Tonight's less than transformative Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library seemed detached from reality at times, somewhat askew, as it were. Everybody kept invoking the ghost of Ronald Reagan, even the journalists. The Ghost of the Gipper was so palpably evident in the hall that both Huckabee and McCain started speaking of him in the present tense. At times it was more like a seance than a debate.

But we have a sitting Republican president who somehow did not get mentioned very much, or admiringly referenced very often when he was. Reagan left office 20 years ago, but "W" is in office now and will be in office for another 11 months. The candidates should notice. The voters certainly will.

I was part of the Reagan Administration, serving in three executive posts (including the White House staff) from 1981-88. I was not in the innermost circle, but I saw a lot that went on. Like other Reagan alumni, I also have been gratified to see the many excellent books that are beginning to catalog and assess the historic accomplishments of what was, by most accounts, the first successful American presidency in many years.

Channeling his spirit myself, I can safely say that President Reagan would be the first to acknowledge that he didn't get everything done that he wanted and that he and his staff sometimes made mistakes. But he had the saving grace of political focus that allowed him to achieve his main goals. So while, in the end, President Reagan did many significant small things, and failed to other significant small things, he performed three very big things: 1) He helped win the Cold War when almost no one believed it was possible. 2) He rescued the American economy with tax cuts and reduced many regulations and cut considerable amounts of government fat. And 3), he nearly rescued the third branch of the federal government by appointing conservative judges.

John McCain and Mitt Romney went head-to-head at a Republican debate on Wednesday, January 30, 2008.

Now, what bothers me is that something similar, if more modest, could be said of George W. Bush and yet he is getting almost no credit. Whatever his shortcomings, President Bush 1) has led this country and our allies finally to confront radical Islamic terrorists worldwide, learned from some initial mistakes and is well on the way to victory in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. 2) His Reagan-style tax cuts have helped generate five years of major economic growth and, in most respects, he has followed policies of reduced regulations that also have protected economic growth. 3) He has appointed many outstanding conservative judges and finally helped conservatives obtain a majority, most of the time, on the Supreme Court. In other words, his record follows the same track as Reagan's, except that he still has almost a year to complete it, so it is too early to fully assess.

But we are not hearing much at all about Bush's accomplishments, probably because the Iraq war is still not a settled victory and Bush's approval ratings seem stuck--if you believe the polls, which I don't--at about 37 percent (Rasmussen).

A well-funded left-wing propaganda effort apparently is underway to attack the Bush record during the remainder of the president's term. Accordingly, it is none to early for others to start to give credit where it is due. Yes, Bush so far has missed a number of opportunities to score in a major way on serious second tier issues (energy, science policy, transportation, and big spending). He also has many accomplishments on second tier issues (AIDS in Africa, science research, protecting human life). But the main thing about Bush is that, like Reagan, his main interest has been the main subjects. He deserves credit on these big issues.