"but in the end, Reagan's legacy surely rests on two big concrete things: he lowered taxes and he brought down the Soviet Union. Without those two accomplishments, he's nothing."

Perhaps, but he still would be better than Jimmy Carter's Presidency, who we know is history's greatest monster according to the Simpsons. Or maybe he would be viewed as being merely inconsequental like Clinton's tenure according to Obama. ;)

A minor, but significant, additional reason for glowing R memories of Reagan is that he looks good in comparison to R presidents that followed him.

Oh lordy, I hope that doesn't happen to W.

Blastocysts are "babies" now?

Actually one of George II's legacies are the Barney Christmas at the WhiteHouse videos - especially the altered one that has an overlay of a scotsman's continually saying foook, foook...

Oh, Al. Aside from Bush's Aids Initiative in Africa, all the things you list above can and should be turned on their axis. ALL were failures. And, of course, the list of failures must include Bush's response to Katrina, where he and his wretched policies basically destroyed a once-great American city.

Of course, Al, you can always "spin" that botch as Barbara Bush did in pointing out how fortunate the NOLA townsfolk were to find themselves exiled to Houston!

I seem to recall that although Reagan lowered taxes early on that he felt compelled to raise them later on.

Kevin, please. As commenters above already proved, there's no chicken s--- so stinky that someone can't make it into chicken salad.

I could make a list like the one above, but I think the historical argument will go something like: he had the foresight to confront the terrorists invade Iraq, and the US would've won if [insert magic hindsight strategy here].

The Bush Legacy: blame everyone else for what went wrong after he left office.

"Reagan's legacy surely rests on two big concrete things: he lowered taxes and he brought down the Soviet Union."

Very true. But wouldn't you also say part of the Reagan legacy was his overwhelming electoral victories - landslide elections in 1980 and 1984 - where he cemented the Republican capture of the "Reagan Democrats" - blue collar, disaffected white guys, former Democrats in the rust belt, AND cemented the "Southern Strategy" - where the fruits of LBJs Civil Rights legislation finally came home to roost, and southern states completed their transformation to Republican strongholds.

The Republicans were no longer the "Party of Lincoln" (blacks) in the south, but the Dems became the Party of the "Special Interests" (blacks).

Anyway, Bush didn't have these electoral landslides, winning by slim margins, nor did his campaign oversee a massive shift in party orientation. So, his legacy will be more difficult to mythologize.

BUT... his administration DID oversee a massive propaganda campaign making the war on terrorism (before known as 50 ineffectual guys with a grudge) into the War of our Time - a conflict worthy of reorganizing international relations, overthrowing states, suspension of civil liberties, etc. (He was helped of course, by a spectacular, devastating, lucky strike by these terrorists).

This will be his legacy, this war on terrorism. And it's mostly hype. The war in Iraq will always be seen as another unprovoked aggression, a tragic, murderous meddling in the affairs of people on the other side of the world, by the United States.

I think you also left out Reagan's largest tax increase ever: FICA. The Social Security fix, which has worked exactly as planned, (how often does that happen) and the GwB's privatization attempt was soundly defeated.
Other GwB legacies:
Doubling the national debt,
Legitimized torture as a policy,
Spying on citizens
Destroyed the $
Oh, the humanity or in GwB's case, the lack thereof.

I know you mean that the public perceives that "Reagan brought down the Soviet Union" but that isn't how you worded it. You worded it as if YOU think he did. You might want to clarify that. Or else explain why you think that.

Dear Al,

You must be joking.

Sincerely,
The millions of Afghanis that that continue to live in fear and instability because Bush did a half-assed job.
The million of Iraqis who have died, been maimed (physically and psychologically), or displaced.
Millions of children whose development was stunted by the scam of misdirected resources that is NCLB.
Millions of Americans who can't afford adequate health care.
Millions of people who don't receive adequate family planning information and resources because of Bush's pro-abstinence, anti-contraception and anti-abortion position
The millions of people who will die early or will suffer needlessly because of Bush's ignorant stance regarding stem cell research.
The billions of children that will have to live (and die) with the consequences of Bush's resistance to action to respond to global warming.
All Americans that live in a country greatly diminished by a president that has embraced torture and spit on the Constitution.

APOLOGIES, I didn't read carefully enough. Oops.

Kevin asks: "But what are George Bush's legacies?"

The most significant legacy of the Cheney/Bush administration is their deliberate suppression, distortion and obfuscation of the science of anthropogenic global warming, their refusal to adopt national policies to deal with it, their attempts to prevent state governments from dealing with it, and their subversion and sabotage of international efforts to deal with it.

