Without wading into the "true conservative" debate here (having not yet read the book) let me just offer these observations from my perch as something of a media critic.

There's little questions that whatever their true-blue (or rather true-red) conservative views and values, the press bent over backward to paint both Bushes as moderate, sensible, nice guy Republicans -- for most of George the Elder's time in the White House and for George II during the crucial 2000 election and then the early years of his reign.

In the first Bush's case, he benefited in this regard in following the archly conservative Reagan. True, Bush was never personally liked or respected by the press on a Reagan level but the Dana Carvey depiction of "Poppy" as a grandfatherly bumbler made him appear relatively harmless. When he looked at his watch during the key presidential debate vs. Clinton it was surprising that he didn't earn votes just out of sympathy ("poor duffer").

His son, you'll recall, was portrayed over and over during his 2000 run as the moderate guv of Texas who had reached across the aisle and was respected by Democrats and so forth. He was, to boot, a "compassionate conservative," and not, as Steve Earle would later picture him, as "conservatively compassionate"). A hard-right Bush, whether real or media created, would have never beaten Gore -- not that this one did either.

Once in office, a long honeymoon between press and president ensued. Remember that The New York Times, for example, had been very tough on Clinton on its editorial page, under Howell Raines. And just as Bush's approval ratings tanked and criticism was about to spread, 9/11 came along to torment the country, but save Bush.

Understandably, no one in the media criticized Bush for months, let alone suggested that maybe he had let down the country and invited a terrorist attack, or at least failed to prevent it. (Imagine that happening in the future if the country is attacked again under Obama -- watch Fox and friends how1.) Some have suggested that The New York Times, and others long accused of exhibiting liberal bias, went overboard on backing Bush after 9/11, given a rare chance to wave the flag and promote a war (Afghanistan) without shame for once and bolster their flagging image as super-patriots.

Of course, the problem was: They didn't stop there, and most went along like sheep in the run-up to the Iraq war. In fact, today marks the fifth anniversary of the day the Times belatedly admitted its failures on Iraq (while refusing to name or punish reporters and editors). It wasn't just a failure on WMD, it was a failure to recognize Bush and his crowd for what they were, individually and collectively. So you had Thomas Friedman, for example, endorsing the war because he trusted that crowd to get it right. Whatever you call Dubya - "true conservative or not" - all of the warning signs were there.

And then on Mission Accomplished Day, 2003, you had Chris Matthews on MSNBC calling Bush a "hero" and booming, "He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics." He added: "Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple."

PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was "part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan." On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, "The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing."

Bob Schieffer on CBS said: "As far as I'm concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time." His guest, Joe Klein, responded: "Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me."

Everyone agreed the Democrats and antiwar critics were now on the run.

**
Greg Mitchell's latest books are Why Obama Won and So Wrong for So Long (on Iraq and the media). He is editor of Editor & Publisher and tweets @GregMitch.