I am not, and I did not mean to give that impression. I was suggesting that people harshly critical of Bush, to the point of refusing to vote for him for not adhering 100% to the conservative canon, in the secure knowledge that such inaction may lead to a rat being elected in a close election, should graciously give him some credit for making the best of a difficult situation.
Secondly, while I concur that we do not bow down to Kings, I would suggest that characterization of a President as a "leader" is also misleading, albeit correct in a loose sense.
Bush is supposed to be our representative in the Executive Branch, reflecting the positions and views held by the vast majority of the people who elected him, such as are consistent with the Constitution. When you say "leader", I imagine strong, principled personalities who are unwavering in their commitment to a cause, regardless of beliefs or ideologies held by their populations. Such a sweeping prerogative is permissible to the Executive Branch only in matters of foreign policy and war. For everything else, there is compromise and, unfortunately or fortunately, a deference to public wants and needs.
For example, the vast majority of the people today, and even conservative Republicans I know from Texas, no less, are convinced of the need for an expansion in Health care benefits for all, regardless of the consitutionality of such a position. It does not matter what hard core conservatives like nwrep, and Sabertooth, and samuel_adams and sarasmom want, if the majority of the people want it, they will vote for whoever gives it to them. Hence the compromise on such things as prescription drug coverage and education.
I am suggesting that the fault ultimately lies with the people, and this is the area we should address, by means of educating them.