talking point for critizing President Bush in particular and conservatives or Republicans in general or perhaps all of the people who voted for him.

Many of the people who voted for him ungrudgingly accepted large amounts of our tax dollars going to help fellow Americans in great need, and many dug into their own pockets to help with voluntary or charitable organizations on top of that.

That constant drumbeat about Katrina suggests for all of the public and private assistance, volunteer hours, and taking people who lost their homes into our communities, somehow the lines of class and partisan political warfare are so sharply drawn that it is not worth it.

Yes, the next time such a disaster strikes, we will dig once more into our public and private pockets to help out, but the reflex loops will be dulled and the hand might not make into the pocket to fish the checkbook out with as much alacrity.

I suppose my remarks will elicit some counter-remarks about my degree of self congratulatory self-absorption or how the shoe is on the other foot when conservatives criticize liberals. All I can say is that the constant carping criticism is running a kind of social experiment: wait for the next time there is a disaster, and see how people respond.

Jim Harris:
I'm a little confused. What could GWB have done about the real estate meltdown due to companies stupidly giving loans to people with tiny up-front payments and then being surprised when foreclosure happened? Similarly, what could he have done about Hurricane Katrina when Blanco refused FEMA aid before it hit? And why is any of this relevant to Reagan's brand of conservatism?

What could GWB have done about the real estate meltdown

He could, for his own sake, acknowledge the depth of the problem. When the real estate bubble was a huge source of consumer credit, he said that the economy was in fantastic shape and that it was due to his tax policies. Now that the bubble has burst, his argument is that that had nothing to do with him. If the goal is to be a popular president, it isn't good enough to preach and brag about how great things are, at a time when the median voter has no change in income and declining credit.

But it is true that unlike the fiasco that is the Iraq war, Bush didn't cause the real estate bubble.

Similarly, what could he have done about Hurricane Katrina

Again, he could have acknowledge immediately how bad things were. The day before Hurricane Katrina hit, Bush gave a speech about Iraq war and the concerns of the Iraqi people. The day after Hurrican Katrina hit, Bush gave a speech about the Iraq war and the concerns of the Iraqi people. Meanwhile the head of FEMA, Michael Brown, had a TGIF attitude; he knew less about the hurricane than millions of television viewers. Yet Bush's first impulse was to praise his own incompetent man.

Bush is a reasonably competent politician (with good political advisors and allies) and of course he realized that he was making a big mistake. Hurricane Katrina actually was important. By that time, the best they could do was launch a negative campaign against the local Democrats like Blanco. Even if Blanco sucks in every respect, and if even Republicans could convince everyone in America of that, it still wouldn't make Bush look good on Hurricane Katrina. Blanco will never run for president herself and negative campaigning can only take Bush so far.

But again, unlike the Iraq war, Bush didn't cause Hurricane Katrina.

Why is any of this relevant to Reagan's brand of conservatism?

Because in many ways Bush is an unlucky Reagan, just as Thompson is a boring Reagan.

Jeez Jim Harris if you think President Bush has a goal of being popular...

By the way I don't think it's a coincidence that Louisiana now has a Republican Governor( congratulations to Bobby Jindal).

If you think President Bush has a goal of being popular

Sure, if he'd rather be unpopular, he's doing a very good job of it.

Sure, if he'd rather be unpopular, he's doing a very good job of it.

Well, Congress makes him look like a piker in that regard.

Congress makes him look like a piker in that regard.

First, "Congress" isn't one person, and it is well-known that the voters are more negative about politicians in general than about named politicians that they may have voted for. Second, a main reason that Congress is unpopular is that they have failed to stop Bush from doing bad things. The Republicans are against Congress because they try to stop Bush, while the Democrats are against Congress because they don't succeed.

With Bush it's a little different. His remaining 30% support is based on two things. One reason is God and Jesus, or as Zell Miller said it, that "he's the same man on Saturday night and Sunday morning". The other is patriotic loyalty to the Iraq war. A majority of Republicans (and of course "neolibertarians") still think that it's unpatriotic to believe that the US is losing the Iraq war or that it's unwinnable or ill-conceived; they see that as the same as wanting the US to lose the war. Loyalty is more important than truth for these voters, so they have trouble accepting evidence that they are wrong; instead they think that journalists who provide that evidence are disloyal. By constrast, virtually all of the Democrats and about a third of the Republicans more simply believe that the Iraq war is Bush's fault.

A majority of Republicans (and of course "neolibertarians") still think that it's unpatriotic to believe that the US is losing the Iraq war or that it's unwinnable or ill-conceived; they see that as the same as wanting the US to lose the war.

I don't think it's unpatriotic. I just think it's foolish.

And many of them do in fact want the US to lose the war because, of course, the US is the worst country in the history of the world, with the possible exception of Israel.

And many of them do in fact want the US to lose the war

There you go. There is this big fraction of Americans who supposedly want America to lose wars.

Certainly your opinion is not the directly the point, because you aren't an opinion leader among Republicans or any other large faction of voters. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is. He has more than 10 million listeners. There was the time that a self-described Republican caller said that it was time to end the Iraq war with the wise argument that "sometimes you really gotta know when you're wrong." In response, Limbaugh freely equated doubt about the war, Democratic talking points, and disloyalty to America. He said, "Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican." Limbaugh isn't just sound wallpaper for his audience; his listeners like what he has to say and they agree with him. If he says that doubt about the Iraq war is about the same as wanting defeat, then his listeners will also lump the two together. Limbaugh's radio audience is by itself more than 5% of the adult US population.

The truth is that Americans who want America to lose wars are about as common as doctors who want their patients to stay sick. What is more common is doctors who not only do a bad job, but also think that pessimistic patients are disloyal. Even that is not so common among doctors, but it is very common among relatives and sickbed groupies. A lot of non- doctors frame disease only with a duty to survive and recover, and never by accepting a grim diagnosis. (So we have a common theme in support for the Iraq war, support for the space station, and the Terry Schiavo case.)

OK, a man tires of his wife, slips her something that she goes into cardiac arrest at age 27 or some age well before people get heart disease (I am speaking of strict hypotheticals here, not that any man in the State of Florida would do such a thing and all attorneys in Florida follow the highest ethical standards).

Instead of dying, this women is left in a profoundly impaired state in a nursing home. This man could divorce his wife, marry the woman he is not cohabiting with, and pass his wife off on the inlaws to pay for the long-term care. But oh no, he would have to forgo the payout of a life insurance policy, so he hires the sleaziest mouthpiece in the entire state, and enlists the sympathies of the right-to-die movement and those of us who fear spending or last days in a nursing home to finish the job that he had botched. And it is the Republicans in Congress along with the inlaws who are the wackos?

My parents are immigrants from the Near East, and people from that part of the world or indoctrinated in the cultural are regarded as conspiracy-minded. To put it bluntly, most people in the broader American culture think of us as nut jobs. But to return the favor, many of us think that the American liberal party line of Terry Schiavo is hopelessly naive.

But oh no, he would have to forgo the payout of a life insurance policy, so he hires the sleaziest mouthpiece in the entire state, and enlists the sympathies of the right-to-die movement

Which was so outrageous that it required the direct intervention of the state legislature, the governor, and Congress, and a sympathetic word from the President of the United States and the Vatican. Sure, the Iraq war may be important too, also Florida does have one or two other things to think about; but how can we question our leaders' consciences?

The Democrats, true to character, have no more sympathy for Iraq than the heartless Michael Schiavo had for his long-suffering wife Terri. They think that okay to pull the plug on Iraq to save money, as if it's a basket case that no one should care about.

and people from that part of the world or indoctrinated in the cultural are regarded as conspiracy-minded.

Really? That's news. A conspiracy I missed I guess.

Paul, If he was capable of slipping her a poison the first time, why couldn't he slip her a poison to finish the job?