What happens if the president doesn’t matter?

[tommyjo]

Interesting article...especially for those who think Bush(43) or Obama damaged the office of the President...Trump is well on his way to making the office of the President irrelevant:

It is more than five months since the election, three months since the inauguration — enough time to be able to make an informed prognosis about economic and domestic policy under President Trump and the Republican Congress.

What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don’t. This lack of clear policy is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and isn’t particularly interested in learning. In other words, he’s still making it up as he goes along.

What all this means, in effect, is that in terms of formulating and passing legislation, or even a budget, Trump and his White House are mostly irrelevant, except to the extent that he establishes a credible threat to veto legislation he decides not to like. At this point, all of the president’s major legislative priorities — health reform, tax reform and a big infrastructure bill — look to be in jeopardy. Whatever Congress accomplishes, if anything, will reflect its own political dynamic, without much input or influence from the president.

This fecklessness in the White House, stands in contrast to the radical Tea Party agenda being aggressively pursued by members of Trump’s domestic Cabinet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...esident-doesnt-matter/?utm_term=.239c8529552e

 

[vraiblonde]

Garbage in, garbage out. Perhaps you might consider reading the Constitution. I can help you with the big words. Or you can read asinine opinion pieces and consider that educational enough, makes no real difference to me.

 

[Gilligan]

Interesting article...

Interesting?...how so? Looks just like another skewed space-filler opinion piece for a highly-partition left-wing rag.

 

[Hijinx]

Interesting?...how so? Looks just like another skewed space-filler opinion piece for a highly-partition left-wing rag.

She uses the Washington Post as a source and then calls us morons for our sources.
The Washington Post is a propaganda arm of the Democrat party and has been for years.

 

[GURPS]

the man who ran on 'Hope and Change did largely nothing for 8 yrs ...

 

[This_person]

three months since the inauguration — enough time to be able to make an informed prognosis about economic and domestic policy under President Trump and the Republican Congress.

Three months is enough time?

Interesting article indeed.

Two months into Obama's first term, he signed the only budget in his tenure as Prez. When he signed it, he said he didn't like it, and wouldn't sign another one like it.

I guess you're right - that proved he was incompetent to lead, because he did the opposite of what he said.

I believe that makes both Trump and Obama like EVERY. OTHER. PRESIDENT. EVER.

 

[awpitt]

Regardless of what the Constitution says, there have been some Presidents who were more affective than others. The Constitution states the minimum qualifications and the job description. That's it. I haven't seen anyone here, so far, actually try to rebut the OP's article accept to throw insults and bring up Obama. Trump is President now. Obama doesn't count anymore. I can't say that I nesisariarly agree with the entire aricle but it does bring up a couple of good point. Especially about the mixed signals coming from the administration.

 

[This_person]

Regardless of what the Constitution says, there have been some Presidents who were more affective than others. The Constitution states the minimum qualifications and the job description. That's it. I haven't seen anyone here, so far, actually try to rebut the OP's article accept to throw insults and bring up Obama. Trump is President now. Obama doesn't count anymore. I can't say that I nesisariarly agree with the entire aricle but it does bring up a couple of good point. Especially about the mixed signals coming from the administration.

While I DID bring up Obama, I was trying to suggest that every single president throughout our time (including the guy who wrote the constitution) has done something different than what was said. Knowing that, and that there has been no significant legislation in the last three months, I submit the article is flawed from the get-go in that three months is not sufficient time to define the president. Certainly, Bush was far different after nine months in than during those first nine months, for example.

 

[Hijinx]

Regardless of what the Constitution says, there have been some Presidents who were more affective than others. The Constitution states the minimum qualifications and the job description. That's it. I haven't seen anyone here, so far, actually try to rebut the OP's article accept to throw insults and bring up Obama. Trump is President now. Obama doesn't count anymore. I can't say that I nesisariarly agree with the entire aricle but it does bring up a couple of good point. Especially about the mixed signals coming from the administration.

When you have an outsider come into an office it takes a while for him to catch up.
We elected him knowing that there was a lot he was in the dark about.
No one really figured that he would face the constant harassment from the media that he has.
IMO he is doing fine. He hasn't replaced all of the Obama staff yet and democrats are bitching about it,
like they can't wait to see Obama's people go. Why are they so unhappy that he hasn't gotten rid of the people they like?

He will catch up,despite the enemy within, (The Democrat Party) and in the meantime he has sent word to the world that the wimp ,and Muslim loving clown is no longer President. Most of the world is happy about that.

 

[awpitt]

While I DID bring up Obama, I was trying to suggest that every single president throughout our time (including the guy who wrote the constitution) has done something different than what was said. Knowing that, and that there has been no significant legislation in the last three months, I submit the article is flawed from the get-go in that three months is not sufficient time to define the president. Certainly, Bush was far different after nine months in than during those first nine months, for example.

