Bush and Reagan have several things in common : Belief that what benefits Big Business in America will have a ripple effect that will also benefit the majority of the population, that military strength is prime motivator for America in negotiating foreign policy, that environmental dangers are exaggerated by a powerful leftwing lobby whose principal agenda is the obstruction of progress, and that running a major deficit (while bad for business) is good for the federal government. They are also classic delegators, leaving management decision-making to their teams. The major difference is that Reagan was a sort of Conservative visionary, able to effectively articulate a vision for America. As such, he was a proactive politician, setting new schemes and designs in motion. Bush, by contrast, is much like his Father...a very reactive politician, lacking vision to articulate and project a vision. He is most comfortable when presented with a concrete challenge (9/11 and its aftermath), and fumbles when it comes to more abstract agendas such as the economy, the environment, crime, and articulating an American Foreign Policy agenda independent of the War on Terrorism.

Neither man is a leader I would choose, but in terms of effectiveness in evolving, articulating, and engaging leadership as a President, Reagan was far above Bush. I think even most Conservative Mudcatters would agree with that assessment.