With his final State of the Union address in the books, George W. Bush entered the home stretch of his presidency this week. His time in the White House will come to an end in less than a year.

This is the time when two-term presidents try to cement their legacies, and Mr. Bush figures to be no different. Just this week, the president optimistically called on Middle Eastern leaders to strike a final compromise to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the end of the year.

Of course, the unrest in Gaza in recent weeks tells us that such a compromise is almost certainly not in the offing. And with his political capital hovering at rock-bottom levels at home, Mr. Bush?s final 12 months in office will probably be pretty quiet.

That means his record of accomplishments is largely set. Many will debate Mr. Bush?s place in history in the year ahead. If commentary from recent years is any indication, the consensus will not be good. Indeed, many will proclaim him to be the worst president of all time.

Such talk is silly for two reasons. First, pitting the presidents against each other in the search of some overall performance quotient is a horribly inexact science. Second, any assessment of Mr. Bush?s legacy at this juncture can be nothing but tentative.

Most of us (including yours truly) are not history majors. Many people, including those who say Mr. Bush is the worst president of all time, could not even come close to naming each of the White House?s 42 occupants. And if they can, far fewer still could spend more than five seconds talking about the accomplishments and records of guys like Millard Fillmore and Benjamin Harrison.

Even if one possesses an adequate knowledge of past presidents, we need to pick some criteria with which to assess the chief commanders. Leadership abilities, military decisions, quality of Supreme Court justices nominated, the level of corruption in the administration and the significance and worth of various initiatives and legislation signed would all have to be considered.

And then there are intangibles. George Washington occupies a permanent spot near the top of most presidential rankings, and one of the big reasons was his decision to leave the office after two terms, even though he could have become a de facto ruler for life if he so desired.

Each president faces vastly different circumstances in office. Almost without fail, Washington is joined at the top of the presidential hierarchy by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of whom guided the country through incredibly trying times. It seems a president presiding ably over less-traumatic eras can be well-remembered (Reagan, McKinley and Jackson, for instance), but they?ll always be just on the outside looking in at legendary status.

Presidential reputations can be quite fickle. Andrew Johnson was regarded quite well into the 20th century. Even in the first major presidential ranking, a 1948 poll by historian Arthur Schlesinger, Johnson ranked ahead of about a third of the presidents to that time. Now Johnson has a regular reservation at the bottom of the presidential heap. Conversely, Dwight Eisenhower came in a mediocre 22nd place in Schlesinger?s 1962 poll. The decades have been kind to Ike, who since the 1990s has regularly placed in the top ten of similar rankings.

We can say some things about George W. Bush right now. He was elected to two terms. Nearly all other bottom-rung presidents were one-timers. Will future Americans be willing to concede that past Americans willfully reelected the worst president of all time? Or will they give us credit for being a bit smarter than that?

He invaded Iraq, costing more than a trillion dollars and thousands of lives in the process. Gains from the war have been meager. To many, it is the primary example of Mr. Bush?s arrogance and awful decision-making abilities. But what if Iraq does become a stable democracy and leader in the Middle East within the next few decades? The Iraq war still might not bring favorable reviews, but it wouldn?t look nearly as bad.

Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he achieved record levels of popularity, only to experience a precipitous drop for much of the next five years, rebounding only slightly since. His reputation abroad is even worse. But what if al-Qaeda successfully attacks the United States during the term of Mr. Bush?s successor? It could be a reminder of Bush?s inability to capture Osama bin Laden, or it could serve as a reminder that at least our president kept us safe in the years after 9/11.

Coining phrases like ?Axis of Evil,? Bush was an effective leader able to get people to buy into his ideas. He spearheaded a number of major initiatives, such as the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act and Medicare Part D.

Though the next year bears watching, Mr. Bush presided over a generally healthy economy, far better than critics would like to believe. But the federal deficit ballooned under his watch as a result of the war and new entitlement spending, and his efforts at entitlement reform in his second term have been thwarted. If the deficit continues to burden future administrations, his fiscal legacy will suffer further. But if the deficit continues to shrink and his tax cuts are extended, the outlook might be considerably brighter.

Like most two-term presidents, his second four years were a rocky affair, though they arguably never hit the lows of the three most recent repeat Electoral College champs: Nixon (resignation), Reagan (Iran-Contra) and Clinton (impeachment).

Indeed, Mr. Clinton?s legacy is just as murky. Most of us today remember the Clintonian era as being one of great economic prosperity. History doesn?t necessarily reward presidents for such feats, however, as the dubious reputations of the Roaring Twenties trio of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover (for the beginning of his term, at least) attest to. Mr. Clinton was impeached. One hundred years from now, that?s probably what most people will think of first when asked about the 42nd president.

So is Mr. Bush the worst president of all time? Nobody can say, but any effort ? futile as it may be ? at least deserves a modicum of historical perspective. Frankly, with competitors like James Buchanan ? an ineffectual leader who supported the Dred Scott decision and twiddled his thumbs while the country spiraled toward civil war ? in the running, something tells me George W. Bush, though never bound for the upper echelon of the presidential pantheon, won?t find himself at the very bottom of history?s dustbin either.

Ryan Masse ([email protected]) is a first-year law student.