In a way, I'm the same. I love him, because he *is* supposed to be better than this. I generally dislike DCU Bruce, and it would be easy to dismiss it as bad writing (which it DOES tend to be), except that as the trend continues it has become clear that much of the DC writing staff is not only part of this bastardized Batman portrayal, they are perpetuating it. And worse, many readers are now firmly stuck with the image of Bruce as an ass. There are people who grew up reading Bruce at the worst he could be. It's disheartening. I think this is why I am so quick to rush to his defense. Because I just want to say "Look! Here is him at his best! This is what he can be!" Because one day it will be these fans and readers writing Batman. They should know him as what he SHOULD be, what he even HAS been, and occasionally still IS, rather than the bastard mockery that fills all too many pages today.
Essentially, DC has to stop making Batman their strawman. Johns beats on him, Waid beats on him, frak, DC editorial seems to have no problem with him being the antagonist for fellow heroes. And it's okay to beat on Bats - but only as long as he is as he SHOULD be. It's like beating on Clark because he's this alien from another world. Or, a far more relevant note, beating on Diana because she's 'not in tune with humanity'. Most writers tend to write these characters as Gods in the very old sense, when they are utterly, wonderfully, fallibly human. Cheap writing, disrespect for all that has come before, and ruining a genuinely great character because of uninspired hackery.