The human species could not afford to waste the last eight years doing essentially nothing about this problem, which threatens the survival of human civilization and the lives of billions of people, and in the worst-case scenario threatens the viability of the Earth's biosphere as we know it.

The Cheney/Bush administration has been a steady stream of corruption and criminality, from gaining power through the blatant theft of the 2000 election by voter disenfranchisement and fraud, to their illegal war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq based on lies.

But in the coming decades humanity will realize that their greatest crime has been their deliberate blocking of urgent action on anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change, during a crucial time when US leadership might have made a difference.

But what are George Bush's legacies?

Well duh! He's leaving office with a glorious, surging victory in Iraq and a booming economy! Indeed, historians will cite exactly these 'facts' when discussing the "Bush Era."

I think that Chernobyl was also a significant factor in the fall of the Soviet Union.

Shouldn't that be something more like "brought down the Soviet Union without ever having planned for that eventuality"?

Reagan's legacy vis-a-vis the Soviets isn't the military buildup. It's his second term when he threw the proto-neocons under the bus, and got serious about negotiating with Gorbachev. That gave Gorbachev breathing room for his reforms, which is what finally led to the demise of communist rule.

Reagan got rid of a lot more missiles than Jimmy Carter ever did. (That said, I'm no great fan of Reagan. He got a lot of stuff wrong. But he got perhaps his single most major decision right.)

Reagan's legacy vis-a-vis the Soviets isn't the military buildup. It's his second term when he threw the proto-neocons under the bus, and got serious about negotiating with Gorbachev. That gave Gorbachev breathing room for his reforms, which is what finally led to the demise of communist rule.

Reagan got rid of a lot more missiles than Jimmy Carter ever did. (That said, I'm no great fan of Reagan. He got a lot of stuff wrong. But he got perhaps his single most major decision right.)

One legacy that George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan have in common is the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in illegal wars of unprovoked aggression.

The difference is that Reagan's mass murders in Central America were largely committed by US-supported proxies, eg. the right-wing death-squad governments of El Salvador and Guatemala and the so-called "Contra" terrorists of Nicaragua, whereas the mass murders of George W. Bush were the result of direct US military involvement.

Don't neglect Reagan's personality in this. When I speak to my mother, who voted for McGovern and Hillary, she always talks about how Reagan made the country feel good about itself again after the bummer of the '70s. I think more than anything, it was his avuncular image that has served him best these last twenty years. I'll give him one thing: The man knew how to smile as he twisted the knife. Bush is a mean, little prick and the country is sick of him personally, not just politically. Good luck with his rehabilitation, GOP.

Kevin Drum: Paul Volcker and the end of the Iranian oil crisis had more to do with halting inflation and getting the economy back in gear than Reagan's 1981 tax cut did.

It's not that Volcker and oil did more than Reagan, it's that they did the trick in spite of Reagan's tax cuts. Volcker wouldn't have had to raise interest rates as much as he did if it wasn't for Reagan's irresponsible budget deficits (actually much worse than W's). Oh, and those high rates, coupled with Reagan's irresponsible deregulation, led to the S&L crisis (and bailout - more welfare for the rich).

Another nod to Volcker: he opposed it when they started to dismantle Glass-Steagall in 1987. And that dismantling of banking regulations, completed under Clinton in 1999, and originally enacted due to very hard earned wisdom in the Great Depression, bears much of the blame for the current financial meltdown.

You mention in your original post that Osama Bin Laden "is still at large." Is he? After Tora Bora is was assumed that he might be dead or gravely wounded. When his first audio tape surfaced, a number of Al Quaeda experts and persons familiar with Bin Laden doubted its authenticity. Then CIA "voice experts" slam-dunked it as authentic Bin Laden. I may stand corrected but I believe that every subsequent Osama Bin Laden tape has been verified by comparison to the original (of somewhat dubious provenance). I bring up this point because these tapes only seem to surface during US national elections. Any thoughts or clarifications?

"she always talks about how Reagan made the country feel good about itself again after the bummer of the '70s."

Same is true in my family. My aunt once said the very same thing to which my mother replied: "I already feel good about myself".

Bush makes Reagan look positively statesmanlike. Sad.

What I want to know is if the GOP in Denver is going to do that same Shtick the Democrats did with Clinton in the 2000 convention showing him walking out to the podium and listing all his accomplishments as he stroll... Come GOP, I DARE you to do that! :-)

There is another factor as well as the personality thing mentioned above. Reagan gave good sound bite; his quip after he got shot was quite endearing (and I'm not a Reagan fan, not now or then). But the man was at least articulate. Bush's constant verbal blunders will make it difficult to clean up his image. It will be necessary to watch for manipulation of tape to make him sound better.

