Well, that certainly draws the eye, which is the intention, I suppose, but it is the first Bush he admires, not this one, and we have to get to the end of the article to discover that.
I am not impressed with that kind of enticement to arouse and I know sensationalist headlines and titles will continue, but I would still have read an article titled "Obama Admires First Bush." I find it titled this way quite a turn-off, and will consider David Brooks differently from now on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin