If Bush Loses...

[roGER]

There's a common pattern (assuming, of course, Dubya loses):

1) He's regarded as the worst President since [insert name here].

2) Memories fade and he's rehabilitated somewhat. A recent example is the santification of Ronald Regan.

3) Academics with detailed knowledge of all the presidents do a proper evaluation with the benefit of perfect hindsight and the memoirs of many of the key players. But by the time they get around to doing it, nobody except history buffs really care...

My best guess is in the popular imagination he'll be a semi-forgotten mediocre president forever associated with 9/11. Rather like Gerald Ford will be forever associated with Nixon's pardon, and Lyndon Johnson with the Vietnam war.

- roGER

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Who knows. Churchill lost but history has treated him incredibly kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an understatement. They still quote him in movies. The man is a legend. Good point though.

[Abednego]

It was the right decision and ..... it wasn't done unilaterally.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
It was the right decision and ..... it wasn't done unilaterally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, I think Bush will be remembered alot better in 20-30 years than he is now. I will put money on that one.

[Utah]

um....that wasn't the question on the original thread.

But, since you brought up the point, you are somewhat correct on decision analysis. However, outcomes can reflect on whether the initial decision was correct. Do you how?

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
Who knows. Churchill lost but history has treated him incredibly kind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Churchill's legacy stems largely from his determined resistance against an enemy nation acknowledge by basically every democratic nation (except this one, at the time [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]) as a horrific, oppressive regime.

Churchill's economic and other internal policies are generally a matter of complete indifference for historians, as it should be. His country was being militarily brutalized when he took office, and continued to get brutalized for another year before he got his first ray of light. Basically, Churchill was the definition of the "wartime president" (ignoring the fact that he wasn't a president) - a far cry from the current administrator, who manufactured unnecessary conflict.

[andyfox]

In 2008. How his presidency would be viewed would depend on what happens following his departure.