Even you, Kevin, buy into the Reagan Hype.

"...he brought down the Soviet Union."

Really? What, with a hatchet?

Obviously, the destruction of the Soviet Union is way way more complex than that. Mostly, the Soviet's self-destructed, and Reagan was in the right place at the right time. Sure, his policies put pressure on the Soviets, but if the government wasn't fatally flawed, it would have survived, as it had for decades before, when we were putting just as much pressure on them.

And, please note, the Berlin wall fell on Bush #1's watch.

... if they can just get his approval ratings up into the forties by the inauguration of the next president, they can more credibly claim to credulous reporters that Bush was at least a moderately successful president. They can [say] conservatism hasn't failed.

And if I sprinkle magic fairy dust on my Chuck Taylor's, I stand a damn good chance of medaling in Beijing come August. That grown folks convene panels devoted entirely to frogs & wings & bruised asses gives you some idea of just how forceful their brilliance is -- and how pathetic the conservative mindset has become.

As a Democrat, I recall that the Reagan tax cut was based on a Democratic initiative, the Bradley-Gephardt tax reform. And in the course of simplifying rates and reducing marginal rates on the rich, it also eliminated the silly and highly regressive differential between tax rates on earnings and capital gains. On balance, it was no tax holiday for the rich. That's why Gingrich, Armey and company couldn't wait to undo it 10 years later.

More importantly, Dubya has remained a personally loathsome toad throughout the whole dispiriting process.

PaminBB wrote: "Reagan gave good sound bite ... the man was at least articulate."

Reagan was, after all, a trained actor. A grade B actor for sure, but nonetheless a trained actor.

In contrast, Bush is like a drunk at a party with a lampshade on his head, giving his impression of Ronald Reagan playing the role of John Wayne.

reagan's legacy will always be The Wall Street. Greed is good.

The economy did not boom under Reagan. It did better than in the late 70s but less well than the 60s or 90s

You're misundstimating Dubya. All he wanted to was to rehabilitate his Daddy whose popularity tanked and whose second term was stolen. And, by golly, now even his Daddy looks good by comparison. So, yes, his presidency is a success! [/sarcasm]

"But what are George Bush's legacies? The economy has been mediocre throughout his presidency and he's leaving it in tatters as he steps off the stage. On the foreign policy front, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, Afghanistan is slowly slipping back into chaos, and Iraq remains a hideous quagmire. Bush is obviously hoping that Iraq will turn around and he'll get the credit, but what are the odds? Close to zero."

You left out a historic reversal of fiscal fortunes for the US government from where Bush took office and projected surpluses as far as he could project and promises of tax cuts that would never cause a deficit.

You left out a country facing increased skepticsm and anger abroad from our allies, enemies and virtually everywhear in between.

You left out a country whose reputation and crediblity on human rights to be severely deminished on torture and access to justice.

You left out a legacy of a Medicare Part D prescription coverage that was written by and for the insurance industry that the nation cannot afford and is getting little value - the same Bush had warned against expanding Medicare Part D without first reforming it, and then did precisy that when politically expedient.

You left out rising poverty rates, rising health care costs, and increased rates of uninsurance.

You left out a country with a growing gap between the haves and have nots, a country increasingly polarized and skeptical -the opposite of what Bush promised to deliver.

Billy Graham saved George Bush from a life of public, frat boy drunkenness only to see his disciple become the scourge from hell-ruining baseball teams, energy firms, economies and countries.

Oh, you weak and meek who seek the solace of these religious imposters and their God -will -save -you nostrums! They are worse than opium or the crack that invades our fair cities. Fie on them.

Better for the world if George Bush pulled stupid jokes on his Skull and Bones chums and blew up frogs in his backyard. George Bush, happily, is done for- off to his presidential library with its two books: The Pet Goat, and Clearing Brush for Profit and Pleasure.

What a waste. George, the Elder and Barbara, you done yourselves proud--placed an angry, ignoramus in the oval office. Enough already--no more Bushes.

Bush's legacy: We were attacked on 9/11 and for the rest of his presidency he kept terrorism from hitting the USA.

Probably not worth much to those suffering from BDS but if he makes it to Jan 20 without another major attack history will have that under his name.

R Crane on March 20, 2008 at 2:31 PM:
Even you, Kevin, buy into the Reagan Hype.

Mr. Drum is a gentleman, so it's up to the rest of us to remind you read the whole post before you jump in.

