Speaking of Gore, one pattern that clearly emerges from this exercise is that Presidents who follow a successful two-termer of the same political party invariably flop. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Andrew Johnson, Taft, Hoover, and Bush were all one-term flops, and Madison and Truman, although they won second terms, were less than distinguished. Would Nixon have done a one-term fadeout had he succeeded Ike after 1960? Will Gore do likewise if elected in 2000? History says yes, and one wonders why. Is this due to some cyclical swing in the mood of the electorate, or is it that popular Presidents are just hard acts to follow? Or do successful Presidents tend to mortgage the future to obtain short-term results (and win re-election), obliging their successors to inherit the wind? If so, then will Gore be stuck with the task of realizing the balanced budget by 2002 and facing the foreign crises that are bound to erupt with a hollowed-out, feminized military? He may well step into Bill Clinton’s shoes only to wish soon enough that he hadn’t. All the more reason for American voters to choose the Republican — any Republican — next time around. At least he (or she) will have a chance to be Great.
— McDougall, Walter A.
National Review 10-27-1997
Yes, the Supposed “feminized” “hollowed out” military of Bill Clinton. I mention this by way of a simple truth: had Gore gone on to be Bill Clinton’s successor as president, the Republicans would blame Clinton mercilessly for a 9/11 event (of whatever type) and would demand the impeachment of Al Gore because… Bill Clinton hollowed out and feminized the military.
As opposed to Bush II, who over-extends the military. But that may be part of the argument: it’s Clinton’s fault there aren’t enough people in the National Guard to fight in Iraq without being re-enlisted!