My point Ra wasn't to debate each factor, just to state that he has pushed through an agenda that, right or wrong or neither, is objected to by about half the country. It's not a competiton for me, yeah my team is winning, go [Bush/Kerry]! However...
Which president hasn't?
IMO, we're at a transition point in the world economy where the basic structure of business is changing. We need to seriously look at how to make America viable in the long term. FWIW, Clinton's easy FTC merger approval went too far, IMO, now there's the whole outsourcing push and too much leverage in the hands of business vs. labor (again, IMO). I seriously want my future children (and myself) to have access to the standard of living my parents enjoyed in the boomer years, without having to be the CEO or major shareholder of a multinational corporation.
Even Kerry and H. Clinton backed the invasion.
Why wouldn't they? It was the safe political thing to do. Bush was able to set the tone and get the "oppose war=traitor" thing going early on. It's easy to support the war, even if you think its going to be a mess, then pick it to pieces later. Add most of the remaining Democrats in Congress to the list while you're at it. They are tools. But then, IMO the Republicans are, by and large, similar tools with some minor differences overall.
Third trimester abortions have been so unpopular that Congress has been trying to outlaw them for years. Only Clinton's vetoes prevented it. Clinton was the abortion activist, not Bush. The anti-gay constitutional amendment talk is a reaction to activist judges who want to impose their definition of marriage onto the entire country. The framers of the Constitution never imagined that marriage and homosexual could ever go together.
Clinton didn't promote late term abortions with a "I think we need a new abortion" platform (I personally disagree with late term abortions except in the case of medical necessity). However, late term abortions were generally not common or casual, and the issue is seen generally as being the first strike in a larger plan of attack. As for homosexual marriage, to me that's something for the individual Church to decide. You may certainly disagree, but I think changing the Constitution for something that trivial (and potentially primarily for political reasons) is disagreeable.
Bush is an evangelical christian, and I think a genuine one at that. All fine and good if he makes those feelings absolutely clear. Frankly, he's not been that quiet about it, which is a positive aspect of his character. I really do think he is genuine... I just think it's been easy for others to set his agenda to match theirs.
Charon
