A READER REPLIES: I forwarded my recent Miers post to a Liberal friend via e-mail, and his reply was so well-written and interesting that I got his permission to re-post it here. He writes:

...It's tough not to agree with your main points. George Bush is an approachable average Joe, but none too bright. Check. And Bill Clinton was charismatic but horny.

The statements I'd take issue with are as follows:

a). I doubt Al Gore will run, even if many on my side have started to forgive him for his miserable campaign in 2000. I think my little cabal of trial lawyers, teachers, gays, and Hollywood elites is currently casting about for a credible Hillary alternative because, as much animosity as the Left harbors for Bush, there's a level of fury on the Right toward that... that... woman that's simply irrational.

b). There's a misperception out there about how much of the Left feels about GWB. It's an oversimplification of the same sort as the president is so fond. He's either a drooling mental invalid or a criminal mastermind. Let me introduce you to a bit of nuanced background you may find useful for future conversations with our type of folk.

For my part, I certainly don't believe Bush is a supergenius, unless we're talking about the Wile E. Coyote sort. Rather, I've always felt he was an irretrievable dolt capitalizing on the populist notion that good leaders shouldn't be all fancy-pants book-smart. My father (who tends to dislike authority and perceived elitism in equal measure), loves Bush. He seems to find comfort in the fact that the president relies on gut feelings, professional acquaintances, and stubbornness -- all attributes that average men can tap to become successful in the business world. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush seems every bit as untalented in being the CEO-president as he was being a CEO. The smart people he promised he'd surround himself with have set about working toward their own ends with little evidence they're looking out for the good of the larger organization (in this case, the country). Bush himself is certainly no evil genius. His handlers, however, have a much greater capacity for critical thinking and a much more meager capacity for moral contemplation. Plentiful documentation already exists to prove this point, but more is certainly on the way in coming weeks and months, lest any doubters remain unpersuaded.

Really, Bush is everything he promised he'd be in 2000: a CEO-president in the mold of Ken Lay. At best, he's unwilling to brook dissent, inattentive and incurious about the doings of his underlings, and absolutely unshakeable in his belief that he's at the top, so he must be right. At worst, he's corrupt.