If the next POTUS raises taxes, sexes up the interns, and calls all Americans fat, ugly, and stupid, do they get a pass because hey, at least they didn’t start an unpopular war in the middle east? And if their Supreme Court noms aren’t passing muster, hey you wouldn’t want us to start a war in Iran, would you?
Why would you think that? Americans may be stupid, but not that stupid. Some of us actually don’t spend all day hating Bush with every ounce of our being.
Because once the precedent for bad presidents has been set, the next president will seem saintly in comparison. It’s like when stage performers want to follow a mediocre opening act, but not follow a dazzlingly great act.
Ah, yes, the Jerry Ford Effect.
I’m sure the next POTUS can do no wrong in the eyes of some observers, perhaps the majority here on the SDMB, but I doubt he’ll get huge leeway from Americans as a whole.
Not in my eyes. Is it that way in yours? Are you going to give the next president carte blanche as long as he or she doesn’t start any wars you don’t approve of?
The next president has carte blanche to spend what ever they want on what ever programs they want. With the experience of spending 500 billion dollars (and counting) on military adventurism and nation building in Iraq, never again will I pay any attention to partisan bleating about “We can’t afford it!”
I certainly hope not. I’d like to have a good president, not a mediocre president that only looks good because he’s following a horrible president.
I think the opposite actually, that the next POTUS is in for a rough ride. Just look at the new Congress came in this year. They were deemed a failure almost immediately for not somehow magically fixing everything that was screwed up in the previous several years.
The next President is going to have some tough and unpopular choices to make regarding Iraq and taxes to name just two.
The next President will have about as much carte blanche as the Democratic Congress had in 2007.
What jk1245 said.
Actually, they were deemed a failure mainly because they didn’t end the war-- or rather they didn’t change anything about the way the war is being executed despite promising that they would. Not one thing. Now, I’m not naive, and I don’t expect politicians to actually deliver on all of their promises, but that was a pretty big one, and they wouldn’t have been elected if they hadn’t promised what they did.
You can say that it’s the Republican’s fault because they blocked legislation, but when you’re in the majority, you’re expected to get shit done. And in order to do that you have to learn to work with the opposition party. Maybe the Republicans are harder to work with than the Democrats are when in the minority, but tough shit. I want to see the job get done, not hear someone moan about how the other side is s a bunch of meanies.
To be fair, even when they were able to pass legislation, Bush vetoed it. And those blaming the Dems know that, that’s why I don’t pay much attention to those who decry inaction by the new Democratic congress. It is all partisan sniping, and everybody, on both sides, knows it.
What important piece of legislation on the Iraq War was passed and vetoed by Bush?
And how did they fare on their “Contract with America” pledges (whatever it was they called it)? Seems to me all they got passed was the min wage thing, and the only reason they got the opportunity to do was because they blocked Republican efforts in the previous session. Supposedly they didn’t like the business tax cuts the Pubbies lumped in with it. But guess what-- they had to put tax cuts for business in their min wage legislation to get it passed last year.
I was not referring only to Iraq specific vetoes; were you?
Yes.
Maybe a related question: If Bush isn’t impeached, will future Presidents feel less inclined to follow the rules? Because if the stuff he did doesn’t warrant impeachment, what does?
I don’t want him impeached, even if it would happen so close to the end of his term that we’d only have President Cheney (Wow. Did anybody else get a chill just now?) for a few months.
I want him turned over to the Hague. No time limit on getting that done (although I DO want it done as quckly as possible).
I think they will. Just as the Nixon pardon did, in my opinion. We’ve made it pretty clear that a President break any law, commit any evil as he likes and not be held accountable. As long as he’s a Republican.
As for the OP, it depends if he’s a Republican or Democrat. Republicans can do anything they like; Democrats are held to a much higher standard.
If Hillary becomes president, at least she won’t be “impeached for getting a blow job”. And I’m not going to explore other possibilities…