George W. Bush is clearly trying

to walk in some big shoes as he wages a war of words with the so-called

"axis of evil."

It's no mistake that his warning

to the axis sounds familiar. It's my guess it's deliberately crafted after

Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" statements concerning the U.S.S.R.

The world went ballistic then,

as it has now, calling Reagan a cowboy, accusing him of destroying previous

efforts at improved relations, suggesting he might be a few bricks shy

of a load.

Reagan gets points in the history

books because it all turned out well. If things had gone differently,

that statement would be looked back on today as a colossal blunder.

I don't think for a minute,

though, that he had any special knowledge that his tough stance was going

to help bring about the result that it did. I think he simply was a plain-spoken

man who called it as he saw it, and he said exactly what he felt.

Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev

badly miscalculated when he and Reagan met at Reykjavic, Iceland. He offered

a serious, verifyable, mutual reduction in nuclear arms and conventional

threats in Europe, then when Reagan thought it was a done deal, pulled

the rug out with a last-minute proclamation that, of course, all of the

offers are contingent on the U.S. giving up its plans for a strategic

defense against nuclear missiles, something Reagan had already made quite

clear was not on the table.

Instead of folding as Gorbachev

had thought he would and going home with an arms agreement that was sure

to get him rave reviews in the press, Reagan walked out. He couldn't have

known that doing so would later force concessions from the Soviets. He

simply acted on his principles.

Bush is pouring himself into

that mold, but the jury is still out on whether he will fit into it.

Are these comfortable clothes

that our new president is wearing, or is he trying to make a fashion statement

that's just not right for him? Literally and figuratively, he seems to

be taking on Reagan's Western, no-nonsense, say what you mean and mean

what you say, blue jeans and Stetson style.

I don't mean to trivialize

it. It's a serious matter, this global name-calling.

Part of Reagan's success, I

believe, was due to the fact that he wasn't, excuse the expression, acting.

The president we saw was not a Hollywood creation. The strength and courage,

the optimism and, yes, the naivete were the 100 percent genuine article.

If Bush just happens to enjoy

wearing Western clothes, and he just naturally says what he means and

means what he says, and if he has good reasons for singling out Iran,

North Korea and Iraq when there are plenty of other nations that have

similar track records, then I think his chances are pretty good of bringing

long-term benefit out of a seemingly moronic statement.

If he's simply trying to out-Reagan

Reagan, then I think he's going to find that he has made matters worse,

because he's not a good actor.

His predecessor, Slick Willie,

was a great actor. He could take the worst disaster, have a press conference,

smile and hug some international leader and issue a statement saying the

disaster was really a great victory, and get away with it.

Bush can't do that. He just

doesn't have the skill.

So I hope that he is being

true to himself, and his personal style just happens to be a lot like

Reagan's. I hope he had some goal in mind when he assigned the mantel

of evil to two nations that have been moving (slowly) in the right direction

in recent years.

I hope at the end of four (maybe

eight) years the U.S. has not killed a few hundred terrorists and created

many thousands more.

I don't know yet if Dubya is

the genuine article. I'll be watching to see how the fabric holds up.