I don't think you can hold the public responsible for the actions of the officials it elects, especially under a two-party system. It could easily be the case that both candidates held egregiously damaging positions on different issues. In such a case, a vote for one candidate would indict you for responsibility for HIS poor decisions, but a vote for the other would indict you for responsibility for HIS poor decisions.

It is, quite clearly, an unwinnable situation. Only in a genuine democracy does the will of the people actually determine policy. In a representative republic, they people can only choose between a finite number of candidates. If none of those candidates are acceptable, what are the people to do?

In this particular case, I don't disagree that people who agree with all of Bush's foreign policy decisions probably deserve to be blown up. But there are people who vote for Bush even though they disagree with some of his policies, because they think his opponent has other policies which could be even more damaging. Kerry and Bush are so similar in their positions on so many issues it's difficult to really say that the people have a choice.

Perhaps a terrorist attack on the republican national convention would do the trick

___________________
1+1=10