In a post where he's thinking way too hard about why George W. Bush isn't more prominent right now, and, for example, campaigning for Romney (the answer's easy: he's unpopular), Drum works himself into this:

But the real reason is deeper. Bush may have seemed larger than life for eight years, but he left a surprisingly thin legacy. Take his legislative agenda. No Child Left Behind is now widely unpopular among both liberals and conservatives--so unpopular that Congress has spent the past five years assiduously avoiding a vote to reauthorize it. His tax cuts expired in 2010 and are now little more than a political football. His own party wants to repeal key provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley. The Supreme Court has effectively gutted campaign finance reform. On the foreign policy front, his wars are widely viewed as expensive failures. And he was never able to get so much as a vote on Social Security privatization or immigration reform.

That doesn't leave much. Pretty much all that's left is the PATRIOT Act and the Medicare prescription drug bill. That's not much for eight years.

First of all, whatever you think of them, both the PATRIOT Act and the Medicare prescription drug bills are HUGE. So is No Child Left Behind, which is still in effect despite what Drum implies. And "wants to repeal key provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley" is, again, a far cry from saying the law doesn't have any effect.

Drum also massively understates the implications of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and the Bush tax cuts. And, maybe because he's a partisan Democrat, he ignores all of the "states secrets" and drone killings, and Guantanamo, and all of the other awful things that Obama has picked up from Bush and happily continued and expanded upon.

This is like saying the legacy of Chernobyl is thin because i hear there is some moss growing there now and the Russian government is considering a land restoration program.