Without those two accomplishments, he's nothing. wrote Mr. Drum. Then the next paragraph begins: Now, both of these legacies are overblown...

Mr. Drum gets beat up by his commenters sometimes for being "too moderate," but I don't think anyone's ever called him a Reagan apologist.

Bush's place in the history books is already assured. He will be remembered as the president whose policies, or lack thereof, allowed the worst terrorist attack in hisotry to occur on US soil. It will be a legacy of failure and shame.

Bush's legacy:

Minutely, obsessedly crafting an image of not being an egomaniac by repeatedly letting the press know about how he talked / how he's going to talk to some political leader or another about football, fishing, or watch a sports game with them, etc.

It's kind of a shame that our government paid people to work on stuff like this for Bush-- "What makes Bush look cool?"

Pocket Rocket wrote: "He will be remembered as the president whose policies, or lack thereof, allowed the worst terrorist attack in hisotry to occur on US soil. It will be a legacy of failure and shame."

From the point of view of the Cheney/Bush administration, the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001 were not a failure. The 9/11 attack was exactly what they had hoped for and needed to justify their long-planned war of unprovoked aggression to seize control of Iraq's oil.

All of the information in the public record is consistent with the view that the Cheney/Bush administration allowed the 9/11 attack to occur not through negligence and incompetence, but deliberately, to provide the "new Pearl Harbor" needed to generate public support for their oil war.

R. Crane makes some great points above. The reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union are far more complex than Kevin asserts.

In fact, Anatoly Dobrynin, former Soviet ambassador to the U.S. has written that the collapse of the Soviet Union was "the product of "our incompetent but highly ambitious leaders." Gorbachev, assisted by his "evil mastermind," Aleksandr Yakovlev, engaged in hastily planned reforms "without seriously contemplating the consequences." Vain, flattered by the Western media, economically incompetent, acting like "a virtual monarch," the Gorbachev that emerges from Dobrynin's account is very different from the man still widely admired in the West. His headlong rush to gain American cooperation led to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and "the Soviet Army, still seen as the victors of World War II, [being] rushed home as if it had simply been thrown out. This is an inglorious heritage of the Gorbachev era."

As far as George W. Bush's legacy - three words:

Worst. President. Ever.

Go to www.bartcop.com and buy the T-shirt!

SecularAnimist: "But in the coming decades humanity will realize that their greatest crime has been their deliberate blocking of urgent action on anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change, during a crucial time when US leadership might have made a difference."

SecularAnimist's several posts have been absolutely right. Just want to applaud.

Over these past eight years of failed leadership, Bush has set in motion a cascade of unintended consequences. It isn't just the many wrong things he did, what he left undone will have consequences as well.

I suppose, in the future, historians will look back at this time, and talk about the radical shift that took place in American society during the Bush years. In its own way it is comparable to the 60s. Virtually every institution in the nation has undergone a realignment to accommodate the national nightmare that was Bushco, and that radical realignment, I believe, is Bush's legacy.

The medical analogy would be the development of antibodies to fight a virus. The Reagan-Bush years have been a plague for the US. The body politic has slowly been building up resistance, but the disease has left us seriously weakened.

I seem to recall that although Reagan lowered taxes early on that he felt compelled to raise them later on.

And don't forget the "surge" in Social Security taxes that primarily raised taxes on the working class, especially since some current politicians don't think it'll have to be paid back. Private accounts don't look so good right now.

A recent poll suggests that only 19% of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, yet hypothetical matchups between McCain (who wants to essentially stay the course) and either Obama or Clinton are fairly close. This is not a very optimistic time to be an American.

Someone ought to mention that the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain came undone under Reagan's successor. If it's ok to discount every American president's anti-Soviet policies from Wilson to Carter, then it's fair to discount Dutch as well. If you're going to be blinkered, at least be consistently blinkered.

And, Reagan's $2,000,000 payoff from Japan following his term in office dropped his approval rating in the toilet. From the Japanese payoff until his senility, he was not widely admired. After his senility was announced he got a sympathy bounce.

After the GWB Presidential Library starts pumping out its own revisionist histories of GWB and his times, schoolchildren will be collecting signatures for his addition to Mt. Rushmore.

But he sure looked good in the flightsuit, huh? His package is huge!

Reagan's legacy is largely based, as luci says, on the fact that he was re-elected by a wide margin and also had a successor elected -- both of which are mostly creditable to the fact that the economy boomed after the deep recession of '81/'82. It doesn't matter if the boom wasn't as broad as that of the 60s; in relative terms, it was a huge success (and had much to do with the whole "made us feel good about ourselves" thing).

