To the Left he was too hard on this and that and to the Right he wasn't hard enough (immigration, Islamonazi terrorism, spending controls, investigation of Freddie/Fannie), etc.
The greatest failing I perceived for George W. is that as someone who loved his country and strove to act honorably, he expected others to do likewise. I think Reagan had the same problem, though leftists didn't exploit it quite so badly. The issue isn't simply one's position along a political axis. One cannot defeat dishonorable people if one is unwilling to impugn their honor.
To be sure, especially in a country where the media are controlled by evil and dishonorable people, it can be difficult to challenge people's honor without the challenge becoming a stain upon oneself, but for this country to have any hope conservatives must find leaders who are willing and able to do so. For example, on the "universal background checks" issue, conservatives should ask if there's any reason they should believe such checks would only be used to deny the rights of people who have actually been convicted of serious crimes or found to be criminally insane through due process of law, and would never be applied illegitimately in ex-post-facto fashion in explicit violation of the Constitution. Of course, no reasonable person should trust that background checks would not be so abused, given that those who are pushing for background checks have actively pushed to have the "forbidden" list include various classes of people who have never been convicted--or even accused--of any crime that would forfeit their rights. If, however, the proponents of the check are allowed to portray themselves as honorable people, they can spin any opposition to their good-natured intentions as promoting death and destruction.