O'Neill never had any credibility on Capitol Hill or Wall Street. He dismissed the former as buffoons and the latter as irrelevant. So naturally, as the stock-market decline continued for most of this year, almost nobody on the planet defended O'Neill and almost everybody criticized him. Finally, Bush had enough.

The Treasury Secretary should (a) be a strong voice helping the U.S. pursue good economic policies, (b) understand what the economic policies of the United States are, (c) be effective at using his extremely prominent and powerful post to tell outsiders about the economic policies of the United States, and (d) know how to use his--truly excellent, dedicated, and very large--career staff inside the Treasury building. Paul O'Neill was zero for four.

While strong majorities in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Russia agreed that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses a "great to moderate" danger, British public opinion is evenly split on whether to use force to remove him, and large majorities in France, Germany, Russia and Turkey oppose the use of force.

For him to say that the Democrats failed to bring out a message is wrong. He was the messenger, he was the one out there and helped run the campaign, him and [Democratic National Committee Chairman] Terry McAuliffe. So how can he give an objective opinion with his subjective involvement?

Why this undue solicitude for Saudi feelings? This hedging by the executive branch fits a pattern going back almost 60 years, to when President Franklin D. Roosevelt met the Saudi king in 1945.

Since then, U.S. politicians, diplomats, flag officers and lobbyists have enjoyed a cozy relationship with their counterparts on the Saudi side. The tie is premised on Americans - Democrats and Republicans alike -accommodating the kingdom's wishes and in return, being plied with substantial sums of money, either at the time or after they leave government service.

Well, look, and you boil it down to the essence, I think mine is a good show regardless what's on it. The content, political, it's a good show. It's fun. It's entertaining, and I'm a broadcast professional. There have been plenty of conservatives in the media who haven't achieved audience size like this, and one of the things I think you have to understand is that -- and I know I'm going to get in trouble for this because it'll be taken out of context and misunderstood -- but it is a performance. People giving public speeches are performing. You don't just get on the radio and say OK, I'm conservative and here's what I think or OK I'm liberal, here's what I think. If you get specific beyond that, I think the liberal message is something people hear enough on TV.

They don't want to hear the institutions and traditions that have made the country great constantly under attack. They don't want to hear doom and gloom. I mean liberalism is this most recent Democrat campaign and who wanted to listen to that. I mean it's not fun. Liberals don't seem to be smiling. They've got nothing -- they can't even admit that they're liberal for the most part. They come up with terms like centrist or progressive.

In his e-mail, DiIulio asks for more bull sessions, more research papers — more "discourse." That's admirable, but it's a mode of operation uniquely suited to a world where deadlines don't have to be met, where the give-and-take can go on for hours in the comfort of plush upholstery. People who do serious government work rarely have that luxury.

What DiIulio has produced is the garden-variety disillusionment you find when academics are confronted with How Politics Really Works 101. What he's reporting on is the very real clash of cultures that probably would have taken hold even if he'd served under the last President of his own party.