Did the presidency become powerless since the primaries?

[Enrique]

I recall many many debates about the president's plans for health care and other issues.

They all got on TV and argued their points and the news people asked them questions about it and we all discussed it passionately here at DU.

I don't remember hearing ANYONE saying the president's plans don't matter because all he can legally do is sign the bill.

So now I'm wondering, did I miss some change to the constitution since the election, so that the president mattered greatly during the election and is mostly irrelevant now.

[ProSense]

1. Did I miss something?

"the president's plans don't matter because all he can legally do is sign the bill."

Who is saying that?

[Enrique]

4. all the "what can Obama do?" threads n/t

[ProSense]

5. Disagree

Obama can do a lot, but he can't do the impossible.

[ljm2002]

10. And all the information we have...

...indicates that he pressured the more progressive Senators to give in to Lieberman, et al, while never pressuring the more conservative Senators to compromise their positions at all.

Didn't hear about any conservative Congressional members being told to shape up or lose $$ for their districts, and $$ and support from the national organization, did we? Not once. But we did hear about progressive members being strongarmed.

So while it's true that he is not the one drafting and voting on the legislation, it is so very, very not true that he does not have a hand in how it goes down.

Frankly I am not sure what is the right thing to do with this bill. It reeks to high heaven, I know that. But losing it could be a body blow to the administration which would be a gift to the Republicans at a time when they were weakened and on the ropes. But then again, the mandate without a public option or lowered age for Medicare buy-in, the delayed benefits while the new taxes are not delayed, the weakening of so-called "Cadillac plans" by taxing them out of existence -- these will all be gifts to the Republicans anyway. Which all just reinforces the perception that this is all a big fat game of Kabuki theater, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't BS that does little to alleviate the real problems faced by most of us. It does not sit well, it really doesn't. And Obama's hand is right there in the middle of it. Whether it's because he is green, or a natural conciliator, or an appeaser, or a sellout, or actually a savvy realist, who knows. All I know is it reeks.

[brentspeak]

14. He can make secret deals with Big Pharma, that we know

And lobby to give Wall St. banks a trillion tax payer dollars.

[timeforpeace]

11. Touche'!

[MadBadger]

2. I dont think the Constitution says anything about the relevancy of the President...

during an election and then during the presidency...though it does say that he doesnt make the laws, just signs them.

But I'm no political Science major, so what do I know?

[rocktivity]

3. Bushf was just as "irrelevant"

He was just more "co-operative" when it came to obeying his corporate masters.

But now that the American people know who their real welfare queens are, maybe we can get some change.


rocktivity

[QC]

6. I have actually seen posts here claiming that if Obama were to lobby the Congress,

it would violate the separation of powers doctrine!

Ironically, the person who made that her constant talking point for quite some time never tires of telling us all how expensive and exclusive her college is.

[showpan]

7. The presidency matters little

since they all just read carefully written scripts crafted by their corporate masters. The presidency is just a P&R tool used by the elite to satisfy the masses. Only those chosen by them are allowed to continue through the primaries. It has been this way for many decades now.

[davidwparker]

8. Not quite. It begins at the beginning of the process. People in the party

upfront decide who can't get elected before the first caucus vote is cast. This makes other people give up party platform beliefs and avoid those deemed "unelectable," just because it the best chance to win -- supposedly.

After the candidate is chosen and if he (right now) win, then everybody complains about the system.

So, start pointing fingers not at the corporate masters, but first at the people who don't vote their consciences in the first place.

Like me, when it comes time for the 2012 election.

[Jennicut]

9. Since the primaries? Try for the last 40 or 50 years. Some Presidents just used better bribes and

threats. Cheney threatened, LBJ did both. It all used to be even less up front, the wheeling and dealing between Presidents and Congress. At least we know what goes on slightly better now. Obama may be slightly naive and inexperienced but even he is starting to understand that to work with Congress you have to use carrots and sticks.

[johnaries]

12. Actually, it's a return to the Constitution.

It's a rejection of the dictatorial "Unitary Executive" of the Bush era and a return to the balance of powers provided by the Constitution.

We now have a President, not a Dictator.

Or, maybe I should say, "Dick tater".

[freddie mertz]

13. No. It's just a weak argument put forward by some people. nt.