I believe that Bush has fulfilled his implied promise to not have sex in the Oval Office.
OK, now seriously? He started out seemingly doing the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" stuff - being respectful and bilateral on some things... he scared me on the environment and a bit on corporate taxation, but I saw him as a pragmatist.
Since 9/11, I have a really hard time finding much that I can in good conscience agree with. I found your question to be fascinating, so I really thought about it.
Foreign Policy? No... and I remember when the Secretary of State was a key part of the national defense team. Afghanistan is a mess, and Iraq is no better, due to poor planning. The Saudis are not being fair, the Israelis are not helping, and we have a coalition with Lichtenstein and a hundred truck drivers from Hungary. Meanwhile, the North Koreans are too tough for us to tangle with while we get all our tanks filled with sand.
Domestic Policy:
Economic Policy? No...although he surprised me in letting United go BK, even though the airline industry needs thinning, I never though a 9/11 victim airline would be allowed to take a dive...The SEC has no teeth, and billions in corporate taxes are still leaving overseas. I know this happend during Clinton too, and I didn't like it then either - but nothing's changing.
Environmental Policy? Worse than I was afraid of. Let's kill two tons of fish in Oregon to try to get the farmer's votes.
Law Enforcement? Ashcroft, a clear defender of state's rights as a Senator, can't leave my fricking state alone about assisted suicide, which is none of his damned business (and with all due respect, Yeru, it's none of Rome's business either.) The Justice Department is able to tap my phone and never tell me, and now when I travel by air I will be color-coded according to my perceived level of terrorist threat? Will we rate those who are low-income as greater risks since they can be bought off more easily? How about closeted gays since they can be blackmailed? These were common security-clearance practices...will they be carried over to air travel?
Education? OK, Leave No Child Behind means that a kid can leave a failing school. Not sure how this doesn't just leave a lot of kids behind... but from what I read, it's not working very well, at least not as well as all of us would like it to work. Since education has become a way for presidents to look like they care, but it's not really one of the things that a president is responsible for (more of a bully-pulpit opportunity to take initiative and look good to the voters), I cynically don't see this a a failure, just as an attempt to appeal to soccer moms that is not a success either.
OK, he was nice to the University of Portland Pilots NCAA champion women's soccer team when they visited the White House. There.
The consistent thread that I see is that Karl Rove is a master media jockey, and these policy decisions are masked under such...well, I looked for a better word, but twisted sound-bite misstatements of science and factual history, that it's hard to remember the inclusive-talking guy. Your point about veteran's benefits is a good one - Bush is not even doing the things I would expect a GOP prez to do well, like take care of the military.
The reason that Clinton won election twice was simply that it was easy for the average American voter to believe that Clinton cared about him. Not because of his policies (which were often centrist enough to make the Republicans pretty darned happy), but on his personality.
If Bush loses, it will be because his campaign fails to convice the American electorate of that very thing.
