TIME TO WARM UP THE TOAST-O-METER?

Even though Steven over at Poliblog won't admit it yet, last night's debate shows that it's time to start warming up the toast-o-meter for Bush. Even Bush supporters like the media stars at Powerline can't muster a lot of enthusiasm for his debate performance last night.

I've rarely had such a positive impression of a presidential debater as I did of Kerry last night.

It's not time to flip the switch on the toast-o-meter yet, of course, given the right's focused media operations (as the folks at Seeing the Forest have been noting for a while). But the signs are good for Kerry.

More importantly, though, Josh Marshall has touched on something that should be especially near and dear to the hearts of ideological conservatives with a theoretical bent. Josh writes:

What occured to me somewhat while I was watching the first time and even more on the second go through was just how long it's been since President Bush had to face someone who disagrees with him or is criticizing.

Every president gets tucked away into a cocoon to some degree. But President Bush does notoriously few press conferences or serious interviews. His townhall meetings are screened so that only supporters show up. And, of course, he hasn't debated anyone since almost exactly four years ago.

Folks who are steeped in political argument of the 17th and 18th century should be alarmed at this description of Bush. Drawing on a history of criticism of political flattery, enlightenment authors argued that it is one of the grave disadvantages of monarchy that the monarch surrounds him- or herself with sycophants who do not have the courage to criticize the monarch's policies. According to the liberal tradition, free speech is supposed to counteract this tendency of monarchical powers to lumber along on the wrong course without internal corrections.

Bush's demeanor last night is further proof for the claim that Bush has fallen into the trap of isolating himself from open, honest, trenchant criticism.