I never thought I’d say this, but I’m getting a little tired of George Bush.

Maybe it’s the cumulative effect of eight years of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” in the mainstream press. Maybe it’s the high gas prices, the stories of economic woe, the fear that anger over Bush’s mistakes might encourage people to vote for (God help us) Barack Obama. I don’t know what it is…but I’m just tired of the guy.

It’s the same feeling I had back in 2000 with Clinton. It was hard enough looking at Clinton’s face during the 1990s: by 2000, I would turn the channel whenever he was on and immediately flip to another page when I saw his photo in the paper. I couldn’t bear watching Clinton anymore—and now, the man I voted for in the name of putting a stop to Clinton’s malfeasance has become just as irritating.

I couldn’t look at Clinton in 2000 because every time I saw him, I saw corruption, dishonesty, double-dealing. I can’t look at Bush today because his face represents a Presidency that could have achieved greatness, but didn’t.

I remember how enthused I was in January 2001 when Bush took office. He was to young Republicans what JFK was to young Democrats: an inspiring, intelligent leader who would move America in a better, brighter direction. After eight years of Clinton’s perfidy, it was wonderful to have a President we could be proud of again.

I truly though Bush had what it took to match Ronald Reagan as one of the greatest Presidents of all-time. His work in Texas was every bit as impressive as Reagan’s work in California. He was surrounded by some of the most accomplished figures of our time: Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft. His greatness was a given—or so it seemed.

Yes, Bush has had numerous accomplishments as President. John Roberts and Samuel Alito have shown themselves to be outstanding Justices. Despite America’s current fiscal troubles, the Bush years were, on the whole, tremendous for our economy. His efforts to combat terrorism have been quite successful, despite the controversies (some real, some media-manufactured) surrounding the Iraq War.

Yet Bush failed to equal Reagan as a world-changing President. Even the thirty percent or so of Americans who still strongly support Bush have to acknowledge this. Arguing that Bush matched Reagan in terms of accomplishment is sort of like arguing that Scottie Pippen matched Michael Jordan in terms of ability.

One can assume that the “thirty percenters” still defend Bush as a response to the over-the-top demonization Bush has been subjected to by the major universities, Hollywood, the mainstream press, and the left-wing blogosphere. However, both sides are viewing Bush through damaged glasses. Bush is not the serpent many on the left have made him out to be—but he is not the eagle some on the right have made him out to be either.

Bush expanded the size of government, dismissed concerns about border security, and made some bizarre Cabinet choices (think Colin Powell and Alberto Gonzales). His desire for a “new tone” in Washington meant that he was unwilling to fight back when hyper-partisans like Tom Daschle tried to scandalize his name. He lacked a profound, overriding vision for this country; he seemed more interested in being a caretaker than an innovator.

Reagan wanted to be President for a reason: he understood that in order for America to remain a great nation, the country needed a Commander-in-Chief who would work tirelessly to remove the foreign (Communism) and domestic (high taxes) obstacles to the country’s excellence. Why, exactly, did Bush want to be President? What was his great plan for the nation?

Looking back, it seems that Bush’s plans were vague, undefined, without form or dimension, unlike Reagan’s clear, well-developed vision for America. The 40th President woke up every morning with a burning desire to employ conservative principles to benefit the nation; the 43rd President woke up every morning with a desire to do a competent job, nothing more, nothing less. Bush is not the catastrophic failure that Johnson and Carter were; in fact, despite his numerous mistakes, he’s not a failure at all. However, in the waning days of his Presidency, one can objectively look at his White House tenure and give him a B-, obviously better than the Ds and Fs of his Democrat predecessors, but clearly below the A+ of the Reagan years.

I can’t look at Bush right now. When I see his face, I see my frustrated dream of 2001—a dream that he would match, if not surpass, Reagan’s accomplishments. When I see his face, I see a dream that has been ended, and a reality that’s less pleasant than the fantasy.