[aephi alum]

Whether or not the president has any degree of influence over the economy (and he does - not as much as, say, Greenspan, but he does have influence) is irrelevant. He's the guy at the top, so he (and by extension, his party) is going to get the blame, or the credit. Clinton got reelected in 1996 in part because the economy was doing well and people wanted 4 more years of the same.

Let me point out that while Congress makes the laws, the president can veto them, and in a Congress so evenly split, overturning a veto isn't exactly easy.

What we really need is for Congress and the president to work together to improve the economy. Lowering interest rates didn't do it; we plainly need something else to spur growth. I don't think war is the answer; when we went into Afghanistan I didn't see any increase in defense spending or any improvement in the economy. But instead of working with Congress, W is holding up Iraq to distract the American public from the fact that the economy sucks. And he's doing it right before midterm elections. Coincidence? I think not.