Obama: “They talk about me like a dog.”
???
I’ll jump on that as soon as finish finding a cite that the sky is blue.
If by “govern,” you mean “24/7 hearings, investigations, and impeachment proceedings involving HCR, the President’s place of birth, and his ties with Tony Rezko,” then yes, I suppose they will. 
ETA: And since the President is of the opposing party, why CAN’T they heartily satisfy at least their own constituents by just spending all their time opposing whatever the President wants to do?
Oh, there’s all kinds of people talking about it. But most news stories about the anti-incumbent mood are saying how such-and-such incumbent managed to win despite the overwhelming anti-incumbent mood.
There is that risk…
Congress is where laws are passed. I never got this business about the President “wanting” to do shit. He’s the executive branch. He’s suppose to execute the laws that Congress passes.
So who sets the agenda, if not the head of government who also has veto power?
The president is not the “head of government”. He’s the head of the executive branch. I expect Congressional leaders to set their agenda.
“Head of government” and “head of the executive branch” are the same thing. The president is also head of state, which is a different thing.
No, it’s not. That makes as much sense as saying the VP is in charge of the US Senate.
Yes, his is, and yes, it is.
Don’t bother. 98.5% of incumbents have been renominated in the primaries, indicating voters only want to throw out incumbents that are not in their own party. Big surprise.
Primaries are the realm of party faithfuls. The general electorate is another matter. Remember, those incumbents have to win against the challenger in November. Most incumbents are Democrats. Do the math.
From the Washington Post as far back as April.
[quote=]
Poll finds Americans in an anti-incumbent mood as midterm elections near
Members of Congress face the most anti-incumbent electorate since 1994, with less than a third of all voters saying they are inclined to support their representatives in November…
[/quote]
No, John, BrainGlutton is right. Obama is the head of state and the head of government. One person occupies both roles in the United States. He’s also the commander in chief of the military and the gentleman who pardons the turkey on Thanksgiving. We have a fairly powerful president, as these things go.
Can you give me a cite, preferably from the Constitution, that the president is the “head of the government”? A SCOTUS decision would do, as well.
Head of state is ceremonial. Perhaps in a parliamentary system the Prime Minister is the head of government, but we have 3 co-equal branches of government, and none of the branches is the head.
And you guys laughed at Sarah Palin when she said the VP ran the Senate…
I remember in the Encyclopedia Americana, every country article has a standard entry for “Head of State” and another for “Head of Government,” and if you look up the UK the Head of State is the queen and the Head of Government is the PM, but in the U.S. article, the president is given under both headings. You will find the same for any country that uses a presidential system. Whether in a presidential or a parliamentary system, the chief executive is the head of government. That’s accepted international usage.
As for the American system, the 3 branches are independent but not co-equal; the executive branch always overshadows the others, because it has so much more to do, and because it is the EB that represents the government as such, both to Americans and to foreigners.
Well, I agree that they aren’t actually co-equal, although theoretically they are supposed to be. But it’s an apple and oranges and bananas comparison, because they have different powers. The SCOTUS gets to tell us what laws actually mean. Presidents can make sweeping executive orders, but Congress can remove the president.
At any rate, let’s get out of this linguistic argument and back to the issue that was at hand: ie, that the President is supposed to tell the Congress what to do. He can certainly try to do that, but that’s not the way the system is set up. The President doesn’t “set the agenda” for Congress, although he certainly has some important input. The House and Senate leadership sets the agenda. And if the opposition party is running things in Congress, they can tell the president to go take a hike. If he wants to call himself the head of government, bully for him. He doesn’t have the authority of a Prime Minister.
Nate Silver’s 538 says:
Getting back the idea that the president should set the agenda for Congress, I assume anyone putting forth idea would be upset if the Democratically controlled Congress in '07 and '08 did not take direction from Bush on what their agenda should be. Right?
The Democratic base at this point is good mostly for votes and maybe some outrage. The Republican base has those capabilities, plus some the Dems don’t have and don’t want: a fierce group discipline (although the groups themselves are multiplying, each is strongly follower-oriented) and the kind of personal, grudge-fuck hate that can only come from a worldview centered on Me, My Money, and My Morality.
Plus they lack critical thinking skills and will do what they are told, even when it is against their own self interest.
Obama is, however, starting to whoop up the base, and the other dems are following his lead.
I rather thought they did, looking back.