I'm talking good and bad. The checks and balances system ensures that our president does NOT have as much control over issues as we pretend he does. Does the president get blamed for everything in this country, good and bad? Is that fair, or is that just his role as president?
2007-05-06 21:57:02 · 6 answers · asked by lindsaylou 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It's easier to blame one face than 535 faces (Congress). People blame him for things that he doesn't legally and can't constitutionally control. He also gets credit for things that one single person could never control.
2007-05-06 22:05:34 · answer #1 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Presidents are the face of policy and ultimately the leaders of the country. While it is true that they bear the brunt of the blame for all things good and bad, this is indeed part of their role in office. Presidents are quick to accept accolades for favorable deeds, even when it is not a result of direct action on their part, so they must also be ready to accept the burden for unfavorable deeds. Personally I don't have a problem with honest criticism of the President, but I do have issues with the terrorist, Nazi and fascist labels which get tossed around because this is not honest criticism.
2007-05-06 22:19:10 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The president is pretty much the spokesperson for our government. When things go wrong, he's sent out to talk to the public and smooth things over. True, the president doesn't make ALL the decision, but because he's the main figure of our government, he gets all the credit (good and bad).
2007-05-06 22:07:19 · answer #3 · answered by fcontreras98 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Presidents have less effect on the economy and domestic policy than people think, because of market forces and constrains placed on him by interest groups. But they have great freedom in foreign policy, more than people think or at least thought until the last several years. From WWI until the end of the cold war there was little disagreement on the overall policy of containment, only the details caused controversy, so it was easy to believe the president was constrained. Bush's policies in the war on terror and of preemptive war had a lot of opposition by people in and out of government who were in fundamental disagreement, but were unable to prevent him from going forward.
2007-05-06 22:43:48 · answer #4 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pelosi has the power and the will to cut him off, but she's going to bug out in the end for political reasons. Checks and balances don't work when no ones 'brave' enough to check his az.
Even if he vetoes it again, he can veto it until the army has to canabilize itself.
2007-05-06 22:03:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is just another pawn in a long line of pawns. Those checks and balances were subverted long ago.
Good luck ;P
2007-05-06 22:06:23 · answer #6 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