I'm of two minds about this whole effort described here to "freeze" Bush's legacy:

1) I don't think Democrats could have frozen Reagan's legacy at Iran/Contra levels had they tried -- scandal, in general, fades, but economic and foreign policy news endures. Continuing growth, and the rapprochement with Gorbachev, would have given Reagan good numbers at his exit even if Dems ran negative ads 24 hours a day. (Look how the wingnuts tried to destroy Clinton with the impeachment thing, their version of the same project: it was a colossal failure, at least in terms of approval ratings, which is the standard suggested here)

2) On the other hand, there's nothing the right can do to pump up Bush's legacy, because, in Reagan's almost-phrase, facts are stubborn things. The Iraq war is a total bust and the only question for the economy this year is, How far is down? A gazillion-dollar GOP ad campaign would do nothing to negate that.

What's most depressing here is how both left and right seem to be assuming PR is the most important element in rating presidents...when all history I know suggests policy and competence have far more influience.

PTateinMN: Over these past eight years of failed leadership, Bush has set in motion a cascade of unintended consequences.

"Unintended"? Methinks you're giving him too much credit.

Reagan's terms were largely smoke and mirrors, long on image and short on substance. Still, the American people seemed to feel good about the whole thing.

The post doesn't quite work even on its own terms. HIs accomplishments were real, even though they weren't. But for Bush, who has no accomplishments, there can't be any made-up ones.

Why OK to make up accomplishments for Reagan but not Bush?

I think there's a point to made about Reagan that Obama hit on the other day -- Reagan let white America off the hook for racism. Middle class white Americans -- lots of blue collar types -- had been told that they were horrible racists for not wanting to send their kids halfway across the county to go to a bad school, or for not wanting to see the values of their real estate decline. Racism surely played a role, but Obama is right to note that this resentment at being accused unfairly was raging, and Reagan basically said to these people "you are right after all to worry about these things, and I don't think you're bad guys for feeling that way."

That's why so many people think of Reagan as someone who made everyone feel better - he did! I doubt Bush will be able to claim any such legacy since he has connected so poorly with so many Americans. (And not because his handlers won't try to sew a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- hell, that's the main thing they're good at!)

9/11 attacks were the result of no reponse to the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the bombing of the USS Cole. Black Hawk down had a little piece of that as well.

The fanatics took Clinton's non-response as a sign of weakness and made a bolder move.

If there are no further attacks on US soil Bush's legacy will be that he kept the country safe for his entire presidency.

History will judge the war in Iraq without the fanatical hate now stirred by "all for oil" loonies and the "9/11 was a conspiracy" Wright disciples.

Bush's legacy: We were attacked on 9/11 and for the rest of his presidency he kept terrorism from hitting the USA.

No, it's my magic rock that has kept terrorism from hitting the USA.

Probably not worth much to those suffering from BDS but if he makes it to Jan 20 without another major attack history will have that under his name.

"Bush: The Single Worst Mass Murder in American History Only Happened Once on His Watch -- Not Twice!" Yes, a stirring historical legacy, indeed.

Similarly, if I can get blind drunk and drive my car home without running over another pedestrian history will have that under my name.

Lech Walesa had more to do with the destruction of the Soviet Union than Ronald Reagan did.

9/11 attacks were the result of no reponse to the 1993 World Trade Center attack

No response? We caught, tried and convicted the bombers. What other response was there?

and the bombing of the USS Cole.

The lack of response to the bombing of the USS Cole was Bush's fault, not Clinton's.

Black Hawk down had a little piece of that as well.

As I have amply demonstrated here many times already, it was the Republicans (especially Gigolo John McCain) and not Clinton who wanted to cut and run in Somalia.

If there are no further attacks on US soil Bush's legacy will be that he kept the country safe for his entire presidency.

His "entire" presidency? Who was president on September 11, 2001? It was Clinton, right? Yeah, yeah, that must be it, and then Bush took over on September 12?

Stefan, don't you know that right-wingers cannot be corrected by actual facts? If actual facts were of any import to them, they wouldn't BE right-wingers!

Stefan,

Nice job on "Orwell," but you forgot to slap him around for hiding behind the name of a great writer while spewing nonsense that is causing Mr. Blair to spin in his grave.

9/11 attacks were the result of no reponse to the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the bombing of the USS Cole. Black Hawk down had a little piece of that as well.

Hmmm, first WTC bombing took place 3 weeks after Clinton took office. Who put American soldiers in Somalia? That's right, GHWB, after losing the election.

Thanks for playing, asshat.

