It doesn't really matter if Bush is dumb (although i disagree with the assertion that he is stupid, i think we can agree we are choosing a President, not the winner of the smartest man in America contest) if he can accomplish what he sets out to do. Likewise, it doesn't matter if Gore is a liar/untrustworthy (again, i don't think he's a pathological liar, but again, we are choosing a President, not national fact checker), so long as those he needs to work with to accomplish things, trust him enough to engage in the process and see it through to completion.
Although i disagree with Gore politically and philosophically, i don't think it will be a tradgedy if he is elected. Those who feel the same about Bush's outlook should be similiar... the Republic will survive if either one gets elected. I give either man credit to think that he will act in what he regards as in the best interest of the country, i would hope that all would extend both men the same courtesty in return. I don't think i'd feel comforable with the process at all, if either of the two parties were to nominate someone who would not put the needs of the country first, although we might disagree with what those needs are, and how to achieve them.
Those who are upset about their perception of the quality of the two major candidates ("lesser of two evils", the 'party machinery' gave us two weak candidates, etc.) let me remind you that the two were chosen by a given and predetermined electoral process. That you do not like the results is tough. The majority of other voters disagreed with you. The American voter gets what they collectively want, even when you think that the results suck. I'm sure that back in the day, that people were grousing too about the "poor choice" that was offered between the two parties, when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were the candidates.