The Bush Legacy

George Bush the political figure is approaching what could be a pretty astounding accomplishment. Until the 2006 he was undefeated as a politician in a first tier executive position. As it stands now, he's 5 for 6. That puts him in the same electoral league as Roosevelt and Reagan.

But the Big Differentiator is the legacy election. Presidents don't enter the electoral big leagues without being followed by successors from their own party. Roosevelt/Truman (think 1948), Reagan/Bush, and further back, Teddy/Taft. They are the biggies, the great ones, the top tier presidents of the last one hundred years.

So this election has meaning beyond who will be the next president. From an historical perspective, it could launch W into the big leagues. What are the chances?

Well, from my seat, they are looking pretty good. Both possible Democrat candidates seem eminently beatable. Hillary has huge negatives, and all that Clinton baggage (mostly in the form of Bill). And the Jesus candidate is starting to look like the rookie he is.

Worse for the Democrats, Obama's associations with radical leftists is making the 2008 election look more and more like 1972. Obama is simply too far out of the political mainstream to be an electable candidate, much as McGovern was.

Then there is John McCain.

He'd not be my choice, as anyone who has read this blog knows. But he is appealing to a lot of people who believe American politics are too polarized. He has a history of working across party lines. It will be easy for "Reagan Democrats" to pull the lever for Mac if they have concerns about Obama's history with Marxists, Black Nationalists and crooks, or they simply cannot stomach Hillary.

If (or perhaps not) for the mainstream media, the Democrats would be a ruling dynasty. But the reality is that the Republicans have had a pretty good run in the last forty years. So keep your eye on the ever weakening Democrat candidates. They could be prepping us for a Bush legacy that launches W into a preeminent position in presidential history.

Of course you will hear nothing of this from the press or contemporary historians. From them we get only silliness like "Bush, the worst president in history" - not unlike the drivel they provided in the 1980's about Reagan.

But somewhere in the dark minds of America's post-modernist, neo-Marxian, structuralist historians (let alone the fully compromised mainstream media), it is understood that Dubya may well do something that few presidents accomplish.