I want to play, too! It was Clinton who ignored the August 6 PDB!

Thanks for playing, asshat.

I don't think he's playing. He really is an asshat.

Oh, and Orwell? Learn how to construct a god-damned sentence, or show some respect and pick a new handle. Jackass.

"Stefan, don't you know that right-wingers cannot be corrected by actual facts?"

Yup. Notice how Orwell has conveniently wished away the anthrax attacks? Not to mention the rather inconvenient fact that 9/11 happened nine months into Bush's watch, so preventing another one, even if that were true, is not particularly praiseworthy when you utterly failed to prevent the first.

Remember then-National Security Advisor Rice's scheduled 9/11 speech? A speech that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday"? A speech that focused on ... wait for it ... missile defense, without one word about al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or Islamic extremist groups?

The "real" threat, according to the Bush administration at that time was long-range missiles. So I guess we can add that to Bush's accomplishments: tens of billions of dollars spent deploying a missile defense system that a) doesn't work and b) is pretty much focused on "the threats and problems of ... yesterday."

W. has kept us safe from the Islamofascists. We haven't had another attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. If the Democrats win, Muslims will slit your throat as you sleep.

If the Democrats win, Muslims will slit your throat as you sleep.

I plan to defeat that plan by not buzzing them into the building! And if the doorman let's 'em in, he's so fired...

Muslims will slit your throat as you sleep

Turkish coffee, anyone?

"9/11 attacks were the result of no reponse to the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the bombing of the USS Cole. Black Hawk down had a little piece of that as well."

In 2000 when the intelligence agencies thought something was coming down, Clinton put the country on alert and held frequent meetings to “shake the tree�. As a result when a customs inspector in Port Angeles, Washington, saw something suspicious, she acted and the Millennium Attack was foiled. Compare this to George Bush, who when in the summer of 2001 the intelligence people warned him “Bin Laden determined to strike at U.S.� replied “fine, you’ve covered your ass. I’m out of here on vacation�. And what did our glorious leader do when the attack did come? He courageously flew off to Omaha. Heck of job, W!

"Muslims will slit your throat as you sleep"

And Americans will keep you awake for 72 hours so you can confess to crimes you didn't commit, letting the real villains get away.

Next generalization, please?

The fundamental reason Reagan was popular because he happened to be president at the beginning of a new 25-year economic boom. And just as reality isn't good enough for Hollywood, Reagan goosed this further by effectively offering up brand new credit cards for his lavish spending spree (first payments for which will be coming due soon). His cheesy acting skills also helped make a favorable impression on the public.

Jimmy Carter had the misfortune to be president during some of the worst years of an economic contraction that started in the late 1960s. Had Reagan gotten the nomination and managed to get elected in 1976, he would have been a one-termer with a legacy perhaps not too much better Carter's.

Bill Clinton was lucky enough to ride the strongest middle leg of the 25-year economic expansion. Y2K spending kept it going long enough past where it would probably have ended (in 1998) for him to be gone before the subsequent contraction was well underway.

But George Bush's legacy will be far different than Reagan's. Bush got in near the end of the 25-year expansion, in roughly the same place as LBJ (another impulsive, crooked Texan who also foolishly drastically expanded a "pre-emptive" war), but also a bit into Nixon's first year or so. LBJ's expansion of Vietnam is comparable in scope to Bush's expansion of the military operations that had been ongoing in Iraq since the '90s. At home, the dirty tricks that TeamBush has played, and their drive for more executive power, smack of Richard Nixon. But Cheney and Rumsfeld learned their lessons well as they observed Nixon's mistakes from front row seats, and Cheney in particular has been very careful to not repeat them. Cheney knows what it takes to get away with what brought Nixon down (and more). It helps to have a compliant congress, too (something Nixon didn't have).

Among those willing to be objective, George W. Bush's legacy is inseparable from that of Cheney, and they will be regarded as a team that embodied the worst of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, but with a lower body count.

A recent poll suggests that only 19% of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, yet hypothetical matchups between McCain (who wants to essentially stay the course) and either Obama or Clinton are fairly close.

It's always dangerous to assume 'the right direction' and 'the direction we'd like to see' are the same.

We don't know for sure how much of the ~70% who disapprove of Junta Boy's performance as Spokesmodel-cum-President want a chief executive who's a bigger liar, more in love with explosions, more in tune with their baser instincts, their prejudices, their fears.

There is no dearth of Americans whose list of desiderata in a politician begins and ends with 'pisses off liberals'.

