Why is there so much focus on the Presidential election when the Congress makes it SO difficult for the President to get anything accomplished?
Don't you think we need to focus on and be more careful who we elect as our LOCAL and STATE leaders? Aren't these the people who eventually end up in Washington?
Aren't most issues best resolved at the "grass roots" level?
Might we also make sure our children receive the best of education so our "future leaders" have a leg up?
The person at the top is not a dictator in a democracy, right?
2007-12-31 07:27:56 · 10 answers · asked by mr.richie 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
By the same token, how much can Congress accomplish when the President is so uncooperative?
Obama in '08.
2007-12-31 07:36:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
In President Bush's case, he continues to win his battles. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid caved in to his demands for funding the war, right? I mean, that's a good thing, in my opinion. But it shows that President Bush has the courage of his convictions, while Pelosi and Reid are afraid to stand up for what they say they believe.
Happy New Year!
2007-12-31 15:48:35 · answer #2 · answered by Rick K 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Executive Orders circumvent the entire Legislative process.
2007-12-31 15:40:06 · answer #3 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's because we symbolize the nation with the president. He's the one in the national eye, and he's the final say on what congress does. It's because of the fact that we can say "he leads the country" that it's considered so big. Not that they have, or should have a lot of power, but they are the symbol of leadership. That's the best I've got.
2007-12-31 15:34:11 · answer #4 · answered by Cam's Computers 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Very little, yet Bush has been much more successful in getting his agenda accomplished dispite this uncooperative congress. As an example, I point to the SCHIP and CHIP bills. Congress, twice, tried to get nationalized healthcare started with their SCHIP bills, which Bush told them months before they wasted all that time and money getting it together to send it to the White House that he would veto them---and he did. He was then accused of not caring about the nation's children. When congress finally stopped stalling and sent him the recent CHIP bill, which funds the current healthcare program for poor kids, Bush signed it funding the program until 2009. That could have been done months ago if congress didn't keep trying to sneak nationalized healthcare into law. But we haven't heard a word from the libbies retracting their accusations of Bush, have we?
2007-12-31 15:33:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Or is the person at the top a self-proclaimed dictator who has done plenty of his own agenda without consent of the Congress, or American People. The neo con reps are much better at name calling than the libs, but the script is generally available TV, what to THINK what to SAY, what to CONSUME...which god to believe in
2007-12-31 15:33:24 · answer #6 · answered by not my bith nith 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Congress is only uncooperative when the other party controls Congress.
2007-12-31 15:32:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well if you are President Bush you can get quite a bit accomplished apparently. Not bad for a guy the libs call a lame duck, the biggest failure,and dumbest president. Doesn't say much for libs does it?
2007-12-31 15:31:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not much, just look at what all FDR had to do prior to WWII, to get America to support the allies, because Congress was full of islationists and closet Nazis.
2007-12-31 15:31:28 · answer #9 · answered by S P 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Let me call Mr. President and ask, because it probably happens to him all the time.
2007-12-31 15:30:59 · answer #10 · answered by Armina's Mommy 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