A Political Observation
I don't believe they lost because Dubya betrayed them. I believe they lost because they betrayed their constituents.
I know several of you give Dubya more credit for brains than I do, but in any case he couldn't have done what has been been done without the consent of the governed in the guise of our representatives to Congress. It's supposed to be all about the constituents, and Congress blew it.
Then I got down to where the piece mentioned a "crankiness that sets in with any administration after six years," and I was struck by another thought: there are differences between the Republican and Democratic parties!
Don't laugh! I'd never thought about it! I haven't kept registration in a political party since 1964 unless I had to choose for a primary election. PACs I've worked with have focused on specific issues. I have no idea what differentiates a moderate Republican from a moderate Democrat.
Ike probably would have been reelected in 1960 despite his failed diplomatic policies in Europe and Cuba because he was Ike. (We liked Ike!) Nixon was disgraced by the Watergate cover-up. Reagan had his Iran-Contra problem. Clinton got busted for lying about shtupping an intern. Dubya is afflicted with his dumbass blind denial of error in the GWOT.
It is possible that these differences are as much personal as political since many of the same people have been involved in the Nixon, Reagan, and Dubya trainwrecks, but I have to say that there seems to be a tendency toward megalomania on the part of one party. Not for nothing, but for me I'm more put off by uber-nationalism and the abridgment of civil rights than I am by womanizing.
P.S. Crankiness? I'm no journalist, but I don't believe I would have dismissed this as "crankiness."