People have been saying for years that Bush’s historical reputation is going to depend on the outcome in Iraq. That is true; but his reputation is going to depend more proximately on the outcome of the 2008 election. If Republicans keep the White House, he’ll be fine; if not, he’ll be viewed as a failed president (possibly even if Iraq eventually stabilizes).

What two-term president has handed the White House to someone from his own party and been generally viewed as a failure? Nobody comes to mind. Reagan’s reputation would be very different if Michael Dukakis had won in 1988, and Clintonism would have had a stronger hold on the Democratic party if Gore had won in 2000.

These seem like obvious points, but Michael Currie Schaffer (sub. req’d.) is trying so hard to be counter-intuitive in this article–arguing that Bush would be better served with a Democratic successor–that they may be worth restating. In Schaffer’s defense, however, Bush does seem to be acting as though he believes the theory.