This is not in praise or condemnation of President Bush or any member of his administration.

Now that the disclaimer is in place, let's take a look at the "8 years of damage..."

1. The last time before 9/11 there was an attack on US soil was in the 1940's. Prior to that time the US was neutral regarding the Axis initiatives in Europe and Asia. Once the attack on US soil the sitting president (a Democrat, no less) committed the military and Congress affirmed. The result in the eyes of some back then was only that there were 292,000 US killed-in-action and a staggering debt -to be paid by their grandchildren-. Was the Democratic president correct, and how infallible was the intelligence information given him, especially since the US did not have anything like the US Intelligence Community of today? And the Intelligence Community of today, now headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a far sight better funded and organized now compared to the semi-dismantled state prior to the Year 2000 - meaning that the next President will have a better picture of the world and its innerworkings than the current President had inherited.

2. The mortgage crisis centers around an overtly-inflated housing market of 2004 and the 99% 3- and 5-year balloon-payment mortgages people took on those homes. I bought-and-sold houses in 2004, and one of those houses has a 5-year balloon-payment mortgage (but not anywhere near that 99% then-value). That purchase was a personal financial decision knowing full-well that markets go up-and-down. Why should all of us, as we are the government, become the aftereffect insurer for those who made risky business deals? The Executive Branch does not have any authority to commit public funds for a post-act insurance payoff (that's Congress' sole domain).

3. NAFTA first got life during President G.H.W Bush, but was fought for by President Clinton and signed by him after passage by a Republican-majority Congress (the Democratic vote was split). For those who are anti-NAFTA, you can blame them all, Republican and Democrat of that era. The current administration has to live with NAFTA being the law of the land and insure it is being followed as written - not a very popular job to inherit.

The bottom line is - we have a President who heads the Executive Branch of the government. S/he does not head the Legislative or Judicial Branch. As a result, we do not have an ersatz king or dictator who "rules" the populace. Yet, it seems like there is a perception that the next President will be an economic, military and diplomatic Pied Piper, able to lead away the rats of the world by playing a pretty tune and making the town merry again.

Personally, I hope the next President is a tough, well-tested, mean SOB (or DOB?) able to alley-fight with the best of them, while at the same time having the managerial skill to keep a 2.5Million employee workforce running on-time and within-budget. Snappy catch-phrases are Pied Piper tunes, and end up sounding hollow in the end.

So, when I look at the three Senators who look to be on the ballot, I ask myself who's the meanest, smartest, toughest, most-experienced and least-naive. Luckily, I still have a few months to make up my mind.