Katrina vanden Heuvel,
editor, The Nation

My instinct tells me that Reagan’s death will be meaningless to Bush. Certainly, the Bush team will work hard to spin it in a way that is helpful — watch for something big at the convention, their last chance to manage the message. But the quick polling actually had Kerry opening a little more of a lead. I don’t think people will vote on the past. Polls regarding attitudes toward Reagan show that the gender gap remains and the race gap is as wider than ever; this reflects the reality that Reagan was a divisive figure, and so is Bush. The difference was that Reagan was a lot better at drawing people to his side of the divide. Or, to put it another way: Reagan was the Great Communicator and the Great Prevaricator; Bush is the Great Prevaricator.

Best bet: Bush will have a tiny uptick in the next round of polls, but it won’t be anything major.

Ann McFeatters, Washington bureau chief, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Toledo Blade

Despite all the hoopla about President Bush trying to drape his shoulders with the mantle of Reaganism, I think by the time it’s November, voters will no longer be swept up in the Gipper’s magic but will be asking “where’s the rest” of Bush’s economic and get-out-of-Iraq policies.

Yes, there are many similarities between the two wife-loving ranchers. While Reagan cut taxes, he also raised them. While defense spending soared, the deficit ballooned. While he preached against Washington bureaucracy, he made it bigger. All of which Bush is doing. (Local, state and gas taxes are higher because of federal policies.)

But the times and challenges have changed, and the personalities of the two men are different. It’s too soon to know how history will judge Reagan — perspective changes with time.
George W. is no Ronald W. He has different strengths and different weaknesses, and Americans see both better than we in Washington sometimes think they do.        

Marc Sandalow, Washington bureau chief, San Francisco Chronicle

Perhaps. But unemployment numbers, casualties in Iraq, prescription-drug prices, interest rates, Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, the Sept. 11 commission’s final report, the price of gasoline, gay marriage referendums, growth rates, Supreme Court vacancies, October debates, the conventions in New York and Boston, President Bush’s intellectual curiosity, Sen. John Kerry’s personable charm, Karl Rove’s genius, Ralph Nader’s ego, Bill Clinton’s book, Dick Cheney’s health, George Soros’s pocketbook and the Red Sox pennant prospects are each shaping up as more significant factors.
A final Reagan legacy note: the last Republican not named Bush to win election to the White House without having a Californian on the ticket was Calvin Coolidge in 1924.

James Taranto, co-editor of “Presidential Leadership:
Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House”

George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan have much in common: both champions of democracy and free markets, both willing to call evil by its name, both derided by foes as lightweight “cowboys.” Bush isn’t as eloquent as Reagan was, but he has been able to connect with and inspire Americans in difficult times.
There’s one crucial difference. Reagan came to office at a time of crisis and restored peace and prosperity. Bush came to office at a time of (apparent) peace and prosperity and soon found himself facing crisis. Are you better off than you were four years ago? This time, maybe not.
On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine America turning to a dour pedant like John Kerry — someone more like Jimmy Carter than Reagan — in tough times. If Reagan’s death leads Americans to measure the candidates against his memory, Bush seems likely to benefit.