>
>>People are going to vote most of the time on the economy because they want to believe the President has something to do with that because they want daddy to fix it, but in truth there isn't much the President can do about it. But national security is the big issue for a President because that is about 90% on him, one way or the other, and Congress for the most part just sees that as a political issue. I don't think Obama intends to be soft on 'terror' but I think Nov 5 is going to be a real wakeup call on what his job is really going to be. He won't have the luxury of denial, as Clinton did.
>>
>
>I agree about the President's limited influence over the economy. Not that it stops people from holding him responsible. In Bush's case I do hold him partly responsible for the current problems. From the beginning he was for minimal regulation, "keeping the government off business's back." Well, we have now seen what happens when you leave the free market alone in the candy store. (Badly mangled metaphor, I think).

Odd though that those who actually had some power over regulation - Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for example were not seen as villains by the "Change" people and John McCain, who warned of the Fanny Mae problem - was seen as 'more Bush'.

Corrupt hacks are always a problem. The Dems really have their share and I shudder to think what a veto-proof majority - funded by trial lawyers - could do to the country.