>>Too many conservatives are blind (wilfully or otherwise) to how bad Bush is for the image of the United States.
>
>First off, I don't really give a flying fark about whether Bush is bad for the "image" of the US or not.

As strong as the US is, it still needs military allies, economic partners and still needs to have good will to influence the world. We see this right now. The US military is spread so thin, that it can't accomplish the missons that it has been given. The US failed to build real coalition for its biggest military operation since (I think) Korea. I think that it failed because it had lost credibility because of dodgy reasons for going to war. The US has shown that it can nation build successfully (Germany, Japan, South Korea... possibly Afghanistan) if it has a just mandate and a true coalition of allies. If it has a poor or misguided mandate and its powerful and traditional allies (Britian, France, Canada...) the nation building has failed (Vietnam, perhaps Iraq)

Image is important. Look at Jimmy Carter vs Reagan.

> What I care about is can he steer the nation in a manner that benefits the nation.

I think it is clear the Bush hasn't done this.
1) no domestic policy
2) huge budget deficits
3) huge trade deficit
4) weak US dollar
5) has undertaken its biggest military operation since the Korean war and it is going poorly, and has done so without a colation of the world's most powerful nations and its traditional allies. It has also done this either based on lies or ineptness.

>Second, it's clear, even just from what I've read on the UT, that many non-US citizens already blame America for all the world's ills, and will continue to do so once Bush leaves office.

Not America, just Bush.