"Democrats already have their story down: Bush capitulated to the far right in jettisoning Miers and his new nominee will be a right-wing extremist. "

Well, the first part is clearly correct. We will see about the second.

The mugging of Ms. Miers was a gift to the Dems.

Money is the problem with border security? Money? Who did you say was delusional?

Paul:

And manpower. If you want to close the borders you'll need a draft.

No, just the National Guard.

Don't you mean "John McCain", not "Bill Clinton"?

You need to drop the Third Way stuff with respect to Clinton - he had a legislature controlled by the opposition. Otherwise, do you think William Cohen would have ever been SecDef? Or that welfare reform would have passed?

Bush is dealing with a GOP-controlled Congress. Great for passing bills, but there is no way to do the end run, especially in the 2nd term. Many members are already inclined to go their own way.

Now, had Bush just vetoed the Highway Bill, and smashed Don Young into the tundra publicly from the Rose Garden, THAT would have been Fourth or Fifth Way.

Meamwhile, as Harry Reid mourns Miers as a way to attack conservatives, the charman of the Democratic Party in Harriet's home state sounds like an NRO Corner poster:

Charles Soechting, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, said Miers wasn't qualified. A corporate lawyer who was once President Bush's personal attorney, Miers now serves as White House counsel. She has never been a judge. "Hopefully this will be a signal to the Bush administration that this practice of cronyism has got to stop," said Soechting, a San Marcos lawyer who represented a lottery executive director that was fired by the Texas Lottery Commission when Miers was its chairwoman.

I suppose if Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh could get together on NAFTA a dozen years ago, folks like Soechting can bond with the conservative punditocracy for a brief while.

jim:

Yes, if you completely ignore his record he wasn't Third Way.

pj:

No, it's a presidential strategy, not a candidate's.

Paul:

Yes, if you draft the entire Guard into permanent border service you can close a fraction of our border just as effectively as Iraq's borders have been closed.

just put a bounty on any illegals found here and they will all be gone within a week.

Why would they be?

capitalism is magic that way

Just because you want to be "Third Way" doesn't mean Clinton was, or that Bush is (or will be).

Clinton did things his way - hesitant, scattershot, kind of a sophisticated, 'aw, shucks' style. His presidency was "watch what I say (and how I say it, and how much I say it), but don't watch what I do".

He knew not to act like a soulless political machine (like Nader); he liked fooling around too much to really be a policy maven; and he didn't do squat for his party (except nudge the bureaucracy to the left, which probably wasn't a positive).

It took him too long to learn the foreign part of the job, he was too closely tied to the Chinese, and then he messed up big-time by trying to broker a deal with the Palestinians, only to find that he couldn't jam a deal down Arafat's throat.

The only consistency in his Presidency was the chaos, and the furious rush to keep the appearance that it was otherwise. But Richard Nixon governed more in your "Third Way" vein that Bill Clinton ever did - and remember, he had a hostile Congress, too.

jim:

just a few comments ago you were arguing that he was Third Way because a GOP congress forced him to be.

You're just being stubborn. I don't buy the definition or the clarity of the 'Third Way'.

Clinton zigged and zagged like a good politician. He pulled Lani when she embarrassed him; he recess-appointed Bill Lann Lee because he could. He raised taxes once and then laid low on the issue for the rest of his time in office - he was fortunate that the economy was recovering and that he could 'manage' the peace dividend.

He talked tough on terror for one day after each attack, and then he dropped it for seminars on midnight basketball and other SOTU line items. He outfoxed Congress on the shutdown, and out-played Newt pretty much from the get-go.

If pulling the shuffle is 'Third Way', then I accept your argument. But it seems to me that he wasn't guided by any philosophy other than making a good appearance (too many examples to cite) and knowing which way the wind was blowing.

Bush has been forceful, setting a few goals and going after them doggedly. He can succeed where Clinton could not, because the GOP controls Congress. When Clinton enacted (or pushed) Democratic positions (the Brady bill, gays in the military, the tax increase, the $16 billion stimulus, etc.), it was with ONLY Democratic energy. And it cost them Congress.

He is remembered for NAFTA, welfare reform, and Kosovo, none of which were supported by a Democratic majority in the House, and probably not in the Senate, either (I don't remember the numbers). Clinton did these things because he calculated he had to - NAFTA was a maturity test, welfare reform was to get re-elected, and Kosovo was because he was shamed by Rwanda.

If you are saying that Bush should build his Presidency over the broken ideals of the right (i.e., by governing against his base), then perhaps David C. is right about you.

He's had 5 years to build his cred, he chose not to.

I don't have my judges. No vetos, no keeping each other in line.

a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans

Sure sounds like JR Brown or Kozinski to me!

jim:

He wasn't guided, he did govern.

He governed from 15,000+ feet, which looks good from the ground, but doesn't really solve anything, now does it?

Peace and prosperity are pretty good legacies.

Ah yes, I see you invoke the Millard Fillmore and James Buchanan legacies.

Buchanan presided over a depression and secession. Bill Clinton over peace and eight years of growth.