This is the point where I get impassioned, so I'll apologize ahead of time. I fail to see where anything President Clinton did is any more embarrassing than President (and I only use that word to avoid offending in both cases) Bush not having a command of the English language, let alone the glaring inaccuracy of so many of his claims, for which he gives his silly grin and expects it to be glossed over. The only difference I see is that one was personally irresponsible and the other is much better at donning his "devout Christian" mantle.
I agree it's not all his fault, I agree he's not solely responsible, but I am deeply disturbed by the willingness of so many Americans to let their views on gay marriage, abortion and gun control decide who they vote for without any concern for the rest of the picture. I'm sorry, but no one will ever be able to convince me that the Republicans didn't gain their current majority based on their constant hammering at those issues to draw attention from others in which they had failed miserably.
And in response to National Acrobat... I think that if more people were honest and open about their feeling and opinions we'd have a MUCH more representative democracy, instead of the system that we have now... which panders to the squeaky wheels and the thick wallets.
Please know that the previous statements are in my humble opinion, and are in no way meant to be inflammatory.
Besides making us a laughing stock with his indescretions, accepting more foreign campaign contributions (illegal) than any other president in history, dismantling the military, gutting our intelligence capabilities, handing our sovereignty to the United Nations (which we pay for), attempting a government takeover of 1/7 of the economy...nevermind really...what more do you need to know. Former-President Clinton was one of the worst and least effective presidents we have ever had. If you doubt that I should tell you that a very liberal professor at my college taught a class on his presidency...and he voted for President Clinton mind you...but he's the one that said that...worst and least effective...
Bush might not always be right, indeed it would be frightening if he was, but he has the balls to stand up and fight for what he believes in: freedom. That alone puts him head and shoulders above the two previous presidents. As far as President Bush not having a command of the English language: first, I don't know anyone except for Professor Henry Higgins who has an excellent grasp of so difficult a language. In fact, President Bush talks like most people I know in the Southern half of the country, just a little redneckish which is in no way a reflection on someone's intelligence. Nevermind the fact that Bush attended and wildly succeeded at Yale (if I remember correctly). I wonder if any of us have ever had the same pressure that he does and then be able to speak flawless English in front of the entire world watching. Even actors and actresses mess up their lines. Back to the fact that dialects differ from region to region, just because the liberal press considers something to be a mistake doesn't make it so. And sometimes, people do make mistakes. First and foremost, President Bush is still a person, and we must remember that.
The glaring inaccuracy of so many of his claims: Why let Al Gore slide on his comments such as his momma used to singing him the 'look for the union label' song when he was a small child (which was before it was ever written), at one time he said that the cancer patients needed a sonogram instead of a mammogram (how long was that on the knews), direct quote from the New York Times--"When my sister and I were growing up, there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so." Instead of the Civil War in 1861, he said 1961. People make mistakes, I don't mean to pick on Mr. Gore...but his mistakes and out-and-out mistruths are legendary around our house. They're Gore-isms. So no one is immune to 'inaccuracies' or ' mistakes. Why villify President Bush only? Just remembered one more--it's a great one: "A zebra does not change it's spots." Hello?
And I must admit I resent that you believe Bush is better at "donning his devout Christian mantle." Whether you believe him or not, whether you agree with him or not, his faith has nothing to do with it. I don't select my president based on his faith unless it might be detrimental to the country. And most other Americans don't as well. I am a Christian, and I am a Republican, and I am immensely proud of both. And to many people in this country those issues that you mentioned are extremely fundamental for many reasons. For example, I have the very controversial view that abortions, except in extreme cases, should be illegal. Disagree with me sure, but I have my reasons and my beliefs and I will fight until my dying breath if it might save the life of a child. Much like my eldest was born a perfectly-formed living being at just 27 weeks...and the age at which these children can be saved is increased all the time. Yes, this issue will always be a consideration when I select my president. As does our national defense, taxes and the economy, a reduction in big government, our natural resources, etc. What really gets me is when people just assume that Republicans and Conservatives only care about are the issues on which we disagree with Democrats and Liberals. Take the time to get to know us and why we choose the way we do before making blanket statements please. You might be surprised at what we agree on and why we believe the way we do on the things on which we disagree.