Bush is a bad president because he can't do morally objectionable deeds while keeping the rest of the world happy. Any president of even the most humble ability should be able to come up with a convincing lie to fool the UN and the people into following him to war. Bush had a plethora of believable excuses for war, and still chose an unbelievable lie. What good is a president that can't lie?

If Bush wants to throw away the Constitution, he should be less blunt about it. A good president would rob us of our rights gradually, so that we wouldn't become alarmed. Bush makes speeches about God and Christian morality that threaten the separation of Church and State. Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Can't Bush's speech-writers get the same objectionable message across without throwing around alarming words like "God"? It shouldn't be too hard. Subtlety, Mr. Bush, subtlety. And the Patriot Act - if he wanted to pass unconstitutional laws, he shouldn't group them all into a single bill. If he tossed a single right-infringing law into each "harmless" bill he tried to pass, noone would notice. What sort of dictator can't rob his citizens' rights without causing a stir?

Is Bush smart? No. Does it matter? Not as long as he can fool enough people to believe otherwise. If he pulled off a few intelligent speeches (someone else could write them -it matters little), people would never know how dumb he is. His only real duty in securing public oppinion is reading a convincing speech. He can't do it. If Bush were smart, he'd stop making speeches.

My vote is going for either Dean or Kerry. Probably Dean.