Why do people hate the president?

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Personally, I don't hate him, I think he really believed what he was doing was the right thing, and trusted those that he was delegating authority to. However, All emotion aside, I think W deserves his abysmal job performance rating.

Believing in what you are doing is no excuse fro knowingly using tainted intelligence or stacking the justice department with yes men.

 

[Robor]

Worst president and administration ever.

 

[dullard]

The president's powers go far beyond the list you wrote, Cogman. You forgot a few of the most important things.

First and foremost, the president is also the true leader of his party. And the party usually follows their leader (especially with the unwritten pact that the republicans have had for quite a while). For six years, the president controlled the house by being the leader of the party in the majority. For six years, the president controlled the senate by being the leader of the party in majority. For nearly eight years, the president controlled the executive branch, by well, being the president. What that means is what the president wanted, he almost universally got.

Take NCLB for example. Bush campaigned hard in the 2000 elections based a lot upon NCLB. As soon as he took office, he got his fellow republicans to pass the NCLB bill that he wanted. Then he signed it into law. Yes, you could ignore his influence on congress, but you'd reach very incorrect conclusions.

The patriot act was similar. Bush wanted it, he got it. Many of the members of congress had only hours to read a massive bill spreading across many pages. Congress had no idea what they were voting on for the most part. Then Bush signed in into law.

Also, yes, the constitution gives budget authority to congress. But congress turned around and gave that authority to the President starting with the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Yes, the act has been altered many times, but the result is the same. Congress, BY LAW, gave the original budget proposal authority to the president. By law, Bush writes the budget. Then congress can make minor modifications before Bush signs it. But with Bush being the leader of congress, congress didn't make many modifications. So Bush pretty much had control of every step along the budget process. Just as a CEO of a company gets blamed for company financial problems, so does the president. Heck, he took credit for the housing boom, he should get blamed for the housing bust.


It would be slightly different if Democrats had the majority in the house and senate during most of his time. But still, Bush signed into law each and every one of those problem issues that you mentioned. He could have vetoed them. If congress overrode his veto, THEN you'd have a case about not blaming the president. However, that situation just didn't happen. Bush basically had a major say in writing and signing every law that passed.

 

[Moonbeam]

George Bush is what happens when a people elect their dick to run their nation. Everything gets fucked just as would be expected by everybody but the dicks who elected him.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Insomniator
People need someone to blame, and someone too complain about. The man 'in charge' is the scapegoat.

And to me this is the sad thing. The real people to blame have little to no risk of loosing their jobs. Congress has a lower approval rating then the president, and yet I can guarantee that 90% of them will be making a return this next election season. If we have a 9% approval rating, I would hope that 90% of congress would have just lost their careers in politics. Heck, I would settle for just 50% of them being removed from their seats this up coming election.

People blame Bush for those bills you mentioned because his administration was frequently the source and chief proponent of them. He is the person who takes the largest share of the responsibility.

As far as Congress goes, there are some good papers on Congress and how it operates. It appears that people don't dislike Congressmen for the most part (even ones that aren't theirs), they dislike the institution. There's an old saying that people who like sausage and law should never watch either one being made, and that's exactly it in this case. You also are acting as if Congress and the Executive are both still co-equal branches. They aren't. The Executive branch is VASTLY more powerful at this point, is far more able to get its priorities put into action than its legislative counterpart. (due to control of executive agencies which filter the information provided to Congress, a monolithic vs. fragmented structure, etc.) This is another reason why Bush should take the majority of the blame.

In short, Bush deserves more of the blame. Congress isn't so hot either, but "throwing the bums out" won't be anywhere close to the panacea that people think it would be. The things you don't like are most likely institutional factors that won't change. Throwing all the Congressmen out would only further weaken a Legislature that is absolutely essential to control an Executive branch that at this point is completely out of control.

 

[Zedtom]

This topic will be a recurring theme around here starting November 5th. The opponents of President Bush have had to endure his supporters wrath and have their loyalty to their country questioned.

If Obama is elected, the followers of Limbaugh and Hannity will go into a state of widespread panic and hate will be the kindest word for their opposition to the new administration.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Personally, I don't hate him, I think he really believed what he was doing was the right thing, and trusted those that he was delegating authority to. However, All emotion aside, I think W deserves his abysmal job performance rating.

Believing in what you are doing is no excuse fro knowingly using tainted intelligence or stacking the justice department with yes men.

I certainly didn't intended to imply I excused any such actions. And if you are implying I should hate him for it, well, I rarely do hate, it is an unproductive emotion IME.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Ok, so the president can propose a bill to congress, he can veto a law, and he can send us off to war. So why are people blaming him for things like NCLB, the current economy, the patriot act, ect? Is this just a way to shift the focus on the real people to blame? Mainly congress and the supreme court.

Its almost as if people say "If we have an awesome president then our country has no choice but to be awesome." Thats just not the case.

With media focus mainly on the president, it is no wonder that US citizens seem to give him all the credit/blame. But maybe, just maybe, if we focused on the real retards that got us into our current situation we might actually do better as a country. Maybe if we pay more attention to our local leaders, and our state representatives, rather then letting our minds take a 4 year vacation, we might just be able to shift the direction of this country.

My point is, Pay attention to your local leaders. Even if the president is the best person in the world, he can't do anything with a retarded congress.

Bush is getting blamed for NCLB because HIS administration proposed it, pushed it, and are responsible for implementing it. It was their decision that there be "100%" literacy by 2014, and the Bush Administration decided that, although this was a law that the states had to follow, the states had leeway to determine what their educational standards were, and purposefully were not funding the cost of testing (an example of unfunded mandates that conservatives liked to rail against).

Similar thing with the Patriot Act. He and his administration claimed that it was a necessity to catch terrorists, and that anyone who dared question the urgency or compromise it in any way, shape or form must be unpatriotic. They basically ramrodded it thru Congress, and not surprisingly there have been some confusion as well as abuses (ie FBI seeking library records and excessively using national security letters).

I do agree with you about the economy; Presidents have little control over that area insofar as direct control, although massive deregulation or muted prosecution of lawbreaking paved the way for the S&L scandal during Bush Sr.'s presidency.

I don't see how Congress and the Judiciary are *that* culpable. President Bush used the patriotism and national security schtick in order to get his way with the Patriot Act, Iraq War etc. He has no one but himself to blame for having such distain for separation of powers, and consultation / bargaining with Congress. His administration foolishly believed that they could do things alone and wanted to do things their way, but are now crying because it all went sour, even though any reasonable person could see a train wreck without any criticism or willingness to adapt.

And as a sidenote, while the President has less power on domestic issues, the President has had a rather free hand on foreign policy. He was able to get Congress's authorization for war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, military commissions...all were passed by Congress. Until things went sour in Iraq and now Afghanistan, Bush and Republicans could label dissenters as unpatriotic, or wrong....The sad thing is that a little consultation and collaboration would've gone a long way, as the Supreme Court indicated in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in deciding that military commissions were invalid without congressional authorization.