Perhaps There Will Be A Lasting Dubya Legacy

[Superman]

Dubya has raised a very fundamental set of questions about public policy making in the United States of America. The broadest and most fundamental form of these questions is:

"Should a United States President substitute his personal judgement for that of the American People?" When a President knows, or most certainly should know, the will of the American people, does he have a duty to respect their decision. America send Dubya a very clear message last November. And he's vowing to veto any bills that reflect their preference and decision.

An ancillary question also raised is this:

"Should the President even have the ability and authority to act in defiance of the American people."

Dubya may have a lasting effect on the balance of power between the White House and Congress. He is illustrating what happens when the White House stops listening to anybody and everybody, and uses its authority to thwart Congress and the voters.

My favorite is the first question. How appropriate is it for a President to substitute his personal judgement for that of the American people? If anybody responds to this question in the affirmative, I would like that person to also declare whether they consider themselves to be supportive of the "democracy" form of government or opposed to it.

[Moneyguy1]

One elected to the position has some responsibility to "see" things the average citizen cannot. The personal judgement aspect is part of the decision making process, but should never replace a sense of what is possible and rational. When one replaces consensus with personal desire, one ceases to be a servant of the people and is on the path to dictatorship. The founding fathers were wise enough to forsee the possibility and limited the time one can remain in office without a general election.

Supe, I do not believe that in all cases the majority is correct in its perceptions, but I do feel that the public should be at least listened to during the decision making process. To ignore the citizens reduces the effectiveness of a republic.

It is intersting that this administration is doing things not unlike previous second-termers; feeling that since they are not up for re-election and they can embark on more risky endeavours.

[Joeaksa]

First off, the President is elected by the American people and they place a certain amount of trust in his judgement. If they are not ready to place this trust in the President then they need to elect a different person.

Secondly, the President and his inner staff will ALWAYS know more about almost any situation than the public, thus will be able and in a better position to make the correct decision. The public do not have the intelligence information that the upper levels of the govt have, so they cannot make an educated decision.

Your comments above are based on what happens when ONE person listens to their own mind and biased information, then tries to make it look like everyone feels the same way, which they do not.

If you really want the answer to what its like to live in a country that is not a democracy, pls move to one of the various countries around the world ruled in this manner.

Declare? I declare that you and your buddies are a broken record. Almost every time you, Techie or Off Ramp post a thread, its on the same subject. The comments and answers are always the same, yet you guys keep trying to stir the brown material.

[Moneyguy1]

If one places absolute trust in one person as a leader.........

History is replete with examples of how great that turns out. That is why we have "checks and balances".

[wludavid]

This question first occurred to me as I watched the impeachment proceedings for Clinton. The public was overwhelmingly against impeachment, and I didn't really understand why Congress was going forward.

On one hand, this is a representative republic, not a true democracy. Polls matter only one day a year when we choose our reps, not whenever Newsweek decides to call 94 people during dinnertime (or whatever). The strength of a republic (IMO) is based on the idea that our leaders will not bend to the will of every opinion poll.

OTOH, our leaders should feel morally bound to represent and lead ALL of their constituents no matter how they voted. Which means using polls as a significant part of their decision-making process.

IMO, it's necessary for our Pres and our Reps to have a more-or-less unhindered ability to use their own judgment, even in the face of opposing poll results. Ideally, those leaders will take into account the opinions of those who disagree.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The way our system is set up:

A first-term president will do nothing other than try to ensure his reelection, through whatever positions/actions necessary.

A second-term president will do nothing other than try to ensure his legacy and the future success of his party, through whatever positions/actions necessary.

Note that the words "best interest of the public" appear NOWHERE above.

[teenerted1]

iraq=911iraq=911iraq=911iraq=911iraq=911iraq=911ir aq=911

enough of a broken record for you?

if the idiot in the front office actually read the correct intel. correctly we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by teenerted1
iraq=911iraq=911iraq=911iraq=911iraq=911iraq=911ir aq=911

enough of a broken record for you?

if the idiot in the front office actually read the correct intel. correctly we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Glad that you read the same intel that the people in the White House and Pentagon do on a daily basis.

Please tell us everything you know about it?

Joe

PS, really agree with this.... I don't have an attitude problem, your just an *********."

[teenerted1]

Originally posted by Joeaksa


PS, really agree with this.... I don't have an attitude problem, your just an *********."

just a fun bumper sticker i saw the other day. seems to be quite appropriate for this board, most of the time.

people here take things to seriously sometimes, have you seen what the spell checker does to your name on here.



no i don't get the same Intel the pres. gets but is sure seems like if they actually got it right the first time they would have found that
Iraq didn't=911. but they sure played that record enough.

