You forgot to mention record deficit spending and lack of oversight in the financial sector (remember the S&L collapse fiasco?). All of this caused the economic recession of the late 80s (remember the stock market crash of 88?) and early 90s. The deficit was not reduced until Clinton balanced the budget in the mid 90s. Then the economy prospered until 9/11.
It needs to be noted that the VSI on the overall economy was trending toward the bottom of the case well before September 11. However, I'm not entirely convinced that the individual in the oval office has a dramatic affect on the overall economy. Much like Eli and the Giants, the folks who should really be getting the credit, the defensive line [the American consumer], are often at the bottom of the dais looking up at the newly minted MVP. (Work with me here, I know Strahan made a trip to the top, but I don't recall one complete sentence from him, with both a subject and a verb.)
As a ferinstance, the argument could be made that it was Reagan's social and economic policies that led to the recovery from the general malaise of the '70s. All the money spent defeating the "Evil Empire" ultimatetly did find it's way to the bank accounts of the American Consumer. "Trickle down" success, right? Objectively, would any American say that they were better off in 1976 than they were in 1986?
(Frankly, it's my opinion that history has shown that the concept behind 'trickle-down' economics is fundamentally flawed. Individuals in the economy don't behave to further the interests of the economy; no, they make choices to further their own personal needs and wants.)
Now, let's fast forward 10 years. Would any objective American, whatever that term means, really think that they were better off if 1986 than they were in 1996? Most likely not. Two totally different ideologies in the Oval Office (plus the 90's Oval Office featured a slightly stained, size 14, blue dress from the Gap), but the same economic net result. Provided that there is a general belief that there will be a strong, sound America for the future, the American consumer will continue to power the overal economy. Aggregate demand will continue to grow, thus ensuring that the economy, with it's ebbs and flows, will continue to drive America.
My fondness for Reagan is based of the security he provided America while he was in charge. When Reagan was around, there was never any doubt as to just who had the biggest pair in the room. Americans went to bed at night safe in the belief that the sun would rise tomorrow on a free, secure, and enduring way of life.
One could make a solid argument that irresponsible choices in defence and intelligence priorities during the 90's led directly to the acts of war commited on 11 Sep, 2001. We got the last Jose' Padilla. Can anyone really, honestly, think that we'll be in a better position to get the next Padilla under a second Clinton administration?
Got to look at the big picture. It kills me when you republicans talk about how Reagan was next to God and Ditka. Sure, he won the "Cold War". But it was at the expense of our economy, our environment, education, labor, and the middle class. What did we really win?
, none of us do 
