Why vote for President? (No, not what you think)

[radical matt]

I'm not going to say it's pointless or go into the electoral college (THIS time), but rather I wanted to get at what it is a President does and what we should be looking for in voting for one.

I was having a discussion with some friends and arrived at a conclusion. People vote for Presidents (or, at least pick their candidate) for reasons I think are...likely misinformed.

My response: Look at what a President actually CAN do, and compare that with WHY people are picking their candidates.


Presidents can:

-Represent the nation to the rest of the world
-Exert limited control over the military in wartime
-Veto Congressional efforts
-Nominate (NOT appoint) Supreme Court Justices

*-Issue executive orders and possibly martial law in limited circumstances


If you break it down, those are the real powers of a President. But...what my friends were looking for in the candidates:

-Education reform
-Tax reform
-"Cleaning up" Washington (less corruption and lobyism)
-Government spending reform (kill pork spending)
-Immigration reform
-"New direction" for the country
-Economy
-War

But I felt inclined to point out to them that a President has little to NO impact on these things. Education, taxation, "cleaning up", spending reform, and immigration are all at the discretion of Congress, not the President. The Economy is a mix of Congress, the Fed, world events, and the American people. A "new direction" is a mix of Congress, the American people, and the President.

Note that Abortion is only now at issue with the Supreme Court, which the President can only NOMINATE people to, the Senate determines if they get in or not.

Of these, the only thing that the President has any real control over is the war, and that is still subject to Congress (only Congress can declare war, and only they determine how much it is funded.



I guess my point is, I think when deciding a President, the things most important in picking my choice are:

-Personality and character/integrity (as this person is representing YOUR country to the rest of the world.)
-Judgment and understanding of military (as this person semi-directs wars that the nation is involved in.)
-General views, or rather, what they're AGAINST (as to determine what they would veto.)
-What they are for/against (in determining the kind of Supreme Court Justices they would nominate.)


That's really it. More than half the issues people cite when they say their candidate is the best are NOT things the President has any direct control over, and in some cases, are things the President has NO control over.


If you like Obama's stance on Education? Vote AGAINST him. Keep him in the Senate where those decisions are really made. Like McCain's view on immigration? Vote AGAINST him, keep HIM in the Senate. Do you HATE Clinton's ideas of healthcare? Vote FOR her, get her OUT of the Senate. And so on and so forth.

The only exception to this is the war. If you like/dislike a candidate's stance on that, you should actually vote for the one you like and against the one you dislike.




Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I'm curious if anyone agrees/disagrees, is aware of any other important powers the President possesses, and/or if anyone actually IS picking their candidate based on what the President can actually DO or not.

 

[jackoroe]

Re: Why vote for President? (No, not what you thi

As a practical matter, the President is very powerful. He proposes the US budget in that he asks Congress to confiscate money from us to piss away on whatever happens to strike his fancy in a given year, The dolts in Congress nip and yap around the edges, a bit. Then, because they get to help in pissing the money away in their districts, usually go along for the most part.

This year, we're spending almost $3,000,000,000,000. It is no small wonder that both political parties are willing to spend tens of millions to win a job that pays under $400,000 per year.

So, far, outside of Ron Paul, I've not hard about anybody wanting to reduce this exponential growth.

 

[PSCGuy]

Re: Why vote for President? (No, not what you thi

You take a classical view of what American government should be. However, the American President has taken on a new job, unofficially, recently. That is the job of Chief Legislator.

While the President cannot official submit legislation to the Congress, he can get--and is expected to--like-minded legislators to support plans that he [or she] would like to enact. Case in point. Wayne Allard and Marilyn Musgrave I seriously doubt would have introduced the doomed-to-fail Federal Marriage Amendment without backing from George Bush.

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4683

As the Constitution stands verbatim, you are right. The President has a very limited role. However, there are many more informal duties of the Prez today. Whether or not its a good thing, that's something we have to deal with.

 

[iman]

Re: Why vote for President? (No, not what you thi

Wii somebody please tell Bush & Cheney that they don't have any power.

 

[radical matt]

Re: Why vote for President? (No, not what you thi

You take a classical view of what American government should be. However, the American President has taken on a new job, unofficially, recently. That is the job of Chief Legislator.

While the President cannot official submit legislation to the Congress, he can get--and is expected to--like-minded legislators to support plans that he [or she] would like to enact. Case in point. Wayne Allard and Marilyn Musgrave I seriously doubt would have introduced the doomed-to-fail Federal Marriage Amendment without backing from George Bush.

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4683

As the Constitution stands verbatim, you are right. The President has a very limited role. However, there are many more informal duties of the Prez today. Whether or not its a good thing, that's something we have to deal with.

Hm. While I do realize that the President exerts power and direction, especially over his/her party, the President still doesn't have unlimited powers unless granted such by Congress standing by and letting it happen (I read an article about how Congress has let go of its power and position in the war by refusing to either form a formal declaration of war with Iraq or to deny the war by cutting funding and demanding the President recall the troops...even while saying that they "oppose the war". Congress may even have the power to pass a bill DEMANDING the President recall the troops. At the least, they could pass resolutions to that effect AND cut funding. Just passing non-binding resolutions doesn't cut it.)

Maybe I underestimate what the President can and should do. My perspective, though, is as I said above. Is that really so outdated? If it is, why do we even have a Congress? What's the point if all they are is a board of talking heads who bicker but then do what the President wants anyway? I mean, they sure as heck don't represent the public anymore, so if they aren't doing the whole Legislative then, why do we still have them? We could save a lot of money by not having to pay those paychecks anymore.

 

[PSCGuy]

Re: Why vote for President? (No, not what you thi

I don't think that the Constitution is outdated by any means. I think the President is too powerful, and I think that the Congress needs to reassert itself.

However, I think that the Congress needs to step up, not that the President needs to be neutered. [That's one of the reasons I support impeachment of President Bush and VP Cheney.]

 

[radical matt]

Re: Why vote for President? (No, not what you thi

That's rather an extreme form, eh? If they're going to step up, all they have to do is start saying, "NO, Mr. President." Impeachment, especially right now, is too polarizing and NOT what this nation needs.

That is one thing we need in a new President, someone that can heal. Though I don't think we've had one of those since...Reagan? Not really even him. Maybe JFK? Clinton wasn't really a healer, but he was good at getting people to calm down...until word got out about how HE was "calming down" himself...