... I can't be the only one that sees 1980-1992 parallels here right?
There is actually a trend that constantly repeats itself:
1. Poor President
2. All-time great from opposite party as 1 (even if they may not be liked by other party)
3. "Third-term understudy" from same party as 2 that only wins one term
4. Solid, two-term President from opposite party as 3, but one that still has to deal with memories of all-time great from opposite party.
5. President from same Party as all-time great that generally winds up being an average President.
Look:
Carter (D)
Reagan (R)
Bush 41 (R)
Clinton (D)
Bush 43 (R)
Or:
Hoover (R)
FDR (D)- even though I don't like his politics, he was successful in what he wanted to do
Truman (D)
Eisenhower (R)
Kennedy/LBJ (D)
Or:
Cleveland (D)- Even if he would now probably be a Republican
McKinley/Roosevelt (R)
Taft (R)
Wilson (D)
Harding/Coolidge (R)
George W. Bush is beyond any question a very poor President. His only real success was in getting re-elected (probably by riding cultural trends more than any real achievement). 9/11 made him popular for doing much of what was obvious... but a really-great President would have asked for Americans to make some sacrifices to thwart the evil that was the 9/11 attack. "Go shopping" is not my idea of a noble sacrifice.
His stewardship of the economy was an unmitigated disaster. He pushed private debt for consumer spending that financed more the growth of the Chinese economy than the American economy. He sponsored a binge in real estate speculation that squeezed out investment in plant and equipment that creates well-paying jobs that finance healthy home-buying, small-business formation, and consumer spending.
He lied to get America into a war for his cronies, and that war broke open the budget. His loose watch over the Armed Forces tolerated gross misconduct that none can excuse. He bungled the response to a natural disaster, something unprecedented in American history. He was President as the worst economic meltdown in nearly eighty years began, and it led to the biggest increase in government ownership of economic assets ever -- 'receivership socialism'. For a loud proponent of free-market solutions, this 'receivership socialism' utterly discredits him. He had a Hoover economy and an LBJ war -- two catastrophic failures at once.
The testimony to his failure is that Barack Obama is his successor, and practically an antithesis.
This is not a partisan swipe. Several Republicans would have been better prepared for the Presidency and would have been firmer conservatives in economic policy.
