This might fit in with some of the other ones above, i'm not sure...but it's at least been argued, based on some statements in particular by Andy Card, that Bush nominated someone close to him entirely so that he could guarantee fealty of the Judicial branch towards his administration and towards further expansion of executive powers (detentions without trial, "interrogations", that sort of thing).

Andrew Sullivan quoted someone the other day saying that those conservatives who've been making excuses for Bush all along until this point, rather than being the boy who cried wolf, were being the boys who never cried wolf. I've been astonished at the sheer ferocity of the reaction from the right on this one. It has gone way beyond disagreement and into outright vitriol, in some cases, and in many others it has at least been belated acknowledgement of what people like me have been pointing out for years.

Politics for the last 13 years has been rather surreal for me. I spent the 8 years of the Clinton administration saying "I can't believe you guys actually believe this guy is a liberal", and I've spent the last 5 years saying, "I can't believe you guys actually believe this guy is a conservative." Both men are political opportunists without a shred of a coherent philosophy to keep them from bending whatever way they think they need to.

Ummm... a lot of us who call Bush stupid do so not because of his problems with public speaking or his policies but because he:

• appears to be completely incurious (doesn't read newspapers because he knows news makers)
• prefers to operate on instinct even when instinct is firmly contradicted by facts on the ground (X is a wonderful person, really. I've seen into his heart!)
• lacks a firm grounding in (or any awareness of) the world outside his circle of loyal friends (Iraq is a success; You're doing a great job Brownie!)
• seems unable to think outside the box (no one could have imagined 9/11 | Iraqi resistance | Katrina devastation)
• given any possible set of ways to achieve a goal always seems to pick the one guaranteed to alienate the largest number of people he may want favors from later (Bolton).
• doesn't seem to realize that any of this might just possibly be a problem

Mangling words and sentences is a sign of lousy public speaking ability, not lack of intelligence. Uncountable conferences with brilliant thinkers who are completely inept speakers have taught me the difference between presentation and content. I'd be fine with him mangling what he was saying if what he was saying made any sense. It doesn't.

And it's not policy related either. Contrast Bush with Scalia: I may disagree heartily with pretty much everything Scalia has ever said, but he's got a pretty thoroughly thought out and internally self consistent worldview (not completely, but he's human, and that's pretty much understandable). I may disagree with his axioms, but if I grant them, I can understand his conclusions. I've never, ever, thought he was stupid.

I can't figure out what Bush believes, other than that it's a good thing to funnel money to his cronies as fast as he can. From what I've seen of him, I'm not sure Bush knows what he believes. And that's what makes him stupid.

Personally, I just don't buy the argument that speaking poorly isn't a reflection of intelligence or ignorance. I'm not talking about mispronouncing words, that's a question of dialect. But constantly using words to mean the opposite of what they really mean? That's simply ignorance. The inability to put together coherent sentences really is a problem, regardless of one's political opinions. At the very least, it's embarrassing to have the most powerful man in the world speak less eloquently than your average insurance salesman. At least that's my .02 on it.

Ed, you seem to be continually surprised by the conservative criticism of President Bush. But I hasten to note that a significant number of conservatives - including several ITA contributors - have long criticized the president in a number of areas for failing the conservative cause. In one instance off the top of my head, I remember passionate opposition to Bush's frivilous Medicare/Medicaid spending. The criticism was sharp and apparent. More have certainly joined the crowd because of the Miers debacle, and I think the intesity is matching the severity of the blunder, but the conservative criticism has always been there.

Josh-

I fully recognize that a good deal of criticism of Bush has come from the folks on this blog. Indeed, that is one of the primary reasons why I accepted your offer to write for In The Agora, because it is populated primarily by intellectual conservatives and not partisan/pedestrian conservatives, by those who care about ideas more than about choosing up sides. So I'm not at all surprised by that criticism coming from here, where it has long come from. I am surprised at it coming from the places it has rarely if ever come from, from partisan hacks and attack dogs like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. I'm also surprised by the tone and intensity of that criticism in this situation, which rivals Michael Moore's attacks at times. I even confess that I've been enjoying it quite a bit.

When we instituted Breaking the 11th two months ago, I had no idea it would turn into a two-week meltdown. I'm as disappointed in the Miers appointment as any conservative (see especially the "Fear" argument above), but when conservatives start sounding like Michael Moore (Ed's right on that), it seems to me that something of a collective temper tantrum is going on.

I would challenge my fellow conservatives who feel bitterly betrayed by the President to find a constructive way to channel that energy. The current carping is only giving fuel to the left.

Ignoring fidelity to conservative principles (please show one conservative act taken by this president, other than tax cuts), I'd say that the charges of religious pandering, cronyism, and, above all, opportunism, were always maintained by serious critics of this president, whatever their political background. It's nice to see conservatives joining the choir.

please show one conservative act taken by this president, other than tax cuts

Refusal to give taxpayer funds to embryonic stem cell research (other than existing cell lines) comes to mind. Also, isolationist paleocons aside, I think Bush's approach to foreign policy has been consistent with what conservatives advocate.

I think a key to understanding why Bush has governed like he has is 9/11. I really do think that other domestic policies have taken a back seat with him so that he can focus on the War on Terror.

This is, by the way, one hell of a post.