When I was in high school, I read an article in my school paper that was so vitriolic and uninformed that even my infantile, adolescent mind found itself incensed.  A student from my school had decided to cut and paste several of the infamous quotes of our swollen-tongued President (then a candidate) and use them to lambaste the President's intellect.  I politely reminded her in a counterpoint article that 1) all politicians say stupid things (and I gave examples from Clinton and Gore), and 2) President Bush graduated from an Ivy League institution with adequate, if not superb grades.  Not too shabby.

The attacks on President Bush's intellect in 2000 were so excruciatingly baseless, and later fluttered off in the wind by what I hope was a sudden breeze of common sense.  Perhaps part of the charm of our current President in that initial run was the fact that he would say "increase" instead of "augment" and "lacking" instead of "bereft."  The American people don't want a spelling bee champion as their President, nor are they checking the SAT section for an 800 on the verbal section.  They want a leader who is bold, decisive, honest, and forward-thinking.

Regarding the aforementioned traits, I must confess that I feel a bit betrayed by our President.  When he first ran, I was not old enough to vote, but I manned the local voting precinct all day, handing out pamphlets.  I watched with tears in my eyes as he shouted through a megaphone in his simple, straight-forward way while standing upon the rubble of the World Trade Center.  When he moved forward in his plans to invade Iraq, I followed him with "Amens" and "Bout Time!"

It was at this point that he started to fail me and his other supporters.  Rather than stand under the limelight and explain his decisions to the American people, President Bush chose to shirk in the shadows.  I might expect a retort at this point about all of the impassioned speeches making the case for the war that the President delivered precipitating the invasion.  What about after that?  Every time he spoke on a pressing issue, he was two weeks too late.  His reluctance to speak and tendency to stay below the radar (which doesn't work for a President) gave the American people a natural suspicion of incompetence and duplicity.

In that suspicion, we find the root of President Bush's failure.  In my opinion, he was often bold, decisive, always honest, and sometimes forward-thinking.  The problem is that the majority of the American people don't agree with my analysis.  Even many reputable conservatives--Rich Lowry in and April issue of NR, for one--effectively leveled the charge of incompetence against the President.  It is his fault that they had that perception or, as the case may be, misperception.  Mr. President, if someone argues against you, you must argue back!  The silent treatment only works with playground provocations.

Perhaps we were all a bit spoiled by the warm, visionary demeanor of President Reagan and the teary-eyed empathizing of President Clinton.  Then again, President Bush had a charm of his own.  He was a "straight-shooter."  Yet, because of his reluctance to keep shooting, he is finding himself to be the slain hero of a conservative movement that believed he would rise to the challenge.