First off, the policies they support or don't...most certainly can (and do) have an impact on the economy. Secondly, regardless of what credit or lack thereof how the economy performs under their watch most certainly does effect how they are judged by history (especially if the economy is robust or ill).
Bush's spending and expansion of government, especially the prescription program, may be one of the big steps on the way to bankrupting this country.
Much like R. Reagan's far worse expansion of burdening yet an entire other generation to the biggest wealth stealing scheme there is...Social Security (RR raised FICA taxes to boot). But of course, we'll give him a pass, he couldn't help it (he only held the Senate by larger numbers then GWB for most of his 8 years. That was until he lost it big time in 87....but that wasn't because of his policies or his fault...like we know 06 was GWB's. I got it).
We have not ineffectually fought the war in Iraq / WOT. On the whole what has been accomplished to date (with limited loss of life) is historically amazing. The progress I've witnessed in both Iraq and Stan is tremendous....but from thousands of miles away, listening to the MSM play out this war...many are ill-informed (obviously you fall into this category). So be it.
History will prove your thoughts on the matter wrong. Of this I am confident.
Thankfully, we were able to reverse his Harriet Miers appointment and stop his amnesty bill that would have destroyed this country as we know it.
To bad we were able to accomplish neither during the great conservative R. Reagan's presidency, hey? He gave us the terrible PC choice of SDO to the SCOUTS (didn't listen to our base at all, shoved that women down our throats simply for the reason that she was a women)....and then gave us blanket amnesty for all illegals (sans those from 83-84)...this while holding a MAJORITY REPUB in the US Senate no less. Shameful.
Buy we'll give him a pass there to, won't we. Why not.
When Reagan signed the 1983 compromise on SS, which was running a deficit, i.e., it was paying out more than it was taking in, the Dems controlled the House 269-166. There was absolutely no possibility of changing the system. The Dems controlled the House by overwhelming majorities the entire Reagan administration.
Reagan's election in 1980 helped the Reps gain control over the Senate. In the 96th Congress the Dems held a 58-41 advantage with 1 independent. In the 106th Congress (1999-2001] the Reps had a 55-45 advantage in the Senate and lost that advantage in the 107th Congress when it went to 50-50 and then Dem with the Jeffords defection. In the 109th Congress Bush had a 55-44-1 advantage in the Senate and a 231-202 advantage in the House. No Rep President has enjoyed such majorities in both Houses at the same time in almost 80 years. Bush squandered it away and the GOP will probably have to wait another 80 years for it to happen again, if ever and if it even survives.
I voted for Bush twice, contributed a significant amount of money to the RNC, worked as a GOP poll watcher, and was a volunteer at the 2005 Inaugural Ball. I have never been more disappointed with a Rep President. The amnesty bill was the last straw. It took the Reps 40 years to win control of the House. Bush has been a disaster for the GOP and the conservative movement.