There are, at any given time, enough voters in America would also gladly volunteer to live with their family in a cardboard box under a bridge, and eat sparrows toasted on an old curtain rod, so long as they know the Other -- the gay, the immigrant, the non-Christian, the liberal -- in the next box over doesn’t even have a sparrow to eat to also elect a president.

At this point, I think that Bush is just trying to avoid the category of "Worst President Ever". Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations!

Jimmy Carter had the misfortune to be president during some of the worst years of an economic contraction that started in the late 1960s.

And was exascerbated in the early 70's by Nixon's disastrous decision to freeze prices and wages. As if that move wasn't damaging enough, he pressured the fed to loosen the mooney supply, causing a mini-boomlet in time for the '72 elections, but utter economic dissarray for the remainder of the decade.

He sure as hell did not bring down the Soviet Union. You're sounding like Peggy Noonan. (Are you modestly looking down? Is your voice quivering with adoration for America's Most-Beloved-President-Ever?)

And the current leader of All the Russias seems to be the Same As He Ever Was, much of a muchness and all that.

Perhaps you are thinking of the fact that the Cold War at some point ended, much of it winding down, largely coincidentally, during the reign of Beloved Smirk-Face Infantilizing Patronizer the First (the true sire of the current Beloved Smirk-Face Infantilizing Patronizer the Second).

Bushs' main legacy is the victory of Osama bin Laden's strategy to bring down the US empire.

1) US mired in two un-winnable conflicts.
2) Economic collapse of the empire.
3) Huge increase of hatred towards the US.

Bush could not have played into Bin Laden's hands any better if he tried. Victory!

Some of you should talk to people who actually lived in Eastern Europe or in the Soviet Union in the 80's. They give Reagan a lot of credit, both for his rhetoric and for his policies, in bringing the Cold War to an end and freeing them from Communism. (Yes, they consider themselves freed from an evil ideology.)

What Buford said.

"Mission Accomplished" -- Osama bin Laden

"Likewise, the fall of the Soviet Union was largely due ..."

umm, wrong. If a Carter-style President had been in power, the tanks would
have been sent into Poland, there would have been no other
upheavals in the satellite states and the USSR and the Eastern bloc
would still be there.

And whoever talked about the Contras ("terrorists") above, the Contras came into existence because of Sandanista atrocities. They were originally an indigenous movement, which we then supported.

"Sandanista atrocities... they were originally an indigenous movement, which we then supported."

ROFL. SMTN. Just like the Shah of Iran was put in power by an 'indigenous movement' and 'popular uprising'.

re: "If a Carter-style President had been in power, the tanks would have been sent into Poland,"

As if the cost in blood and treasure wasn't high enough in Afghanistan, opening up the flow on a second front in Poland would have drained the "Evil Empire" even faster.

Also note that it was Brzezinski's idea to sucker the Soviets into the Afghanistan beartrap, and they took the bait on Carter's watch.

re: "If a Carter-style President had been in power, the tanks would have been sent into Poland, there would have been no other upheavals in the satellite states and the USSR and the Eastern bloc would still be there."

It's risky to guess what might have been. But are we also to assume that Reagan, not Deng Xiaoping, caused China to open up, too?

You really think 'the USSR and the Eastern bloc would still be there' in their cold war form watching from the sidelines as that other big former proponent of communism started making real economic progress after they embraced a form of proto-capitalism?

Also note that it was Brzezinski's idea to sucker the Soviets into the Afghanistan beartrap, and they took the bait on Carter's watch.

Yeah, and that worked out really well, didn't it? Afghanistan had that awful Commie regime where women could go to school without getting executed in public.

Talk about unintended fucking consequences.

Just sayin'

Reagan did cut taxes and the economy boomed.
The economy boomed because of Jimmy Carter's economic policies finally kicking in.

approval ratings leaving office are not a valid indicator of how a president will be viewed long term. truman low, now high. johnson low, going up. clinton high, going down. bush 1 low, going up. harding high, went down.

to the extent the departing president affects the next election, it might matter some on that issue. but the data is pretty small on the issue.

re: "Talk about unintended consequences."

I agree. I never agreed with Brzezinski's idea (nor most other machiavellian meddling), however if one is going to give credit to Reagan for the downfall of the USSR and almost in the same breath attribute part of it to their imperial overstretch in Afghanistan, it must be noted whose set the trap in the first place.

In fairness, if there was one little thing that broke the Soviet's back in Afghanistan, it was Stinger missiles along with them not having effective precision guided bombs which might have allowed them to stay retaliate from a safe altitude. The Stingers gave the Soviets a choice of moving troops by helicopter and getting shot down, or moving troops by ground, where they got ambushed in the canyons.

