[C. Edmund Wright]

This philosophy was Bush’s worst trait. By far. A sitting president is essentially the CEO of the nation and the party and has an obligation to present a public argument to defend their decisions and policies. The Bush White House was negligent in staying silent or choosing not to fight some attacks that damaged the country and irreparably harmed the party in which he was chosen to represent.

Well said. He just chose to ignore an essential part of his obligation as CEO, and therefore, in spite of some successes, he was a failed CEO.

[SMARTY]

I thought W meant that he wouldn't back pedal or permit himself to be put on the defensive about his views and actions...because he had the strength of conviction to say and do what he thought was the right thing.

Maybe I interpreted his meaning wrong.

[ilgipper]

I reluctantly ended up at the same conclusion. There was a lot of successes and a lot to celebrate during those eight years, but in the end it was a failure. Mostly due to the complete collapse of public opinion. I generally look at Bush’s term in two parts, the first four years were largely good (obviously, we can pick at some of his domestic policies as problematic). As a party, we also faired well gaining seats in 2002 and getting to 55 Senate seats by 2004. Largely, he performed as a successful CIC and leader. The second term was a flop. The floor dropped out on all fronts. The economy sank, the war policy (despite the right call on the surge) was horribly unpopular, and the party collapsed. I give him high marks for the 1st four, and a solid F for the second.