There is a common thread running through the current crop of books and commentaries on the Bush White House. It’s a deeply disturbing picture of a president who steers the ship of state by dead reckoning -- an anti-intellectual who talks only to mediocrities who agree with him; a gambler who is guided by hunches rather than facts; and, worst of all, a leader whose idea of personal loyalty includes not only blind obedience, but shielding him from anything he doesn’t want to hear

Some of the sharpest criticism of this President has come from people who served in the Reagan Administration, such as economist Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett has written a book called, Imposter: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. As the title suggests, he minces no words.

Consider the following extract: “One reason Bush so often appears unprepared for press conferences and even presidential debates is that he is unprepared. He would much rather discuss issues with those he knows agree with him than suffer through a rigorous briefing that would prepare him to deal with contrary points of view or facts that don’t support his decisions.”

The same approach apparently holds true with presidential speechwriting. According to pundit Fred Barnes (whose own Bush book is a worshipful account entitled, Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush), Bush tells his writers what he wants, and they give it to him, with little or no input from policy experts before or after the actual writing.

Working one-on-one with the speaker will usually make for a more eloquent speech than one cobbled together by a committee. But without intellectual ballast and careful fact-checking, it may be nothing more than so much hot air.