I have a problem with the way intelligent columnists refrain from making class analysis of the American political situations. In an effort to protect the American people from the genuine tools necessary to make assessments of the political scenario and make correct judgments. Mr Blumenthal treated the info he has, very similar to the ladies at the beauty shop will, a juicy tit bit about another woman. In gossip terms.

We use terms like conservatives and liberals as if they reflect an economic social group. We also attempt to act as if these groups are homogeneous. The conservatives originally were identified as strictly members of the Ruling Class , Big business owners , who see the world differently from the rest of the other classes below them. Even among them they are subdivided on matters of principle and outlook. The same is for the middle class, depending on their economic position and outlook, they will stand on positions of policy.

An American voter cannot tell the difference between a middle class outlook and a Ruling Class candidate's outlook or position. Because American political teachers and journalists given them two choices Conservatives and Liberals, ( which is a misnomer).

On the contradictions presently facing the Ruling Class and their political representatives, Remember George was chosen to be Presidsent because NOT one of the semi feudal fascists, in the Republican Party could stood up to the American peoples' scrutiny with a straight face and succeed.

Finally in this deliberate attempt to misinform the American people on class analysis issues , the views of the industrial worker, who sees the world from a different perspective of the Ruling Class, was unpatriotically ignored.

Amlicar

So, all you righties -- whether you accept Bush as one of your own, or try to cast him as an apostate -- either way, YOU VOTED FOR HIM, didn't you?

Everything you've seen over the past year -- the various sellouts of the middle class, the abject failures of the most fundamental forms of government service, the continuing catastrophes that are Iraq and the entire mideast policy, the unforgivable inaction on really protecting the homeland (thank G-d we have not been attacked again -- YET), the continuing giveaways to the corporatocracy, and of course a stumbling economy -- it's all just what we told you was going to happen. It was all not only foreseeable but inevitable -- a necessary consequence of a claque that operates only on misinformation, manipulation, and deceit --and it will all get worse before it gets better.

So: whether he's the apotheosis of conservatism, or its opposite, or anything in between -- he's still YOUR DOING. Where the hell were you last year? And will you now accept your responsibility -- and learn from it?

Dear Sir,

Although I agree with much of the body of your essay, your first sentence is categorically wrong. Bush is not the most conservative president in modern times, and in fact has turned his back on most conservative ideals. This is why he is stumping even the neocons. He does not stand for the things my conservative father stood for (even though my father hasn't brought himself to admit it), such as SMALL government, privacy, lower taxes (for the middle class), and frugality, with an eye toward promoting small businesses. He is a quasi-fascist with a mediocre intellect who is tossed about by his staff, PR handlers, huge corporate lobbyists, and his own naive grasp of the world around him. He is becoming, even now, an embarrassment to those in conservative circles not because he makes poor choices but because all those choices display the workings behind him...and why? Because he is INCAPABLE of making these choices himself (oh, except for Harriet Miers and that's a glaring singular choice of his, to be sure).

Why has virtually no one in the media had the courage to stand up and say this about him, that he just ain't that bright. Take a look at his achievements before arriving where he did and you'll see that when left to his own devices, he fails each and every time.

In short, this man is unfit for his job, and has now nominated a woman unfit for her job, because he probably demanded it (since his handlers insisted on Roberts the last time around).

Will someone please publish a simple timeline of his accomplishments and how he got the businesses and offices he did? This alone will explain much to the American people.

Sincerely,

Brad Taylor

I concur with Mr Blumenthal's assesment, however I think he gives Bush too much credit as a political theorist. I believe Bush has never been anything but a maleable public face for neocons ever since his days with the Huston football team. The only reason he named Miers is that she was a long time sycophant who had demonstrated her loyalty the the Bush family. That is his only test for advancement. The Senate now has a clear opportunity to rebuke this madness despite ideology. I fear that neither side will have the moxie to do so.

"Yet Bush nominated Miers in place of professional ideologues because he had fallen from grace as a consequence of his stubborn adherence to conservative policies"

This is the weak spot in an otherwise fairly solid analysis. What evidence is there for this? I think it's just as plausible that Bush reverted to form and rewarded a loyal retainer. With Rove preoccupied there was no one to pierce his cocoon and tell him that the nation expects more than good penmanship and blind loyalty to the House of Bush as qualification for one of the most hallowed positions in the land.

For a while now I have thought that GWB is not so much a hard-right conservative as much as a county-club-set, pro-business conservative -- allied with the richest and most highly-placed business people. I think his hard-right reputation is mostly a product of Rovian posturing and spinning. Both Roberts and Miers have worked closely with very large corporations, and neither has been all that involved in extreme right-wing causes. Bush's major domestic success was to give the surplus to the richest members of our society and go deeply into debt to do it. Of course, this also fits neatly with Grover Norquist's plan to reduce the size of government so that it is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, so you can read it either way. Most of what he has done, however, has expanded the role of government.