I think the majority of the comments on this thread agree with your assessment, although I would certainly not state the matter so harshly. Krauthammer clearly wins the "gravitas" contest. I greatly admired his speech in acceptance of the award from one of the think tanks which appeared on C-Span and I commented upon it at length. By comparison Krauthammer is the better "political analyst" but Barnes is by no means "shallow." His boyish looks and tonality of speech combine to deprive him of the weightiness that those who are truly shallow attribute to baritones. Remember, the Dems sucessfully convinced a lot of folks that George H.W. Bush, a true war hero who saw much combat, was a "wimp" and that Slick Willy, a draft dodger documented by his own hand, was a take charge guy. But the war hero had a winpy voice....
Barnes has a gift not for brilliant "political analysis" but for insight and insight is exactly what he has given us in his description of George Bush:
What separates him from the Washington crowd? More than anything else, it's religion. Bush is the first president who's a product of the modern evangelical movement, which means his Christian faith is personal, intense, and all-encompassing. It's not a part-time, Sunday-only thing.
All flows from this insight in understanding our President, all the rest are symptons of this central animating truth. Fred Barnes had the depth to see it.
I agree that Fred has a good point here. But I don't count on him to tell me what's likely to happen over the next year or two. I think he tends to be too optimistic and to underestimate the enormous obstacles in the way of the Republican party in Washington, let alone the fundamental cowardice which permeates our political system.