DC, I echo SB's statement. You are caught up in emoting over the Republican Party's loss of the Congress and the White House all within a two year period and frustration due to your failure to understand how that happened. The Nation's demographics have been changing significantly since prior to the 2000 presidential election. That's why most Americans who cast votes in that year's presidential election voted for a Democrat. Except for the interventing variable of 9/11, most voters would have probably voted again for the Democratic presidential candidate. The War in Iraq (which by the way have have expressed support for on this Board) has soured many Americans on the Republican Party's perspective. The rise or fall of this Nation's economy is always accrued to the President who presided over that rise or fall, so President Bush must bear the burden of such an accrual. In addition, many Americans have always laid their woes at the feet of our President. It makes little sense to lament that they do so.
To answer your questions though, wanting to be President is not being President. When you become President, it's a whole new ball game. The rhetoric of campaigns can fade into obscurity when you assume the office. President Obama learned (and continues to learn) that it is politically impractical to try and do many things. Again and again on this Board I have opined that while the President's influence may be significant, his power is limited. It is only the US Congress that can make law and authorize funding. So, a President must be judicious about his dealings with Congress and that may preclude him from fulfilling campaign promises. By the way, Presidents do not have line item veto authority.
The GOP got ownage of both the economy and Iraq, and no GOP candidate could have won last year. McCain in fact was their best chance in spite of the stacked odds against them, so thats why I got pissed at GOPers who claim they would have won if they had won a
true conservative campaign.
Yeah sorry boys and Appleonya, but Dubya has possibly tainted that brand for years like LBJ did to liberalism or Jimmy Carter to Democrats. God knows how many in this decade has turned many of the future voters and politicians into liberals, or at least Democratic center-left sympathizers.
and I'm with Olivant in that Presidents, like many Governors, need a line-item veto. You know, remember when Clinton and the GOP Congress both pushed for that in the 1990s? Imagine if the GOP, when they totally controlled the government 2003-2007, had actually put some serious effort into true reforms like the line-item veto, instead of trying to pass meaningless Freedom Fries measures or trying to ban gay marriage or whatever nonsense.
Who knows, maybe they still would be in power. I think I gave up on the GOP when they in this decade never bothered to seriously push for alot of their campaign planks that which won them Congress in 1994. You know, Balanced Budget Amendment, Congress Term Limits, Line-Item Veto, good shit.