[RoninLB]

The President answers to the people. Congress answers to the people. The people vote them in and they vote them out. Voters get what they deserve by their own hand.

The Judiciary doesn't get voted in or out. Guess who can shape policy without regards to anything but there self anointed supremacy? Guess where radical groups gravitate to when the Legislature fails to make laws to suit them?


and afa Bush conspiracies against America in a country where 60% of the population believe in UFOs, go figure.

[Superman]

Yeah, I'd sound frustrated too, Joe, if I felt compelled to defend the current administration.

I understand that those people have better information than we do. Much better.

I also understand that, occasionally, a President must make a decision that many, if not most, voters will find curious. So yes, I think sometimes it is appropriate for a President to make a decision that is surprising and not necessarily supported by the majority.

But that's not what's happening here, now is it?

[kach22i]

We started this country by dumping one King George, we can do it again.

[Jeff Higgins]

This country has been lacking true leadership for at least my lifetime; actually, I suspect much longer than that. Our last two examples of "leadership" have gone from one extreme to the next. Bubba wouldn't wipe his own ass without first holding a finger up to see which way the wind blew. Dubya not only does not notice the wind, he could give a ***** if anyone is downwind.

There is a balance between public opinion and their own opinion that we expect our leaders to strike. Granted, no matter what that balance is for any given leader, some one will b!tch. I think our current example has started to cross the line between sticking to his guns and showing "great resolve", and bull-headed stubborness / party politics. He needs to work with the new kids on the block and dump the party-driven divisiveness. I find myself getting more and more fed up with party politics as opposed to United States politics, and my frustration is fueled from both sides of the aisle.

[Jim727]

What Jeff said + 1 ...except I think Eisenhower could be classed as a quality leader, probably because he didn't choose politics as a career. As far as I'm concerned, the current crop of career politicians are jackals. Anything to serve their party/dogma/position regardless of the cost to the country.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Superman
Yeah, I'd sound frustrated too, Joe, if I felt compelled to defend the current administration.

I understand that those people have better information than we do. Much better.

I also understand that, occasionally, a President must make a decision that many, if not most, voters will find curious. So yes, I think sometimes it is appropriate for a President to make a decision that is surprising and not necessarily supported by the majority.

But that's not what's happening here, now is it?

Supe,

Thanks but not frustrated one bit. Not defending anyone or any entity, just happen to feel strongly that the general public usually has no idea what the real story is in most cases.

You libs seem to know everything, so what is going on here. Personally I feel that the conservatives have got you guys in-between a rock and a hard place now.

You keep threatening to stop the war in Iraq, something that you promised not to do before the elections, but we all know that they were lying just to get voted into power. Now you realize that if you really do it by stopping the flow of money that you will sacrifice some of our military, and they do not deserve that. This will be fun now that the Dems neck is on the chopping block.

[Flatbutt1]

every time I hear an elected official say that"they voted their conscience" I want to b1tch slap them. Their vote is supposed to be dictated by their constituency not their conscience.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Now you realize that if you really do it by stopping the flow of money that you will sacrifice some of our military, and they do not deserve that.

That is bull****. If Congress votes to deny funding to Dubya's plan and if Dubya then brings the troops home, then the troops are protected and the American people's chief executive has executed their clear decision. In that scenario, the only thing abandoned is Dubya's foolish and unpopular personal agenda. If Congress denies funding and Dubya leaves them there to starve, then who has failed the troops? Twice.

I don't believe you when you seem exasperated but deny feeling frustration. BS. And I'll take it one step further. You are part of the gubmit military stuff. OF COURSE you would prefer that the taxpayer continue to throw money at your function by the hundreds of billions of dollars. Conservative? Certainly, to the degree that "conservative" and "greedy" are synonyms, as they often appear to be. Conservative legislators, of course, love military. That's where they get to throw the largest piles of money into the hands of corporations.

As long as Dubya continues to draw a line in the sand and state clearly that he plans to ignore the will of the American people and continue to send our young people to their deaths and life-changing injuries so he can give their childrens' tax monies to Haliburton in an obvious and long term foreign policy FAILURE........as long as he holds the line on that crap, I hope Congress turns up the heat until he and his "party" are fully cooked.

[on-ramp]

don't even get me started on this topic.

[Superman]

On what topic?

[on-ramp]

On the topic of this thread.