The Economist thinks there may be a pattern…

“HISTORY can be kinder to presidents than journalists and voters are. Like Truman, Johnson and Nixon before him, George Bush has seen his approval ratings wither under the burden of an unpopular war. But all three of those presidents look better now than they did when they were in power.…” (American politics | Saving the Bush presidency | Economist.com, behind subscription wall)

I think The Economist has far too many “natural Republican” readers in the US to maintain any kind of journalistic credibility in this respect. They should simply stop reporting the issue, but instead they keep writing and wet themselves whenever they put the name George W. Bush on the cover… that’s also quite some pattern.