[Alberta's Child]

We voted for someone who claimed to be a leader. What we got instead was a politician.

Correction -- YOU voted for someone you thought would be a leader. Democratic governments don't have leaders -- especially in countries like ours where nanny-state attitudes prevail among the vast majority of the voters.

I knew George W. Bush would be an improvement over Clinton and would certainly be better for this country than Gore or Kerry, but let's not kid ourselves. George H.W. Bush was the last president this country will ever have from the WW2 generation, so we'd better get used to the mediocre adolescents from the Baby Boomer generation who are going to occupy the White House for a few decades.

[snowrip]

Correction -- YOU voted for someone you thought would be a leader.

Uhh... CORRECTION -- Bush claimed that he would tackle all manner of America's ills, from rebuilding the military to fixing Social Security to simplifying the tax code... Now, my Webster's dictionary must be outdated, because it defines a leader as somone who influences or induces; someone who conducts by holding or guiding; someone who commands or directs; somone who is at the head (of something). I know it's a huge stretch of the imagination, but bear with me... when you claim to be the man who will lead the country in this new direction (and you hold a majority in both houses;), you're claiming to be a leader rather than a do-nothing political hack.

Democratic governments don't have leaders

Huh? My understanding of world history, and of US history, and of the definition of democracy and representative republic must be waaaaay off. Guess I'll have to get rid of that outdated copy of Webster's.

BTW, Reagan was one hell of a president, and the nanny-state attitude was already well-established. Bush has been an improvement over Clinton, but we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul if his (and the Republican House and Senate's) choices mean a return to the democrat party regime.