Some real cheap shots there. OK I'll admit Bush is no Reagan.
1) When inflation is considered, Reagan's budgets spent more %-wise on spending than Bush's.
2) Reagan signed into law tax increases, amnesty for illegals, and supported the Brady bill and signed the treaty that banned Freon.
3) Reagan cut and ran in Lebannon when terrorsts killed 240 marines.
4) Reagan accomplished little to nothing in the area of preventing abortions.
5) Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.
6) With respect to taxes, Reagan cut them once, and raised them twice.
Both Reagan and Bush faced many challenges and I think they will both be shown to be excellent Presidents even when considering ALL cheap shots.
The Bush disciples will be remembered for attempting to cut down Reagan to make their guy look better, which is my number one reason why Bush won't be remembered as a great president, and possibly not even a good one.
Excellent reply with some factual data for that idiot to chew on. Thanks for that. These people either were too young or just conveniently forget the problems with Reagan's presidency, INCLUDING Reagan doing things they now attack Bush for such as high spending and a TRUE amnesty as opposed to what they now incorrectly label as such.
Also, they conveniently forget Reagan had a major lapse of judgment with sending troops to Lebanon and trading arms for hostages in Iran/Contra. The latter was a major scandal that consumed nearly all of Reagan's entire second term which I think actually was worse and less effective even than Bush's has been. Bush hasn't had a major scandal of any sort, and yes that includes the phony Plamegate "scandal" which is nothing but a media creation which continues only because of an out of control prosecutor out to turn this into a make work project for himself who needs to be reigned in and fired by the Justice Department.
Don't hear this as meaning I don't thing Reagan was a fine president because he was. But to claim somehow he is so far and away beyond Bush as to make Bush unworthy of mention in the same breath as Reagan is sheer nonsense. I think Reagan would support most of what Bush is doing, including on immigration. Reagan was just merely a more effective communicator than Bush, but was guilty of many and more of the same sins Republicans accuse Bush of in caving to Democrats.
Anyway, thanks for the perspective you gave. Very important points all.
The opposing argument would be that Bush has been too ambitious and in some areas, like foreign policy, he's attempted more than he could have achieved. Reagan was the sort of person who cleaned things up and put the messes of past leaders in order. For many, Bush is one of the mess-makers.
Also, there's a question of how many of Bush's acts will remain in effect. It may be that Reagan influenced the country's history more in indirect and inspirational ways that won't be uprooted or overturned as easily as more overtly political or administrative measures. Beyond that, Bush seems to have been blindsided by events more than Reagan was -- or at least, the consequences of such suprises have been worse.
Most of the time, polls of historians about great Presidents are top-heavy with the leaders the historians agree with politically (polls of ordinary people tend to put the most famous or most charismatic or most recent Presidents on top). But competency and the ability to leave behind lasting achievements matter a lot. Reagan was a much better President than liberals ever thought he was. Time will tell, but Bush may be rated worse than many conservatives think.