New thread

[AZXD]

Todays Political Goal

[Delija]

Originally Posted by jmichna

.
IMO, the primary influence - with the most lasting and potentially dangerous impact - any president can have is the appointment of the Supreme Court justices.

Certainly as far as "lasting impact" I doubt few would argue this point. It seems that a lifetime appointment in our government is kind of "out of character" for the way we generally perceive the thinking of our "Founding Fathers".....of course perception is a subjective matter, and certainly there are a hundred million or so Americans with a hundred million or so individual ideas about what went on in the minds of the framers of the Constitution, but yes, the concept of a lifetime position in government certainly seems to be out of place. And also a "wild-card' in some respects. For example, William O. Douglas and Earl Warren were both appointed at times in their lives that they were thought of as "conservative" judges, but over their very long tenures they ultimately became considered very "liberal". In fact I believe that Warren was a segregationist in the 1940s (or whenever he was appointed), but by the 1960s he was a champion of civil rights and an enforcer of integration. I'm not old enough to remember his appointment...wasn't born, but I am old enough to remember seeing billboards in the deep South in the late 60s calling for his impeachment (generally on the same billboards announcing "KKK Meeting Thursday Night").

Originally Posted by jmichna

.Perhaps our Founders, in their wisdom, did not intend for any president to have or exert extraordinary influence or power.

Again, I'd agree this is the way things seem, but we can't read the minds of our present lawmakers....let alone guys that have been dead a couple of hundred years. Was the lifetime appointments of the SC Justices a remnant of the system of royalty? Was that a possible concession to an archaic concept that was the general system of governing for thousands of years? (and still to this day has it's presence in countless kingdoms - some significant and powerful like Saudi Arabia, some just titular like Fiji, Monaco, etc....and of course the UK where it's always been "good to be the king" ...at least very highly profitable).

Even if we KNEW exactly what the founders were thinking (individually and collectively), would it matter much? Would it change anything? The interpretation of the second amendment might be the most obvious example of this. The wording gets analyzed and re-analyzed constantly, and nothing changes the fact that what were "arms" in the late 18th century were a far cry from the "arms" of today.

Originally Posted by jmichna

.we've had some (very few) giants as presidents (whether you agree with their policies or politics), men such as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Reagan... people along those lines. They generally occupied the Office under some trying condition or state of affairs.....

Yup, being in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time certainly has proved to be pretty much the determining factor in how history treats our leaders. Had Jimmy Carter not had the Iranian hostage crisis as the focal point of his presidency (or found a way to swiftly resolve it), would he be judged differently? Possibly re-elected and (in the minds of most) drastically changing history by taking Reagan out of the picture? (Very unlikely Reagan would have run again in 1984 as a challenger).

Originally Posted by jmichna

.At best though, perhaps the president should function as essentially a figurehead,.....(edit)........ Maybe we need a weak president or two, and need to recapture government at the Congressional level and below.

LOL...define "weak"
Give a "weak" person the position of being president and all of a sudden they are no longer weak just by chain of command. Which is the basis of how things really work.....and the law in the military. So being Commander in Chief eliminates even the possible desire to be a laid back, laissez-faire, delegate everything type of approach. It also is the key to distorting the balance of powers as you (and I) seem to feel the founders wanted to assure between the branches of government. What was it that GWB said farily recently to his cabinet? Something like "I don't give a $#it, I'm the Commander in Chief, and what I say goes" (or something like that).

Originally Posted by jmichna

.I don't know... maybe I'm just discouraged by the whole mess and dissatisfaction with all the candidates. As some one else implied, what reasonable man (or woman) would actually want what the job has become

Yeah, it would seem to be a contradiction in terms..."reasonable person" and "person that wants to be president".....Certainly we've had some very capable and sincere leaders, and some outright disgraces. But "reasonable"? Again, we'd need to define a term that is essentially about subjectivity. To some people, Osama Bin Laden is "reasonable".

An added thought to your (correct IMO) assertion that the presidency was not intended to be the all-powerful position of a king or dictator, etc....Somehow we ended up with the "perfect storm" of Bush, who had always had his way and was comfortable with that, and on the same team both Rove and Cheney who both had been proponents of a stronger executive branch dating back to their roles and their beliefs before, during and after the Watergate scandal. To most of us it seems like ancient history, but to Rove and Cheney it was a matter of Nixon being persecuted and having his powers unjustly limited.

We've seen the presidency well protected by the concept of being able to deflect a good degree of accountability and responsibility and openness by invoking the magic words "national security". Now, we have the same concept supercharged, turbocharged, and on steroids with the "Patriot Act"...Not that it's made anything all that different, just easier. "All men are created equal, just some are more equal than others" and all that stuff. Name your newborn baby "Mohammad Hussein Bin Laden Jmichna" and see how "equal" his or her treatment even on the playground in kindergarten would be.

LOL

Peace,
D.