As for people "allowing" Bush's election, I'm curious as to what you suggest they should have done. Are you faulting everyone who did not martyr themselves in some kind of armed insurrection? Do you think the aftermath of such an act would lead to more freedom rather than less? At what point should they have done it? When he was first elected? He only looked like a second-rate president, not a nascent tyrant; the erosion of freedom has come one grain of sand at a time. His second term? By then he was too entrenched for anything short of (and possibly including) the aforementioned armed insurrection to pry him out.
In addition, your statement is self-contradictory. You say that Americans got what they said they wanted -- but you also acknowledge that Bush was not elected by the majority of the popular vote. Which is it? More voters didn't want Bush in office than did want him, so at best the majority is getting what the minority deserves.
What concerns me is that the Bush administration is not acting like it is approaching the end of a term and contemplating the possible, even probable, transfer of power to the opposition party. Instead, it is taking steps that only seem logical if it, not any successor, intends to remain in office. Anyone want to start a betting pool on when the Reichstag fire will be?