Yes, Next Question

Counterfactual question for the day: Bush #43’s second term wasn’t scarred by impeachment, had no Iran-Contra-style foreign policy meltdown, and his administration had repeatedly attempted to warn of the dangers of housing bubble, but it fell on deaf ears at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Add to that, Donna Brazile’s confession at CNN.com last year that despite her party’s efforts, particularly by its operatives with bylines to portray things otherwise at the time for cheap (and ultimately successful) political gain, that “Bush came through on Katrina.” And then add to that, as Bill McGurn noted at the Wall Street Journal in January of 2009 that “Bush's Real Sin Was Winning in Iraq.” (A hard-fought victory that the Obama has worked very hard to successfully reverse-engineer. See also: Democrats in 1975.)

Given the low marks for presidential second terms, will Bush #43’s second term come to be seen as one of the most successful second terms in modern American history?

Update: Oh, and speaking of 2006 and now:

impeachment_then_and_now_7-29-14-1 Click to enlarge.

Moe Lane adds:

I couldn’t begin to tell you whether I was banging that particular drum, or not. I think that I was working under the assumption that the Democrats would use impeachment as a blunt club to make GWB back down from the GWOT, but I can’t remember and I might have very well been well and truly certain that impeachment was on the table. That’s not the important point. The important point is that this is what political fear smells like.

The only thing I remember from that period is quoting crazy leftists such as John Conyers, who never met a Republican he didn't want to impeach. (Because he's all about fighting corruption...) I wasn't too worried about the I-word actually happening back then.