The thing about Miers is that it's just one example of where, as Stephen Bainbridge put it, Bush pissed away the conservative movement. Bush is the ultimate party man, let's face it, who will do anything, try to please anybody, so his party remains in power. It wasn't enough in 2006, and it may not be enough in 2008.

It's bad enough when you piss away your support to woo the middle. It's sheer stupidity to piss away your support and still botch the job so badly that you don't win the middle.

"To deny Bush credit for McClellan because he didn't abolish the FDA is unfair."

But what's happened at the FDA, despite someone supposedly qualified better more than anyone? The same thing. Nothing significant has happened, despite someone who on the surface appears significantly better than his predecessor(s).

As much as I admire John Bolton, and meeting him was a terrific evening, it's the same sort of tilting at windmills: appointing one man alone can't do anything. To change the FDA requires legislation limiting its power, properly restoring it to American individuals. To change the UN requires that the U.S. give it the finger, completely withdraw from it,a nd send dunning notices for the money THEY owe us (and I'm talking about more than parking tickets).

"Likewise, Medicare D. (Terri and) I recognize that subsidizing health care for seniors is wildly popular."

Of course it's popular. I recognize it too, but I further state that it's popular for those on the receiving end, not those who pay for it. I pull no punches and call it what it is: robbing Peter to pay for Paul.

Prison sodomy is popular for at one side, you know.

"Politicians who suggest that it should grow at 9% instead of 11% are accused of raiding granny's purse and are not re-elected. Recognizing that subsidies will be made, isn't it better to buy a bottle of Plavix instead of treating a heart attack?"

You and I know very well that government programs never confine themselves to practical expenditures of money. Now, we have no idea, and no one short of God ever will, that Plavix will have any significant preventitive value now, compared to the cost of a hospital visit later on. As a windfall for pharmaceutical companies, Part D allows them to produce as much as doctors can prescribe. And when the federal government, through Medicare and Medicaid, pays for so many people, why should doctors turn down patients who'll just be given a new prescription?

If you truly support free markets, you'll recognize that the value of an item changes over time. A bottle of a prescription drug today, based on a person's risk of a heart attack later on, could be less or more than the cost of a hospital visit. If the person never has a heart attack, then the drugs were a waste. We won't know, but in a truly free market, each individual can make his own judgment -- just not at the expense of others. Here I go from the economic to the moral argument.

Why should I be compelled to pay for someone else, against my will? People should be motivated to take care of themselves, whether financially, physically or mentally. They should not be motivated to vote for someone who will give them things at the expense of taxpayers. And if it means some heart attack victim will risk dying because he can't afford a hospital, well, he'll have to rely on the charity of others. I certainly won't have charity if it turns out he's some 300-pound walking piece of lard that didn't care about his health, figuring the taxpayers would cover him no matter what.

"Had Bush's plan not been done, do you think we'd have put that money on our pockets? We'd've gotten a Democratic plan that would not include any private insurance."

You are too willing to compromise, specifically about accepting government intervention in your life. I argued once with someone from the Manhattan Institute, which at best is semi-free market. She spoke one night this last March about why the MI supports the $20 billion project to build a major East Side subway corridor in Manhattan. Her stance came down to, "Well, we should spend the money anyway, because we'll be taxed."

As I put it, it's a massive welfare program for Upper East Side liberals to commute down to work, at the expense of state taxpayers (the New York MTA gets, what, $20 billion a year now in subsidies?). I refuse to compromise, I thundered. "We should never have to accept that because 50% of our income will be taxed, we might as well spend it this way or that. We should instead insist on 25%, 10%, and that government cut spending to match. Whatever happened to the Reagan revolution of limited government and low taxes?" I was the only person in the crowd who refused to accept her poppycock, and several after complimented me.

"Also with you on RomneyCare, enough so that I never looked at support the "Governor of the Commonwealth." Interesting to note that Part D produced lower premiums and less spending than was budgeted -- because it was based on free market principles."

There's nothing free market about it, but you did say "based on," which is not the same as functioning like the free market. On the surface it may seem similar, but once government taxes and spending come into play, the free market goes out the window.

Look at long-term costs, not today's. Now answer me, since when has a government program of indeterminate (read: infinite) life *not* grown larger and larger? I've not heard of a single one.

"NCLB is grey. I'm all for local control of the schools. But on this planet, that's not how it works."

The Constitution no longer works, and that's the only thing that counts. NCLB isn't gray at best, it's unconstitutional. None of the Articles specify such powers to the federal government, and the Tenth Amendment clearly reserves unspecified powers to the states and people.

"The AFT and NEA have effectively nationalized the schools. NCLB should not be needed, but the education system is so badly broken, Bush tried to buy accountability with Federal largesse. It's not my favorite but I do see it as part of the ownership society with the tax cuts, HSAs, private Social Security accounts, and Part D."

How is it an "ownership society" to violate the Constitution and give more power to the federal government? An "ownership society," notwithstanding the ludicrous nature of the term, is one where local people take local control of local schools -- not the other way around.

And frankly, I am baffled at how you can consider anything about Part D as part of an "ownership society," when it's merely the redistribution of wealth. But if by that you mean federal control, and begging government to let us do this and that though they're our inherent right to do in the first place, you are correct.

"I would have loved to have you on board to explain Bush's economic policies (instead of your buddy, Bruce Bartlett who failed so miserably but got a nice book deal)."

I've been meaning to post an unbiased review of Bartlett's book. He's not my friend, but Luskin is, and he and Luskin were friends. From what I understand, the book had no small part in them becoming embittered toward each other.

Bartlett said a lot of truth that needed to be said, that under Bush's watch, Congressional spending has gone unchecked at levels unseen since LBJ. Bartlett did say some unfair things, such as Bush's tax cuts not doing anything. Albeit moderate, the capital gains tax cut was critical for domestic investment.

"I have been complaining a lot lately about this administration's inability to articulate. What was cute in 2001 has become a threat to liberty in 2007. I am going to pick a great orator in 2008."

Many missed chances. When Bush and his staff pound on an issue, they did well, but that's a rarity. More often than not, they'd act spineless. Look at what happened to Mankiw when he defended outsourcing.

In Bush's place, I'd have called upon Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong to explain why outsourcing is bad. And if they started, I'd tell them on national TV to stick to the f****** point. Oh yeah, and fire the FCC head if he tried to fine me, since after all what's good for Bono (using it in a "non-sexual" way) ought to be good for anyone else. So vote for me in 2012, "The clear choice against incumbent Hillary."