Yes, I remember well the polls in 2000, where people were asked why they supported a particular presidential candidate. Among Bush supporters, 38% said, "Because if Dan Quayle can do it..."My lingering problem with Quayle is that he lowered the bar for what America considers an acceptable candidate for the executive branch. His candidacy and election opened the door to the possibility of G.W.B as a viable candidate,
No we don't. Most historians will warn of the dangers of trying to evaluate a presidency right after the man leaves office; what of the dangers of evaluating it while he's still in office?and we all know how well that worked out.
Warren G. Harding was widely popular at the time of his death in office. Harry Truman was so unpopular in 1952, because of a war dragging on in Asia (sound familiar?) that he didn't even bother to run for re-election. If, ten years from now, Iraq is a stable, secular democracy, a la Turkey, and Iran's mullahs have been pushed out by a popular democratic uprising a la Corazon Aquino's 1986 People Power revolution in the Phillipines, and Osama bin Laden's severed head is on permanent display at the Smithsonian, Bush will get high marks as president. And if U.S. troops are all gone from Iraq a year from now and the government in Baghdad is taking orders from Mahmoud Ahmedinejad because he has his nuclear weapons pointed at them, Bush will be deemed a failure.
So let's hold off on evaluating Bush until we know how things turn out, and get back to the subject of DR's OP.