"the stingers"
Yep. More blowback. See "Black Hawk Down." But your main point is right.

Mostly I just wanted to say there's none of that imperial overstretch stuff goin' on around here. It sounds unpleasant.

IMPEACH, call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. DC business hours only, call often, and spread it around.

Bush is not a conservative, just look at the debts and the three trillion dollar budget that doesnt include Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why, even William F Buckley said Bush wasnt a conservative.

GWB: Suckiest President Ever!

"Reagan's defense buildup played a role [in the Soviet's collapse], but hardly the definitive one that his fans suggest."

I've never heard or read of any evidence that it played any role at all. And the only role that it likely played would have been to slow their inevitable collapse. Historically, a strong, meanacing enemy always helps a country unite internally. The only exception is if the external threat actually attacks, and further--wins.

*

from a high of 70% where Carter had taken them

Would you care to make a SIZABLE bet on that statement? (How much is your net worth?)

Since the top rate had been at 70% (or greater) since 1935, I've just saved you a bundle.

You might want to consider why you thought it apt to post such a ridiculous wowzer.

Well, even though Google removed Bush's White House link from the search results for "miserable failure," most of the top results still relate GWB with "miserable failure."

So he's got that going for him, which ain't bad.

Now, Reagan... when I think of Reagan, I think of U.S.-funded death squads in Central America and babies on bayonets. Everytime I see a homeless person, I think of Reagan. Everytime I hear of another person dying of AIDS, I think of Reagan. In the Oxymoron Dictionary, there's a picture of Reagan next to "compassionate conservatism."

mhr's comment has just disappeared. I've posted stuff that I've regretted (often immediately) and would like to know if a poster can request that his own comment be deleted. If so, to whom should such a request be addressed?

Bush will be remembered as a failure all you have to do is look at the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 911 he is and will be remembered as the worst president to date.

"... thus preventing conservatives from turning him into yet another mythic keeper of the flame."

Look, I vote straight-ticket Republican in every election. But no way am I, or hardly any other conservatives, going to say or think that Bush is a "mythic keeper of the flame".

His prescription drug policy and No Child Left Behind are simply big-government liberalism. He has refused to close the southern border, supported a path-to-amnesty for illegal immigrants, and promoted a massive guest worker program. More liberalism.

The war in Afghanistan made sense and has not gone badly so far. But in hindsight we should have never invaded Iraq (even if many conservatives act like it still made sense). So now we are stuck in a quagmire which nobody knows how to fix. This war is costing trillions, and thousands of young American are being killed or maimed.

It is possible that Iraq will turn out okay one day. If so, that would be the only way Bush's legacy could be positive. But Iraq will have to become a beacon of hope given the price that has been paid. What are the chances of that?

I actually hate to write all of this. I don't dislike George W. Bush like so many on the left; I just wish he would have done a better job.

Okay, a few positives: We have not been attacked since 9/11. He tried to get personal accounts to help out Social Security, but the left went nuts and blocked this. He made some nice tax cuts.

re: "the stingers"
Yep. More blowback. See "Black Hawk Down."

No Stinger missiles or their Russian equivalents were used in Somalia. Only RPGs, which are far more commonly available.

Using the Stingers may have provided al Qaeda with real world experience in shooting down helos, but sing RPGs (or heavy machine guns) against hovering helicopters was hardly a new concept.

RPGs are not particularly effective against fixed wing attack aircraft or moving helicopters even at low altitudes. Those armed with RPGs are very vulnerable to air attack from AC-130s or other aircraft operating safely outside of RPG range. As mentioned in the movie, Clinton declined to deploy AC-130s (or armor) in Somalia.

Publicly object to U.S. imperial overstretch and the media noise machine will call you an isolationist.

Try mentioning U.S. imperial overstretch while running for president on the Republican ticket and the RNC and the media noise machine will not treat you like a credible candidate.

Publicly support Soviet imperial overstretch in the 1980s and the media noise machine will call you a foreign policy genius.

Reagan brought down the Soviet Union? Really? Actually, I think he was just sitting in the oval office cracking jokes when it imploded from within. Ronnie didn't have a damn thing to do with it.

Kevin, you've bought the Republican spin on this one.

Daryl McCullough: At this point, I think that Bush is just trying to avoid the category of "Worst President Ever". Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations!

that will be hard....

no other president has ever gone for 3-years STRAIGHT...

under 50% job approval..(gallup)

and gwb has 9-more months to add to that record..

consider...gwb will have been under 50% almost as long as carter was in office...

gwb has been under 40% for 18-CONSECUTIVE months...

heckofajob