Harriet being #1?

yeah I think so. And its not just Bush. I have posted on sites like Red State and RWN that I believe the right is undergoing a change right now to a more libertarian and somewhat populist version, and away from the hard line "Limbaugh" version.
That means Beltway Bozos Better Beware. In the words of Pete Townshend, "We're not gonna take it!"

I never really equated libertarianism and populism. How do you connect the two? I see them as two very distinct and, at times antithetical, political philosophies.

Also keep in mind that Rush was probably the most important (though clearly not the only) voice in killing the Miers' nomination. How does that fact fit into your paradigm? (His essay in the WSJ about a conservative "crack down" on Bush was brilliant political analysis.)

Regardless, the "base," however it is currently constituted, has in two different cases (Miers & ports) disagreed with the President and has been vocal in its disagreement. And in both cases it seems like the President's "political" folks have proven totally inept. It did not require a high political IQ to realize this port deal was a big loser regarless of whether it made sense from a strategic and policy perspective. Bush needs a shake-up in his administration because they have been off their game since his re-election.

two words: Karen Hughes

Anyways, it's interesting you mention Rush, Blu. He ended up on the wrong side of this one didn't he. And I certainly didn't like his condescending attitude towards the dissenters. Another interesting aspect was Professor Hugh. He's now 1-1, having been Miers' most vocal backer and also the earliest major critic of the Port deal.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that the Democrats have never figured out how to beat Bush, and the only time they could do it in the last five years was to side with the conservative base. There's a lesson there, if only they could learn it.

I agree that Karen Hughes is badly needed in the White House. I don't know if it's because Bush will listen to her when he will not listen to others; or maybe because she balances out Karl Rove, by bringing an extremely down-to-earth touch to political strategy and political messages; but they need her as badly as any organization has ever needed anybody. Why she isn't there is a great mystery to me.

I have to say, I believe forcing Dubai to cancel its ports contract is a bad call. The Bush Administration backed down to a misinformation campaign, imo. I believe the positives would've outweighed whatever teeny sliver of risk was involved. Will those who oppose the deal now call to eject every Islamic nation from every port or airport where they are conducting business? Will those who oppose the deal now call to shut down Dubai's air terminal at JFK - which has received direct flight after direct flight from Dubai for some years - with each flight flying RIGHT PAST MANHATTAN? I think our nation over-reacted. I think those who said Dubai would "own the ports", or who implied anything close to that, were misleading our nation.

I now owe this blog two cents.

My guess is that the various factions (for lack of a better word) that make up the base have each had their fill... you can only take the "trust us" stuff for so long. Miers was the tipping point and this one was just so badly botched that there was no way it was going to win.

I'm still surprised that W got the nomination in 2000 and that he was lucky enough to run into a couple of the worst candidates for president in the last 100 years.

He continued, imo, to support DP because;

1) He had already approved them indirectly, and he never admits he was wrong, and
2) He was playing good cop, because Dubai HAS been cooperative in many areas.

Any opinions on the Kemp/Edwards collaboration?

gcotharn is right, we lost to a disinformation campaign. In the long run it's a tempest in a teapot. A deuce, too high to mark.

Annie,

Your dislike for Rush, in my opinion, blinds you to his very good political analysis. Now, is he as bright as HH or Medved or Praeger? Of course not. But he is a better political analyst than all of them. If you listened to him on the port deal his analysis was that it was a loser politically but that he felt it made sense strategically (long term) and from a policy perspective. BUT he also felt like it wouldn't happen---that the base and a media happy to jump on any anti-Bush bandwagon would squash it.

For the record, my favorite guy is Medved; but, I believe that Rush is better at gauging issues from a perspective of pure politics more than anybody else on the radio. I don't think he gets enough credit for that or for single-handedly making any of the other right-of-center radio people even possible.