JJ is probably right that Woodward's "opinions" follow the polls. He may not've always been a hack, but it's hard to describe him more charitably today.

Even if his stubborness and lack of curiosity prevented him from growing in office, it’s rather hard to believe that he got less competent with time.

Or perhaps, like millions of others, Woodward is now willing to concede that he overlooked the weaknesses of a man he was wont to support in the days and years following 9/11.

I'd say that's more likely. I certainly know it's been that way with me. We still have a guy that stands behind the podium and basically continues to repeat that "Presidenting is hard..." and, while others praise him for his "Stay the course" attitude, others see that as an unwillingness to consider other options when the current ones clearly are not working. And to the extent that they are, not very well.

Bush is one of those people who is absolutely unwilling to admit that he could have done something wrong. And everytime he is criticized, even by those in a position to know for sure, the Bush supporters come out in force to look for the hidden agenda.

Well, maybe the "hidden agenda" is that they actually want this country to win, or to at least maintain any shred of credibility it has left in the world.

Those who assured us there were WMDs all over Iraq? That Iraq was re-constituting its Nuclear arsenal? That Saddam was linked to 9/11? That we would be greeted as liberators? That the invasion would be a slam dunk? That the insurgency is in its last throes? That there are enough troops? That America doesn't torture? That there are no CIA black sites?

Those truth tellers?

Zelsdorf needs to open his eyes, take his fingers out of his ears and stop repeating over and over that he is in his happy place, his happy place, his.....

Woodward is a registered Republican who presumably voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. His first two books were glowing hagiographic portrayals of Bush's strengths as commander in chief.

Had Woodward been out to get Bush, wouldn't he have timed his supposed "hit piece" for the far more important 2004 election?

Zelsdorf is a killer name, though.

Correlation and causation.
Why do you imply that Woodward's view is somehow driven by the popular view? Seems far more likely that the popular view, and Woodward's view have both been evolving in the same direction as we have all witnessed Bush in action.

Presidents are always given a benefit of the doubt, first in a big way (the honeymoon), then they settle into general acceptance, even if not enthusiastic. One needs to actually perform poorly in a sustained manner to elicit strong negative reactions.

Bush also had a second, and much bigger honeymoon granted him by virtue of the fact that he was there in office when we were attacked. And his first response (Afghanistan before Tora Bora) was fine.

If you look at his poll numbers, you see that from inauguration to 9/10, he was drifiting downward. 9/11 reset the baseline to an absurdly high level, and it has been all downhill since then (with a few transitory upticks with Saddam's capture, the massive PR onslaught of the reelect campaign etc).

So the story of the Bush presidency has basically been a constant erosion of support due to his continually mediocre performance, except for the first few months against the Taliban.

one presumes, people do not get less competent while in office.

Quite the contrary, I would assume that the longer someone remains in a position, the less likely they are to entertain other people's ideas about how to do their job. So a question to you James: Are you more or less willing to accept someone's advice about how you should write a blog now than you were when you first started blogging?

However, it may also be that that which was perceived of strengths a few years back (e.g., his "resoluteness") were actually a weakness.

Indeed, that which I once thought of an evidence of vision looks more like me to be simple-mindedness on the part of the President ans several of his key advisers.

While I take your point about marketing and giving the people what they want, it may still be that there is a reason that Bush's popularity has plummeted, and it has an awful lot to do with Bush himself.

it’s rather hard to believe that he got less competent with time. I think many experienced the same change in opinions as folks like Andrew Sullivan, Greg Djerejian or the wonks at the Cato Institute. It wasn't that Bush grew more incompetent it was that it took time to overcome sheer disbelief at the depths of his unwillingness to admit or learn from mistakes.

Being conservative didn't used to mean never saying sorry for mistakes, but it is a Bush administration value and a neocon one. It isn't "strong", it stems from an elitist sense of entitlement - that they alone have been annointed as the ones who know best for the American people and the world. Once that became obvious many conservatives, and many Americans, decided it wasn't a value they shared.

Regards, C