And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the president now understands -- or so he says -- that we must begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply dependent on both.

Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle "worst president" when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover's policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush's presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America's being displaced from its position as the world's richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.

Evidence to support the Assessment

It is clear even from Skowronek, that Bush was involved with the politics that he had believed in. According to Skowronek, Bush had a passion about his politics and was involved in the same leadership projects as other republican leaders, trying to overcome the issues of the separation of powers, nonetheless it is said that once he got into power, he was accused of exaggerating his position of supremecey. Bush was accused of not enforcing his policies as well as the other presidents because he was too busy trying to get a hold of power. Bush was known as a man that was able to get in power but at the same time pull it away from everyone else.

Political status of the Republican regime at this moment in time -- "resilient or vulnerable?

The current political regime is very much divided. It divided during the Bush regime and after the current elections with Obama and Romney, it has even split further. Experts are saying Our political atmosphere is broken," Stenholm asserts. "I don't think this election is going to change anything, no matter who is elected, because we're a divided country on almost any issue you want." To forge that future, Flinchbaugh says, Congress will need to find the courage to solve the looming fiscal cliff the nation faces. "This is no longer political fodder to be kicked down the road," he says. "We have got to solve this fiscal crisis."

It is clear that the party of Ronald Reagan does appear to be undergoing a fundamental reassessment of its political identity? When Ronald Reagan came into office, he would come to power and engineer a fundamental break with the past, a new conservative orthodoxy witch many call the Reagan revolution, this revolution did manage to bring some kind of a new kind of political energy to Washington.

It is obvious that this reassessment was passed down to George H.W. The research does show that Bush was the first Republican president to follow Ronald Reagan, and as such inherited that Reagan revolution, inherited that new majority coalition, inherited the orientation towards government and politics that that new conservative Republican Party embodied. And his job was essentially to continue that path forward.

This conclusion, can be reached because according to Skowronek, Ronald Reagan is the last reconstructive president. It was obvious that he a pioneering republican that started the new republican move. What that means, therefore, is that every following president, republican president, or republican presidential candidate since Reagan has to be, must be, an affiliate of the regime party. Because they are republicans and the Republican Party is the regime party. it's fairly straightforward (Jacobson).

Republicans since Reagan can only practice either the politics of articulation, regime managers, or the politics of disjunction. Are they simple regime...

Democrats ever since Reagan can just practice the politics of preemption or the politics of reconstruction. They do not have much room like Reagan and the republicans did.
Obama

Does Barack Obama seem to be formulating a new political orthodoxy, a new standard of political legitimacy?

When it comes down to Barack Obama formulating a new plan it appears that with his second election, that he is trying to put the wheels in motion. From the time when Barack Obama's election started in 2008, people have been talking about whether he will possibly be for the Democratic Party what Ronald Reagan turned out to be for the Republicans -- a transformational president in the model of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who changes the simple prospects of national government for a generation or more (Balkin).

Obama appears to be setting out after this current election to formulate a new political accepted view. He longs to be the great liberal president in the tradition of FDR (Balkin). All through the 2008 campaign, he recognized that the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, had not altered the progression of politics the way that Ronald Reagan had. This is not taking anything away from Clinton, who was (and is) maybe the most talented politician of his generation. It is only the circumstance that Clinton confronted a very dissimilar set of political restrictions than Reagan did when he had taken office.

Barack direction of formulating things had a lot to do with cleaning up the mishaps that Bush had left in office. Many say that his first four years were not enough to speak to what he could formulate or bring to the table. The first four years was not enough time establish a political legitimacy. However, with the new four years ahead of him, Obama is just getting started.

One way of formulating things is his ambition to get the Republican part to start seeing eye-to-eye. A significant cause of Obama's restraint was the influential opposition he faced from congressional Republicans. Republicans recurrently used Senate filibuster rubrics to block Obama's appointments and legislative suggestions; they recurrently hindered his efforts to fix the economy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell candidly explained that his No. 1 priority was to deny Obama a second term (Balkin). In spite of this, Obama kept maintaining that he wanted bipartisan collaboration, even when it was clear that none would be approaching.

Some have mentioned that Obama's calls for a new type of politics did not really do him little good. The Republican base disbelieved his right to rule, and treachery theories started going all over the country in regards to the forged birth certificate, his secret Muslim faith, and his radical affiliations (Balkin). After his inauguration, the Tea Party formed soon, further radicalizing the Republican base. Then with the 2010 election it appeared to show that the Republican alliance was far from drained: If anything, it had become even more prevailing, angry, and dangerous.

Matters started coming to a head in the debt-ceiling crisis in the summer of 2011, when Republicans started making threats to default on the nation's debts if Obama did not concure with the Republican's demands for spending the cuts. Those that were a part of the party observed all of this in increasing horror, Obama made franchise after business, at one point offering to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits in a grand deal (Balkin). Nonetheless Republicans did not want to cooperate, they basically just refused everything if it meant raising taxes by even a penny. When it came down to the last wire, a crisis was prevented. Obama appeared governmentally humiliated. On the other hand by positively putting off stubbornness of the big substances of spending and taxes right up until after the 2012 election, Obama was able to get himself some time to plot a comeback. It was a Clintonian -- or even Nixonian -- strategy of political survival entirely consistent with a preemptive presidency (Saideman).

Contours of a new Political Regime

An important cause of Obama's moderation was the powerful opposition he faced from congressional Republicans. Republicans repeatedly used Senate filibuster rules to block Obama's appointments and legislative proposals; they repeatedly hampered his attempts to fix the economy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell candidly explained that his No. 1 priority was to deny Obama a second term. Despite this, Obama kept insisting that…