The older I get, the less I really care about who’s in the White House (yes, yes, I do vote, like a good American).
I mean, we got through Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton—and how many of the major things that occured had to do with THEM? Don’t the Senate, the Congress, foreign powers, and cabinet members have as much—or more—to do with day-to-day functionings of the country, the economy, etc., than the Prez himself?
Has the presidency devolved into a figurehead, like in England?
The legislature can create all the laws it wants, but one litle veto can screw the whole thing up. 2/3 is a lot of votes to come up with to override.
Add to that the power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, as well as other high ranking officials (e.g. attorney general, not to mention the surgeon general 
) and you’ve got significantly more power than, say, Queen Lizzie.
Then you have foreign policy and diplomacy (e.g. resuming diplomatic relations with Thailand, lifting the trade embargo with China, negotiating with OPEC members to lower the rates), and you have a pretty powerful dude.
And let me finally add that people who cross him aren’t banned from boards, they mysteriously commit suicide…
Lisa, doing my part to add to the paranoia around here.
From the ultimate source document on the powers of the presidency, the Constitution, Article II
In addition to these enumerated powers, the President has the power to set policy for the various departments of the executive through executive order. And of course the Presidency is the “bully pulpit,” carrying as it does enormous power of popular appeal (even if the man is not respected, the office is). This is by no means an exhaustive list.
The President has the power you would expect of him.
He appoints people to run the country’s executive departments, then consults regularly with them and with people in whom he has trust (security advisors, legal counsel, chief of staff, etc.). One of the main things you should think about when voting for a presidential candidate is: who is he gonna bring into Washington with him?
He can veto legislation, subject to overrides. This gives him a power that can be used sparingly (some presidents almost never use a veto) or with regular frequency. I always ask myself: does this candidate think of himself as a constitutional gatewarden, or does he see him/herself as protecting us from the evils of the rival party?
He appoints judges. Boy, if you have EVER had to deal with the range of wackos that inhabit the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals out west, you understand JUST how important this can be (screw the USSC, they change slowly and only hear a very few cases each year; it’s the district and circuit judges that make the difference!).
He conducts our foreign policy. This is his most important independant function; his only limitation here is treaty ratification by the Senate. Let’s face it, a good President (like, for instance Nixon) can do quite a few nice things for us and the world; a President who doesn’t understand foreign policy can really cost us a bundle. Sometimes, it’s hard to say whether we got good or bad out of a President (e.g. Carter, who both screwed up re:Iran and did great things with Sadat and Begin). Ask yourself this about a candidate: what rôle does he or she see the U.S. as having in this current climate where bi-polarism is dead and no good substitute has yet been found?
When a candidate tells you that he intends to ‘fix Social Security’ or ‘lower taxes’, you should ignore him if he is running for President. While he certainly has some pull legislatively, he can’t pass legislation; only the guys up on the Hill do that.
Eve, it’s not the size of the office, it’s how you use it.
A effective president fully utilizes the powers of the office and works around the limitations of it. An ineffective president gets bogged down in the limitations of the office and is unable to utilize the powers of it. In both cases though, the powers and limitations are the same. Ideology has surprisingly little to do with it; presidents as diverse as Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, LBJ, Nixon, and the Roosevelts have all been masters at “working” the presidency.
Oh, great. Here I was, happily and cynically not giving a damn about who gets into office, and now you guys have me all worried and depressed again . . .
I liked it better when I thought it didn’t matter!
Look at the bright side Eve. Regardless of whether it’s Shrub or Tom Servo, our next president will have one important virtue: he won’t be Pat Buchanon.
The President does not have much power over the economy and ironically, the state of the economy has a lot to do with who gets elected. If the economy is going good, the President takes the credit, even though he actually didn’t have much to do with it, and if the economy is going bad, the President takes the blame, even though he actually didn’t have much to do with it. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has a lot more control over the economy than the Prez does, but you never hear the President bragging about that.
In addition to the lack of real power, the office of President has become management by committee. Reagan had big ideas and was a driving force, but the day-to-day activities were handled by aides and cabinet members. This is true of Bush and Clinton, and will almost certianly be true of Bush or Gore. They will do primarily what their party tells them to do, so basically you are electing either the Republican or the Democratic party to run the country.
This would not have been so true had Bradley and McCain been nominated, but as long as the two-party system remains strong a candidate will need the support of one or the other to get into office, and will only get that support by agreeing with the party platform.
If the president, is deceptive man and congress lacks any spine he can wield a great deal of power. Sound like what we had here. When the supreme court ruled against Lincoln, he claimed powers he didn’t have and dismissed the court. Now Cliton using presidental orders has made three land grabs covering milions of acres, using those same orders he has station permenet troops oversea, what happend to the one year promised went they went over. One order declared that in a national emerency FEMA will have authority to take all private property and transportation. Now using lawsuits he is getting gun control that he couldn’t get throught congress. He is getting away with all of this because we have a gutless congress.
ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM EST
And of course there’s the decline of our public education system.
I’ll take issue on the “you vote the party in” argument. Clinton, for example, has made some sharp turns away from the democratic party.
Take tobacco farmers, for instance. Farmers usually vote for democrats because they favor subsidies and government furlough programs. However, Clinton has sued the tobacco industry, which will eventually cripple the tobacco farmers. I daresay there are several democratic congressmen who are doing anything they can to distance themselves from Clinton.
Clinton is a pretty moderate liberal, to say the least. Remember, he also argued for the line item veto, which was a republican supported proposition.
Lisa, as I said I believe that the recent presidents do “primarily what their party tells them to do.” There are some exceptions, and I believe you cited excellent examples. However, I still feel that with Gore v. Bush we are moving even farther towards electing the party.