It is a good analysis. I think the most disturbing part was his ducking when asked about defending the Constitution.
There was never any evidence that his father felt strongly about the Constitution and he does seem to have had the same lack of feeling about it. He clearly has strong feelings about moral principles but never seems to have connected them to our founding principles in any discernible way.
You make an excellent point that I find disturbing as regards both of these men. Bush pere et fils served in the military but it seems they did not absorb the basic modicum of patriotism and feeling for the American form of government that most people do from that experience. While I hate the class warfare approach to understanding the differences among people, it seems appropriate to consider that their service was more in the vein of noblesse oblige than a strong underlying love of country and Constitution.
He came down almost every rung for me when he signed CFR and said something along the lines that "some of this is unconstitutional but I'll sign it anyway and let the courts work that out".
In my mind that vow to uphold the constitution is black and white; if you think it's unconstitutional you don't sign it and hope that somebody else fixes it.
That's just not right and there's just no way to spin it so it is.
We will guard the borders (except we will give citizenship to the invaders).
Abortion is wrong (except in cases of rape or incest).
Stem cell research using human embryos is wrong (except we will finish the ones we already started).
We will support smaller government (except when government needs more control).
I've always thought that that was the basic thinking pattern of a true liberal:
We will speak of all good things (but we will never actually to the hard work).
All ranch and no cattle!