posted                   

quote:

---

EDIT: Also, keep in mind that the president has virtually no control over domestic policy. He can just veto and "propose" bills and budgets which congress can then dump on. For instance, the #1 thing Clinton wanted was health care reform, but due to consistent underestimation of cost (HUGE underestimation, btw) and miles of bureacracy, it lost its large public support and congress refused to pass it. The idea that he could control the economy is ludicrous not just because the economy is uncontrollable, but also because that's not one of his specified powers.

What we need to focus on is foreign policy, where Bush is very vulnerable, but keep in mind that Clinton had a very unstable foreign policy as well. The reluctance to enter into Kosovo (and there was a lot of that) certainly shook up Europe (people assume that Europe's standoffish position towards us immediately started when Bush entered office; it didn't. Kosovo first proved that the US was no longer interested in handling all of Europe's problems) and the reluctance to resolve our positions overseas (Somalia, the Embassy bombing, etc.) is a testemonial to the fact that up until recently America has largely ignored the rest of the world. We elect the President on domestic policy, the area he's specifically weak on, and then we judge him on how well we're doing domestically.

Hopefully this will be the first foreign-policy-dominated Presidential election in a while. Maybe the first in a long line.

---

Very good Book! Hit it on the head. Three cheers!

Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged |