Today marks the 100th day of President Donald Trump's term. I have just a few brief points to make regarding the media's hyperventilating about the First 100 Days.
1) The 100-day slice of a presidency is really a meaningless window of time -- a media concoction. Whether a president passes significant legislation in the first 100 days or not has little bearing on how historians will assess his legacy. Most major legislative achievements have not taken place in the first 100 days.
2) Passing major legislation, per se, is not necessarily a good thing. Two examples: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which gutted the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, is cited by many as a key contributor to the 2008 stock market crash and economic meltdown. And Obamacare, passed in March 2010, was one of the most significant laws enacted in decades. But it has been an abysmal failure.
3) Cabinet appointments, executive orders, Oval Office messaging, consumer confidence and -- especially -- a Supreme Court appointment, also ought to be taken into consideration when evaluating whether the first 3 1/3 months of a new president's term were successful. In my mind, putting solid conservative and legal heavyweight Neil Gorsuch on the U.S. Supreme Court is a major achievement (credit must go to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for his important role in bringing this about). Tilting the court a bit rightward will pay dividends for decades to come.
In conclusion, the vaunted First 100 Days standard reminds me a lot of college football recruiting rankings. Often, the hype, speculation and expectations of a top-rated prospect don't pan out. And conversely, many "under the radar" prospects who were utterly out of the limelight while in high school, end up being tremendous college players.
It's early -- in the first quarter. We've got a long, long ways to go. Let's revisit Trump's effectiveness after a year or so.