This is an abstract question, not “What would I let Politician X get away with”. By getting away I guess I mean that assuming you had the power to fire him (which you do but you’re sharing it with others).
It’s easy to name things that you wouldn’t let him get away with. But what’s the worst thing you would?
“The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy” – Edwin Edwards
Starting a war under the false pretense of illegal WMD while the motivation is really a combination of showing up Daddy as a wuss and stealing a lot of oil.
Every President gets three secret murders, but if he doesn’t use them by the end of the term, pffft!, they’re gone.
So if a President did this, and you had the power to fire him, you’d let him get away with it?
Assuming this is a politician that I would normally wish to stay in office:
On a personal level it would probably be DWI resulting in negligent homicide (see Chappaquiddick).
On a policy level, probably be being pivotal in the signing of a federal gay marriage ban.
Both of these I could forgive if other policies are right up my alley, but both would make me sick to my stomach.
Assuming I have firing powers, the worst thing I’d let a politician get away with is jaywalking or double parking. Swiping small-scale office supplies and abusing the photocopier privileges. Otherwise, nothing. No lying on the job, no corruption, no abusing the constitution. *Definitely *no starting wars or sanctioning assassinations.
But what if sanctioning an assassination could prevent a war (or even just prevent lots of deaths). Nothing in the Constitution says the Prez can’t sanction assassinations.
We do have the power to fire the President and in this exact situation in 2004, we choose not to. So yes. We are responsible for the clusterfuck in Mess O Potamia.
I think what **Lemur **was getting at is that you either misunderstood the OP or simply wanted to take a swipe at Bush. The OP was asking what is the worst thing you would give the president a pass for, not what pisses you off the most about Bush.
Intra marital affair, sooooo don’t care.
I’m with you on no starting wars. But if I were US President in '43, and my intelligence & diplomatic services told me that we had the capacity to off Hitler and the most likely successor would be willing to end the war, I’d kill the bastard.
After a declaration of war I’d figure that fair play. 
We were already at war with Germany in '43.
I would never let a politician get away with not understanding the concept of a thread. The internet is, after all, serious business.
It is possible for someone to fully acknowledge that the war in Iraq was a giant lie, but still choose Bush anyway. Maybe they’re just indifferent to what affect our foreign policy is having on others, so long as they get their sweet sweet tax cuts. I’ve personally never seen anyone so bold as to make that kind of statement (I’m hoping The Second Stone was joking), but I imagine there are at least a few people who pulled the lever for Bush who thought that way.
Joking about what? We are responsible for what our government does, and we let our President get away with that shit. We’ve already done it. We didn’t let our President get away with a BJ, but by God, we let our President gin up *causes belli *and kill a million people. We did it in Vietnam and we did it in Iraq. That is exactly the subject of the thread. Now if I had the power to prosecute or otherwise stop bad behavior by the President I would do it an all instances of the use of executive authority and let him/her get away with nothing. Extra dessert helpings are not abuse of executive authority, but smoking in government buildings is.
But the fact of the matter is that none of us do anything about government abuse of authority.
I would let a politician get away with getting intoxicated at an inappropriate time while he was in office, assuming it only led to an embarrassing situation, and didn’t lead to any actual crimes.
Tough.
I am not an American, nor was my argument that such action is unconstitutional. Just something I don’t want my elected officials to do.
I’m almost OK with this in '43 (only strict pacificism prevents me being all for it) - you were already at war with the guy, but I’m not OK with this in '33. Or even '40.