Why do Americans want to elect a "leader" as President of the USA?

We know our founding fathers didn't overextend the Executive branch for a reason. We are supposed to elect "Representatives" who represent our ideas. (So they must watch what the US citizenry wants to run a good government)
Bush Sr., though I'm a Democratic voter, was a good president because he watched the poles and tried to do what Americans wanted. However, we wanted a strong leader. Strong leaders are for totalitarian regimes, not for Democratic-Republics. If you vote a "leader" we the people loose all say once they're in office.
So, why do Americans want an idealistic leader and not a representative to be our next President?

touche!

The executive branch is called that for a reason -- the legislative legislates (makes laws that reflect the will and best interests of the populace), the judicial judges (interprets and judges the laws and actions) and the executive executes, that is, takes action.

While the executive branch is not meant to be a totalitarian body, it is the 'head' of the governmental body and requires an enlightened and assertive president to keep the nation's efforts coordinated and aligned to the public's desires.

Right now the current president has extremely low public approval ratings; does that reflect upon him that did 'what Americans wanted'?

With your line of thinking, why do we even need a president. Why don't we just take a poll everytime an issue comes up?

Right now we can't even get half the eligible voters to vote. A lot of the ones that do don't even make an effort to keep up with what's going on in the world-----unless it involves O.J. or Brittney.

No, there is a difference between good leaders and bad leaders. George Washington was a good leader, Abraham Lincoln was a good leader, Teddy Roosevelt was a good leader. Dick Nixon was a bad leader, george w. bush is a bad leader.
The president of the nation has to lead, or attempt to lead.

The American people are so divided, it has become impossible to accurately represent the people without offending some of them. Americans need leadership. They need someone they can admire and look up to so that he/she will bring them together in unity despite their differing opinions on political issues.

A real leader does what is right.

A leader is one who can make decisions. If you rely on polls for everything in government we do not need a government. Usually a poll is a sampling of about 1500 people. Do you want them to rule the country.
Having a decisive president, one leads, and does what he believes in is better than a puppet who does nothing.
PS If George 41 was so great how come during the Iran-Contra scandal when he was Vice President, he told congress he did not know what was going on, because he slept through those meetings?

We need a man who can make intelligent decisions when they are needed the most; emergency situations.

America has had a cowboy as president the last seven years, showing how an ineffective, weak leader performs in the face of terrorism-lashing out at any country he finds repugnant, instead of focusing on finding the true culprits; Hurricane Katrina-failing to act quickly in aiding the victims, spending more time finger-pointing than solving the problems; deficit spending; and sending US soldiers to perpetuate a civil war in a country where our presence is unwanted by most of its citizens.

That is why America needs a leader, instead of another schmuck. America will not survive another four years of GW Bush-type leadership.

Sadly, our representitives are doing little to represent us lately.
It seems that some of them are too busy trying to find a new job for the next 4 years and the rest of them pushing their party's agenda instead of looking out for the people who sent them to DC

The President SHOULD lead by clarity of expression and vision for the future of the country.
It is his job to alert the public to challenges and give ideas for public roles in solutions.
It is his role to speak to the issues of the day and represent the countries position.
Unfortunately, you know how effective the current WH resident is. Divider, not Uniter. Misleader, etc.

So, let's look at the polls and see if your idea works.

At the start of the war with Iraq, there was VERY high voter approval for use of force.

As time has gone on, the support for the war has dwindled. As a matter of fact, it did not take too long before it was below 50%. Should we have said "the people are tired of this...come home" at that point? Should we surrender and cut and run now?

Once we committed to fight, surrender or cut and run has not been an option. Why? Because terrorists are eyeing this situation and hoping that we have the resolve of democrats. It would embolden them to strike again, knowing that they can send brainwashed soldiers to attack, and hide in their caves until we lose our resolve again, then attack again. The only option in fighting terrorism is to win or suffer more terror.

If Bush followed polls, there would no doubt be more attacks have happened or a huge one in the planning by now.

A president must lead. Now do not confuse this with a president must do what is best for the lobbiests, or friends...such as Bush's ridiculous stance on illegal immigrants. This one HAS to be 100% for money, because it sure as he!! is not for the good of the country.

I don't agree with your assumption that a president should constantly poll the country to see what to do. Basically, that poll took place when the country voted, so more people (and this can be disputed) believed Bush represented their views, and so they trust him to make decisions that they would support.

Its possible to have a strong leader who is also wise. And I think that is what you are lamenting here at the heart of this question. BJ is not wise. Never was, never will be, and how the voting public didn't see that, twice, is way beyond me. But we all have to live with it unfortunately for a little longer.

The issue is that voters must make intelligent decisions in the booth. It is a tradgedy that people base their votes on
1) party affiliation
2) sound bites
3) looks and hair!
4) what their friends say
5) anything other than the actual platform of the candidates and the character of the candidate.

So I believe voters do want a representitive that shares their views, but we just didn't get it right the last to tries.