The Rabbi,
Seriously, you're right in pointing out that they aren't nation-ending or earth shattering scandals. But lying? Yep-plenty of that going on. That's why there's so much assertion of executive privilege going on. Cronyism? There are definitely strong indicators. Mismanagement? That's obvious. I don't think there's any serious commentator that would dispute the existence of widespread mismanagement wherever the whitehouse is involved. I mean that literally-there is no defender of the administration besides the administration itself in terms of its leadership quality.
You are also correct to call the Clinton era scandals just that. I don't think there's any real case to be made that Clinton was the savior of the country and that he was just "innocently" cheating-he engaged in plenty of extralegal activities as well. But he's old news-I'll be happy to hear more about what a mess his whitehouse was if by some misfortune Hillary wins the primary.
Firing prosecutors who serve at the pleasure of the president?
This is at best something that happened in circumstances of questionable legality. Firing people because they won't investigate political rivals, and then lying about why they were fired, would constitute a scandal. I don't actually know if that happened-but that is one of the allegations, and Gonzalez is clearly hesitant to divulge any information about what went on at all. There's certainly enough in the published allegations to warrant attention to the issue.
Then there was also the legality of the wiretap program-that's disputed, and it comes with a really bizarre story about Gonzalez at Ashcroft's bedside. Again, I'm not saying that makes Bush criminal numero uno, but it's certainly something that would lead reasonable folks to want to investigate the allegations.
Taking responsibility for the LA gov and NOLA mayor's botching of their own emergency plan?
I don't count that as one of the major scandals-the complete and total rip-off free-for-all that's happened with the federal funds directed towards rebuilding certainly falls under the category of scandalous, though. Again, something to be investigated.
The more serious allegations are the CIA leak scandals, the cash in Iraq scandals, the connections between Abramoff's lobbying and the whitehouse, the possible use of Federal funds and Whitehouse information systems for the private benefit of the Republican party, and the administration's game playing with "enemy combatant status" as applied to US citizens within the continental united states.
There's at least enough supporting the allegations above to warrant suspicion and further investigation. And the complete and total refusal of the Whitehouse to cooperate with any investigation under the banner of "executive privilege" is at a minimum an indicator of how bad the facts might actually look to outside observers.
I don't think Bush is a radical, an evil dictator, or anything remotely similar. But I really don't see how any serious case can be made that he's good at doing his job, or that he's just an innocent victim of the worldwide international media conspiracy.
In my mind, it's better for conservatives to throw their lots in with more open investigations into whitehouse activity, and to make the appropriate calls based on the results. Backing GW and claiming that he's actually a success story in this election climate is really just a sure way to alienate the mass of voters who are unimpressed and unhappy with his performance.