[besson3c]

Some of you have heard my theory about how the US presidency basically has the powers of a neutered chihauhau right now without a congress interesting in being productive. I'm not referring to political gridlock, political gridlock was designed into our system of government from day one, I'm referring to a congress that is interested in passing legislation that benefits the general population more than it does some sort of elite group of people. I'm also not singling out Democrat or Republican politicians, these elite groups of people can be for or against left or right wing causes.

Some of you have heard me use the expression "bread and circuses" in describing the fuss over the US presidency in the midst of what I deem as the primary political bottleneck. I'd like to make the case that this is so, to see what you think of these ideas. I'm not completely convinced of all of us, so please weigh in rather than jumping on my nutsack and punching my balls.

Many Republicans are somewhere between vehement to hysterical about how bad a president Obama has been. In a depressed economy, with such an opportunity at hand (an incumbent president often has difficulties in a bad economy in general), why is it that the best candidate the Republicans can produce is Romney? I don't mean to ask that in a derogatory way, if you were a big supporter of Romney from day one (although I recall many of you guys weren't), I'll ask this a different way: why aren't there more sexy Republican options? The guy nominated couldn't get past John McCain who ultimately lost, why weren't there at least a few viable candidates rather than a weird freak show where Romney was sort of the best of the bunch by default? I'm not saying that there are great Democrat options either, this is actually exactly my point...

Could the answer be that the job just isn't terribly attractive? If I wanted wealth and/or power, would I look there, or could I find equal power somewhere else? Who is more powerful, Tim Cook or generic US president? If Apple threatened to move their headquarters overseas unless environmental regulations were changed, financial policy was changed, or whatever else, who would have more pull for or against these legislative changes? If I wanted to cash in on Apple's existence as a politician, hypothetically speaking (I realize we don't generally view Apple as a sinister sort of company), wouldn't I even have more power and influence as a congressman or woman within the various states that Apple operates in more than I would as president?

My point is not some sort of anti-corporation thing, but if we are to keep our eye on the prize so to speak, maybe the US presidency is a virtual distraction to the real prize? I would say this regardless of who wins this election, or the next, unless there is a flaw in my thinking?

[subego]

I think a career in politics isn't all that compatible with the Republican ethos.

The same goes for journalism and education. There's a reason reporters and teachers tend to be Democrats.

[Chongo]

President Eisenhower is often quoted as saying the biggest mistake he made was appointing Earl Warren and William Brennan to the SCOTUS.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think a career in politics isn't all that compatible with the Republican ethos.
The same goes for journalism and education. There's a reason reporters and teachers tend to be Democrats.

Great observations.

[BadKosh]

And the MSM (reporters are spewing opinions, lies and propaganda) and UNION Teachers indoctrinating your kids to be mindless liberal stooges?

These are the types that ruined everything!

[subego]

What would you propose to do?

[The Final Dakar]

Shoop.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And the MSM (reporters are spewing opinions, lies and propaganda)

If there was an (R) in office you know the MSM would devote their entire broadcasts to how bad the economy is. GHW Bush had a better economy in '92 and the MSM drummed Carville's "worst economy in 50 years" line on a nightly basis.

and UNION Teachers indoctrinating your kids to be mindless liberal stooges?
These are the types that ruined everything!

It's not suprising they oppose vouchers. There was a very succesful voucher program in DC that was ended.

Commentary: Obama, Dems wrong to kill school vouchers

When President Obama signs the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, there will be shouts of joy from both sides as Republicans and Democrats get their cherished earmarks.

Yet tucked into that bill is an amendment pushed by the president's former colleague in the Senate, Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin, who used his influence to essentially kill the District of Columbia school vouchers program.

Oh sure, it will be portrayed that the Democrats aren't killing the program, but the initiative calls for no new students to be allowed entry, unless approved by Congress and the District of Columbia City Council.

And considering that the teachers union has such a death grip on both Democratic-controlled institutions, you can forget about that happening.

Democrats say they believe in school choice, but they don't fully accept the gamut of choices. They will happily tout charter schools, also opposed by the national teachers unions, but stop at vouchers.

Why? Because Republicans have consistently advocated for vouchers, and Democrats have convinced themselves that vouchers will somehow destroy the public school infrastructure.

Now, some believe the Obama administration is sending mixed signals because Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said he doesn't want to see kids thrown out of Washington schools who are already in the existing voucher program. Fine. But the reality is that after this year, no new kids will be allowed to enroll in the program, and that folks, is killing the program.

