|
I start every day by reading local, national and international news, weather, and then I come to DU and read the LBN and GD rooms. If I have time, I go over to Activism and Campaigns. I wanted to throw out an epiphany of sorts I had when analyzing a lot of the talk on DU.
A few days ago I was talking politics with a friend and business associate. She is very much conservative, hated Clinton, all that stuff. Her conservatism stems mostly from wanting lower taxes. She is jewish and not religious about it at all, and actually seriously resents the fundie christian influence in the GOP. She liked Bush a lot at first, thought he was a great governor here (Texas), but has since become disillusioned with him but does not think much of the Dem field either, although I have been trying to get her to take a look at Dean. She is very resistant to change or to forming new opinions though, so I am not holding my breath. Anyway, during our discussion, she said something that, to me, pointed at a big problem I see in politics in gerenal and is very much in evidence here. We had been discussing policy priorites for both Bush and a future Dem President, and discussing the stance of various contenders, when she said (roughly), "People need to realize that the President does not run the country alone. He has to go through Congress to make law, and he has to answer to the courts if he makes bad law. Most candidates say they can do things they cannot do alone, and most people accept it without looking at the reality."
I found this to be incredibly insightful. I see examples of this all the time. Putting aside for the moment that in some cases Congress has given Bush a blank check, look at where they have defied him. He has been unable to get all of his ultra right judges in place. He has been unable to make really serious impact on making abortion illegal(and by serious I mean making it illegal, or even having a bill to make it so even come up for a vote, the "partial-birth" ban notwithstanding). The Senate and Congress have joined in a bipartisan effort to repeal the FCC ruling on media ownership. The Supreme Court rules that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. You get the picture. I recognize that he has had his way a LOT more than he should, but a little perspective will show that h ahs not had it all his way.
The point is to illustarte that the President does not simply rule by fiat. There ARE checks and balances, even though these days the balances seems tipped. And moreover, the point is that a lot of what I hear from Dem candidates strikes me as pandering and empty promises.
A good example is that a couple of candidates have stated out right (I have listened to one of them use these words), "I will repeal the Patriot Act." This is cheered and hooted about here, but the fact is the President cannot repeal law. Period. He can sign a bill, after it passes through Congress, that repeals a law, but he cannot repeal a law without the cooperation of Congress.
Certain candidates are bashed a LOT around here (and I do not mean just Dean) for having too centrist or too moderate an approach, for being too accomodating to the GOP. Compromise is often seen as a dirty word on DU, it seems. However, everyone here should think about the fact that a President that gets into office and cannot compromise will not get any of his policy priorities passed into law. His own party will turn against him if he is seen as unwilling to work with everyone. We need someone who is a realist when the situation calls for it, and moreover we need someone who will tell the truth about what they are going to do and what they CAN do if they become President.
Next time you hear your candidate or any other talk about what they plan to do as President, ask yourself if they are talking about something they can actually do, or if they are just telling you what you want to hear.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