I agree with you except that several people wrote the Constitution. It wasn't a solo work. Note that FDR got 100 pieces of legislation passed in his first 100 but I don't think any other POTUS can say that.

 

[awpitt]

When you have an outsider come into an office it takes a while for him to catch up.

That's not what he said during the campaign.

We elected him knowing that there was a lot he was in the dark about.

I didn't elect him based on that.

He hasn't replaced all of the Obama staff yet and democrats are bitching about it,
like they can't wait to see Obama's people go. Why are they so unhappy that he hasn't gotten rid of the people they like?

He will catch up,despite the enemy within, (The Democrat Party) and in the meantime he has sent word to the world that the wimp ,and Muslim loving clown is no longer President. Most of the world is happy about that.

Stop making excuses. I'd like to see him stand up and accept responsibility for once. It's always someone else's fault. Heck, most of us learn about accepting responsibility as kids. I know I did. When will our President learn that.

 

[SamSpade]

Stop making excuses. I'd like to see him stand up and accept responsibility for once. It's always someone else's fault. Heck, most of us learn about accepting responsibility as kids. I know I did. When will our President learn that.

Which President are we talking about?

 

[Grumpy]

Which President are we talking about?

 

[awpitt]

Which President are we talking about?

The incumbent.

 

[SamSpade]

The incumbent.

Glad to hear it - because unless you weren't paying attention the last eight years, blaming Bush was turning into some kind of national pastime.

Remember that earthquake that was centered in Virginia? It was located on Bush's Fault.

Heard the same thing during Clinton's administration, except his turn of the phrase was "12 years of Republican administration" so he could blame Reagan and Bush at the same time.

 

[Larry Gude]

Interesting article...especially for those who think Bush(43) or Obama damaged the office of the President...Trump is well on his way to making the office of the President irrelevant:

Poor article;

What all this means, in effect, is that in terms of formulating and passing legislation, or even a budget, Trump and his White House are mostly irrelevant, except to the extent that he establishes a credible threat to veto legislation he decides not to like.

To describe the veto as some sort of after thought or minor point is like saying a heart surgeon has little power other than being able to turn someone's vascular plumbing off and on.

Dubbya damaged the office, enormously, by exceeding executive roll and authority time and again due to an inert, compliant congress that abdicated, or at least suspended, their over sight role in our check and balance system. The most glaring example is the Iraq War Resolution, which I was for at the time thinking it a clever way to get around Congress and the Constitutional limits on the executive because, why, good 'ol Dubbya was a gonna do good and them darn Democrats simply stood in the way.

Obama merely took the extra constitutional tools Bush handed him and ran with them.

If there is good news in the Trump era it is, 1, the press has ended their 8 year vacation from speaking Truth to power and 2, the Congress seems to be doing a little stretching and waking up after 16 years of spectating.

The checks and balances only work if they are checking and balancing one another. And the press only works if it is skeptical and challenging to ALL three branches.


TJ, this ought to be good news to your angry ears?

 

[vraiblonde]

I haven't seen anyone here, so far, actually try to rebut the OP's article

Here, I'll rebut it:

Nuh uh. I know you are but what am I.

I mean, how much time and energy should I spend on someone's opinion that I am A) not interested in; and B) not interested in? All I see when I look at those op-eds is "I hate Donald Trump! He's HitlerStalinSatan!! " We've already had almost 2 years of this nonsense and reading scads of these things has told me they are a boring waste of time, so now if they fling negativity right off the bat, I know it's just a petulant hit piece and no longer bother. "No no," they say, "My piece is different. Here's why *I* hate Donald Trump..."

Yawn.

Not to mention, the WashPo is bull#### and not even real news anymore. They've turned their whole paper into an op-ed. They're Rolling Stone. Mother Jones. Vanity Fair. They are nothing more than a DNC newsletter, and I have no interest in that.

 

[SamSpade]

To describe the veto as some sort of after thought or minor point is like saying a heart surgeon has little power other than being able to turn someone's vascular plumbing off and on.

See, I am not sure what the writer is angling at. When the veto was actually used a lot - the time between the Civil War and the end of WW2 - you didn't have this constant communication between the White House and the various members of Congress. In more recent years, since there's constant instant communication, both sides have a good idea if the bill will pass before it goes anywhere and steps are usually made to avoid that - if either side has any interest in passing it at all.

So they don't happen all that much. Both Dubya and Obama only ever handed down a dozen vetoes in eight years. Not much, but I'd hardly call what they had was a rubber stamp.

 

[Larry Gude]

See, I am not sure what the writer is angling at. .

Sure you do. They're trying to hit at Trump regardless of what the point is.

If The Donald was getting his way left and right, they'd have written how awful THAT is. I the writer had written 3 months abo what would be PERFECT for him to get done by now, and he'd done that, the writer would attack him for that.