Obama and his party have never been fans of vouchers. Why? They contend that vouchers would hurt the public school system. Vouchers allow parents who can't afford private school to remove their children from public schools in order to get a better education. Well, isn't that what the president and those in his party do themselves by sending their children to private school? Only they don't need the government's help.

The standard fallback position of Democrats and the Obama administration is that the Washington program only helps 1,700 children a year, and those who don't qualify are stuck in a sorry system, and they are largely poor and minority. They contend that since every student can't be helped by vouchers, none should be helped.

So parents and children are supposed to sit tight and wait on the promised reform to trickle down from Washington to the local school systems, and then all will be well?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And the MSM (reporters are spewing opinions, lies and propaganda) and UNION Teachers indoctrinating your kids to be mindless liberal stooges?
These are the types that ruined everything!

What is bad about liberals?

[besson3c]

Okay, now that we have gotten that out of the way, how much power does the US presidency provide?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

What would you propose to do?

Apparently, nothing more than whine about it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Apparently, nothing more than whine about it.

Was your question addressing me subego?

What's with the snark Wiskedjak? Usually you're cooler.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Was your question addressing me subego?

What's with the snark Wiskedjak? Usually you're cooler.

I decided to read subego's question as directed to BadKosh's post immediately above it. My snark is directed at BadKosh's fear of MSM(-Fox) reporters and UNION Teachers.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And the MSM (reporters are spewing opinions, lies and propaganda) and UNION Teachers indoctrinating your kids to be mindless liberal stooges?
These are the types that ruined everything!

I acknowledge that I should have been clearer.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I decided to read subego's question as directed to BadKosh's post immediately above it. My snark is directed at BadKosh's fear of MSM(-Fox) reporters and UNION Teachers.
I acknowledge that I should have been clearer.

My bad...

I just ignore BadKosh's anti-Obama turrets. It's basically Abe minus the entertainment factor.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, now that we have gotten that out of the way, how much power does the US presidency provide?

I think interestingly, the amount of power it provides is somewhat dependent on the party. Excluding the SCOTUS nominations, in my lifetime, Republican presidents have wielded way more power than Democratic ones.

As the saying goes, Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think interestingly, the amount of power it provides is somewhat dependent on the party. Excluding the SCOTUS nominations, in my lifetime, Republican presidents have wielded way more power than Democratic ones.
As the saying goes, Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

You don't think the Democrats in Congress and the Senate will try to block Republican bills just because the Republicans did this to Democrat bills?

[subego]

Sure.

However, going on past performance, Democrats get somewhere between 50-75% of the obstruction power per seat compared to the Republicans.

[Chongo]

A line item veto would give the POTUS an effective tool to control spending.

In 1996, the Repuplican controlled Congress passed a line item veto and it was signed by Bill Clinton. Mayor RINO Giuliani challenged it and it was struck down by the courts. A new line item veto bill was passed this year by the Repuplican controlled House, but the Democrat controlled Senate hassat on the bill.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, now that we have gotten that out of the way, how much power does the US presidency provide?

Well, you could always go back to what some guys wrote about the matter that one time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Originally Posted by From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Section 2 grants substantive powers to the president:

The president is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and of the state militias when these are called into federal service.
The president may require opinions of the principal officers of the federal government.
The president may grant reprieves and pardons, except in cases of impeachment (i.e., the president cannot pardon himself or herself to escape impeachment by Congress).

Section 2 grants and limits the president's appointment powers:

The president may make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the senators who are present agree.
With the advice and consent of the Senate, the President may appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise described in the Constitution.
Congress may give the power to appoint lower officers to the President alone, to the courts, or to the heads of departments.
The president may make any of these appointments during a congressional recess. Such a "recess appointment" expires at the end of the next session of Congress.

Section 3 opens by describing the president's relations with Congress:

The president reports on the state of the union.
The Recommendation Clause[26]: The president has the power and duty[27] to recommend to Congress's consideration such measures which the president deems as "necessary and expedient".
The president may convene either house, or both houses, of Congress.
When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on the time of adjournment, the president may adjourn them to some future date.

Section 3 adds:

The president receives ambassadors.
The president sees that the laws are faithfully executed.
The president commissions all the offices of the federal government.

It seems like as the Federal Government's power has grown over the years, so has the President's.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Well, you could always go back to what some guys wrote about the matter that one time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution
It seems like as the Federal Government's power has grown over the years, so has the President's.

Maybe it is more accurate to say that he president has more tools, but the tools need to be co-operated by people dead set against these tools being used, and for inconspicuous reasons?