I'd go for "badly let down", "disserved", or "politically mismanaged", however.
Wonder how Karl Rove is supposed to have earned his keep under the Bush Administration? Readers will have noticed that he bailed out as soon as things got a little warm for him personally, and he didn't provide for a successor -- suggestive of narcissistic motives ("they can't do without me, and I'm going to prove it when I leave!").
Somebody needed to kneecap the BS pouring out of the WaPo/NYT/CBS/CNN propaganda axis, and Rove didn't get it done. Neither did he train up other talent to help him and President Bush get it done. The last 30 months have been a disaster politically.
I feel like bush put Washington above many of his constituents during his presidency. The Harriet Myers issue comes to mind
How was he supposed to do that in a free country?
And who had control of the purse strings the last thirty months? As soon as the Democrats took over congress, the power base of DC, the perverbial s*it hit the fan in all areas of our lives and the public doesn't know that!!!!
They got control because the R's and Bush did a lousy job promoting the basic tenants of the R party. They also did a very lousy job pushing back on the press, from day one they should have exposed the Dems in everything anti American they did.
I am mad as hell with Bush and the Republicans but am thankful for no attacks on American soil for over 7 years and we have two extraordinary supreme court justices.
No, that's pretty much how I see it. All of his conservative moments like tax cuts had sunset-provisions. All of his socialist moments are permanent. He did nothing to change the socialist point of view, but actually built more expectations for big government by things like NCLB.
you can say that again and it all went downhill after amnesty-Harriet Meirs