What is wrong with journalists? I don't get it. How can they be so blisteringly stupid as to write an article like: Miss Him? Bush's Reputation Might Be Ready For a Rebound.
And what is the evidence of this "rebound"? Well, on the plus side, two of his friends say it'll happen, Iraq isn't doing so bad, and Obama isn't doing so great. And on the minus side, people still hate Bush and remember what he did. And that's it. That's the basis of an entire article which I saw repeatedly on Yahoo.
Oh, and I'm not sure if this is a plus or minus, as they mention that Nixon and Carter worked at rehabing their images. Because yeah, both those guys are widely loved now. I'm sure all the Nixon and Carter statues will be going up any day. And hell, at least Nixon and Carter had enough brains to pull-off some sort of redemption. Bush, on the other hand, is morely likely to win a farting contest than a Nobel prize.
And it wasn't even that the article was wrong. It was just dumb. Pointless. A thought exercise for the brainless. Hell, the article contained everything needed to refute its own point, and it would have been easier to make the opposite point: That the man's been out of office a year now and people still hate him. But I guess that article would have been a bit mean, as well as obvious.
So instead, we get an article attempting to be a self-fulfilling prophesy, just in case it actually happens. But at this point, Bush has no hope of being remembered as a good president. Indeed, the man is such an embarrassment that his main focus should be on not being remembered at all.