I was impressed by the extent to which this article examined some of Bush's policies, philosophies and actions with respect to Bush and Bush alone. In that sense I found it fair on most counts. That said, it makes few if any major intellectual or factual concessions -- in other words, it doesn't bend over backward to be "balanced" or treat him gently. I recommend this piece as one newspaper's assessment of the Bush administration.

While there's nothing surprising in this story, Lochhead has done a good job of integrating multiple viewpoints and of being even-handed. She has gone into some depth on some issues, but leaves out others like the environment or civil rights--both of which have been greatly impacted by administration policies.

This early history lesson on the Bush Legacy seems to do a good job of hitting all of the major points. The author places blame for the apparent debacles of the Bush years directly on the President and his (cheer) leadership style. This seems counter to much of the news that made up this legacy over the years where Bush was often portrayed in the role of puppet while powers beyond his control pulled the strings. That history would have the buck actually stop at the oval office of this President seems like a novel idea in a way - one even many liberal talking heads haven't put forward to my knowledge.

a full, meaningful mix of descriptions of pres. bush's personal traits, policies, decisions along with reactions and consequences to these by analysts we don't usually hear from make this a more comprehensive analysis about the presidency than most from news articles.. comparing legacies of former presidential actions and how history's lookback revived their status implies reasonably that it is not possible now to judge how he will later be perceived.

While this piece leans distinctly in the anti-Bush direction, it does credit President Bush for some of his accomplishments--specifically keeping the United States safe from terrorist attack and, belatedly, improving the situation in Iraq. It does not rely on the usual platitudes regarding Bush's "father complex," rather it delves deeper and helps us understand that "Bush's good and bad traits look like two sides of the same coin. " A bit more balance, with a less begrudging willingness to credit Bush for his accomplishments, would have made this a better editorial--one suspects that reporter Carolyn Lochhead was writing in anticipation of having to answer to fervently anti-Bush friends and peers in blue-state California.

Despite what one feels about George W. Bush, you have to admire the research of this in-depth report, noting the historic take on two-term presidents and predicting, though somewhat subtly, that the outgoing president's low popularity--even lower than Richard Nixon's--will improve with time, especially in that the United States has not been attacked since 9/11. A few sources' invective might have tilted the fairness factor; but there are other sources that balance even these.

The review confuses bold and brash with what was really reckless and insensitive.