I couldn’t help but Laugh.. this was all pretty predictable. If you are a politician you might start out with the right intensions - who knows maybe even some start out to just get ahead - No matter what, by the time you get to the federal level you are guilty of all the above. That is why it is called Politics and all these discussion end up being pushing and shoving in the great sandbox of life.. and in the case of politics it is the cat box of life. Its all full of Crap no matter which perspective you take.
When you have to sit around and find crap about other people to publicize over and over and over and over... it ultimately shows how poorly you see yourself. You have to do it just to make yourself feel better. That goes for Christians , atheists, Agnostics (chicken Atheists) Muslims. Buddhists - What a miserable existence.
If you look at History the Artists have always enacted the start of great Change. Not by sitting around bitching about it like this, but rather showing what life should be like. If you don't like what happens in Washington DC or where ever, do something.
I was at Dave Matthews Band last night.. It was cool in a lot of ways. What caught my attention was the fact that there was an army of people out getting people to register to vote and challenging everyone to make a difference. It wasn’t about "i hate this". It had a cool vibe to it.
With that said, the present political process makes it impossible with any one with real answers and solutions to make a difference. All they want to do is protect their stuff and their $$ - They remind me of the Seagulls in Nemo - MINE MINE MINE.
So, yeah its broken. So... NOW WHAT? Why can't you find something in common to build on rather than harping on the differences? yeah the presidents are losers.. well So am i.. and so are you.. So now what..
Be a part of the Solution rather than part of the problem

Every instance of change begin with dialogue.

Glenn, I'm not apologizing for Bush. I'm way too busy attending Beatlefests.

I was simply dropping a similar list from our most recent Democrat President and showing how easy it is to do.

Instead of Bush-bashing, why can't the Democrats offer up a better person (John Kerry was an embarrassment)? Dumb ol' Bush barely beat out a dumber ol' John Kerry.

This is and has been the Democrats long-standing problem - inability to offer up any better solutions. Their mantra is always 'We have a plan and we'll tell you about AFTER we are in office'.

While I won't be surprised if there is a Democrat as our next President I'll be as equally not surprised if that person is just as lame or worse than Bush.

No recent elections have given the President a clear mandate (except the re-elections of Nixon & Reagan).

The 2008 election will probably be just as muddy.

Zum, you may be shocked to find that the person I currently think might do the best job as president in 2008 is a Republican. Again, this has nothing to do with political point of view. But, alas, I am wasting too much time with this issue, time I could be spending attending yet another Fab Faux concert.

I believe Bush made his choices based on information given him. There were lots of people duped by bad information.

Clinton's lying was personal... first hand, as it were. That's the difference to me.

So, you truly believe that Bush has been honest with the American public, has not lied about about anything rising to an impeachable offense throughout his two terms in office? This includes things like eavesdropping illegally on the American public, his administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina, thwarting the formation and assistance of the 9/11 Commission, his admin's outing of a CIA agent for political punishment? You feel he had no prior knowledge in any of these matters and he never personally lied? Well, if that's truly the case (and it might be), then it makes him even worse - 'cause he's just asleep at the switch and has no real idea of what going on in his administration.

Eric, just so you know that no disrespect is intended, if Bill Clinton's record beyond his foolish sexual dalliances equalled Bush's, I'd be right there with you. And its hard for me to understand when people (especially Conservatives) argue for mediocrity. OK, you elected him. If he and his administration are admittedly inept, why defend him? What's to prove? That there are other bad politicians, and this is what we should settle for? Unlike Zum, I don't believe that all politicians are equal and bad (...well, maybe bad ). I'd like to think that very serious times call for mature, educated leadership - regardless of what side of the aisle that leader comes from.

I think Bush's entire administration made their foreign policy decisions based on insane ideology cooked up in the PNAC think tank. They hyped each other up to the point that anyone with any sense was thrown out.

It certainly hasn't always been that way, but I agree with you that this has been the Democrats' problem the last two elections (not the complaining about Bush, the lack of firm positions). Now, the reason they haven't taken a stand may have been fear of the right-wing swift boat smearing machine, but you're absolutely right about in general. And it doesn't win elections, which is why we have the worst administration in the history of this country.

What's right seems to have nothing to do with election strategies.

Bush made his decision based on information he manufactured. Come on Eric, it's public record that good intel reports were doctored to support the war idea.

Sounds like some product reviews.

Jim K

But the reason they doctored the intelligence is what I said: they've worked each other up into believing some very strange ideology. They believe it so fervently that small things like doctoring intelligence - or for that matter firing administrators of scientific organizations that won't come up with lies to support their ideology - are perfectly justified in their minds.