Because it’s fun. Especially if you’re at someone elses house and they get to clean up said shitted pants.
I would prefer that the present not get totally drunk. Someone who equates drunk with fun is not my first choice for Pres, even if they promised not to drink. (Of course, this is way down the list of priorities for who I’d vote for.)
However, if it is a limited-occasion kind of thing the way the OP describes, I would be inclined to say OK, provided that the necessary people know to get a hold of the VP or another appropriate substitute should WWIII start. It’s a little like Presidential vacations - the guy needs a break and deserves it, provided that people are in place to keep the country running.
Yes, but by that logic you might as well say: “No more going outside when it’s raining, the President could get struck by lightning!”
I think Vlad and Barry could get a lot done if they could bond over beers and vodka in their respective hometowns. Hell, more power all around if they could get Un to play with them–doing whatever they think might be fun (although Un would take endless shit for not having a functional nuke or delivery system).
But seriously. 0.15 BAC wouldn’t be too bad. Some lower inhibitions might facilitate honest unguarded discussion and address some mutual mistrust twixt him and his opposition. 0.25 or more might not be a good idea unless he’s living it up in the French Quarter scoffing mudbugs and Pabst after a productive FEMA conference.
And maybe that’s the answer: A president who can work past an obstructionist oppostion and visibly improve things at home and abroad, bringing the troops back home, making actual progress on repairing infrastructure, etc. That guy can do pretty much what he wants within reason because, hey, he flogs the players into the same game and makes good things happen. Upright and uptight pres who gets nothing done is more worthy of scorn.
I would hope that there are enough safeguards in place to allow the President to get drunk. Otherwise we’d be in deep trouble if he were to suddenly get sick, or multiple emergencies come up at once, etc.
Not sure if serious. :dubious: 
After my angioplasty I was told two weeks, but I made seven days before deciding fuckit.
Maybe if he and Joe have a barbecue out at Camp David and have a couple of cold ones, and get buzzed, make some prank calls to the GOP HQ. That’d be pretty cool.
Seriously, I don’t see what’s wrong with the guy having a few drinks now and then. MOL’s right – sometimes I think this board is the HQ for the new WTCU.
Johnson and Nixon demonstrated why Presidents should not perform their duties while shitfaced.
Thank you.
Some of us can drink a reasonable amount and still function quite well. I’d never drive or operate a backhoe, but an amount of alcohol to make one legally intoxicated isn’t really that much.
And like George Carlin used to say: “legally drunk? If it’s legal, what the hell is the problem?”
Sure they made some awful choices, but do we know if they made any of those while drunk?
Anyway, I answered yes, but that was before I read that the Ghost of POTUS Past was not up for discussion. I think any president up to the time of Lincoln could be a drunk, because the US President was not powerful enough, nor did events and news pass quickly enough, for it to have made a big difference.
It should be a requirement.
This is what it is. I mean, there have been many Presidents known to be hard drinkers, and at least one (Grant) known to be a full-blown alcoholic, but that was in the era before modern news and the internet.
After the 9/11 attacks occurred, an entire (enormously successful) documentary film used as its launching point the fact that George W. Bush, who was visiting an elementary school or something when the news came, sat indecisive for six or seven minutes. What if the attack had happened at 11:00PM and he was three sheets to the wind?!
There just isn’t room for that powerful - and that heavily scrutinized - a man to be incapacitated at any moment.
See, I’d have to be shitfaced to even consider running a backhoe.
I dare say he would have acted more quickly.
But what exactly did the president do or not do on 9/11 that was so important? Seems like he could have went golfing that day and history would be no different. I’m not sure this is the best example of why the president can’t get drunk, ever, in case X happens.
Not to hijack this thread, but this is one of my peeves.
Nothing significant would be different if Bush had done, er, something other than what he did in the minutes/hours while that all went down.
But being POTUS isn’t a job where you get “off hours”, so this doesn’t really fit. I mean… he lives at the office, for heaven’s sake! 
Anyway, to answer the question, no, it’s not OK for the POTUS to get drunk.
After all, if you can’t go 8 years without having a drink, you obviously have a problem. 
This.
And if that’s the standard you go by for having a drinking problem, you may as well say if you drink at all at any point in your life, you have a “problem”.
If the prerogative to get drunk is important to you, consider another job besides president.
It’s not that huge a sacrifice, is it? If someone said “you can’t eat pizza for eight years,” would you be able to do it?