DC, I echo SB's statement. You are caught up in emoting over the Republican Party's loss of the Congress and the White House all within a two year period and frustration due to your failure to understand how that happened. The Nation's demographics have been changing significantly since prior to the 2000 presidential election. That's why most Americans who cast votes in that year's presidential election voted for a Democrat. Except for the interventing variable of 9/11, most voters would have probably voted again for the Democratic presidential candidate. The War in Iraq (which by the way have have expressed support for on this Board) has soured many Americans on the Republican Party's perspective. The rise or fall of this Nation's economy is always accrued to the President who presided over that rise or fall, so President Bush must bear the burden of such an accrual. In addition, many Americans have always laid their woes at the feet of our President. It makes little sense to lament that they do so.

To answer your questions though, wanting to be President is not being President. When you become President, it's a whole new ball game. The rhetoric of campaigns can fade into obscurity when you assume the office. President Obama learned (and continues to learn) that it is politically impractical to try and do many things. Again and again on this Board I have opined that while the President's influence may be significant, his power is limited. It is only the US Congress that can make law and authorize funding. So, a President must be judicious about his dealings with Congress and that may preclude him from fulfilling campaign promises. By the way, Presidents do not have line item veto authority.