Okay, in John Harris' defense, after his initial remarks the WiFi went out and he started saying something rather different that made a lot of sense to me. In particular, he said that the Bush/Rove critique of Clintonism was that Clinton achieved high approval ratings at the expense of achieving big, lasting accomplishments. Listening to the other panelists, one is reminded that there's some truth to this. Will Marshall, Bruce Reed, and Jeremy Rosner are all eager to proclaim Rovism "a failure." At the same time, Rovism did manage to govern the country for six years and do a whole bunch of stuff during that time. Are the Democrats really going to reverse it all over the next two? Seemingly not. So notwithstanding the Year Six election loss, it's not clear that this is really a failure. Bush's impact on, say, the federal courts, will last for decades.