142590Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
- Nov 4, 2012--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Don Zimmerman"
> --- In email@example.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
>he ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years
> > It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when
experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience
goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate
who has never been part of a presidential administration in any
> >Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential
> > I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah
election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican
party hierarchy had in him at that time...
> >you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose
> > It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :) (I hope
>an independent actor who decisively takes charge of government upon
> A large part of the American electorate believes that the President is
being elected and whose inner personal qualities and force of will are
responsible for the course of events. That is far from the truth.
Actually, the composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives
plays an equal role in what gets done. Without the cooperation of those
bodies, the President is a "lame duck" at the beginning, not just at the
end. Unfortunately, too many voters are not of aware of those facts.
>network of advisors, appointees, cabinet members, lobbyists, that also
> And the President from the first day in office is surrounded by a
are most important in decision making. It is true that many of those
advisors are chosen by the President, but the choice is not completely
free and voluntary, because payback for financial contributions, the
need for Senate approval, the public's perception of the other people in
government, etc., also factor into the picture.
>control, also have a lot to do with the history of the nation during a
> Finally, circumstances in the world, completely beyond the President's
term of office. The various wars around the world, unusual weather
events, famines, earthquakes, shortages, epidemics of disease, uprisings
in other nations, global warming, meteor strikes, etc., can shape many
events apart from the determination and heroism of any President.
>President are more myth than reality and not the most important
> The inner qualities of the mind and splendid personality of an elected
determinants of what is going to happen to the nation. Congress, the
public will, environment, circumstances and context, local and global,
and the flow of historical events in the entire world are hugely
>Certainly you're right (or I agree) in a lot of these observations. Kind
> Best regards,
> Donald W. Zimmerman
> Vancouver, BC, Canada
of as an extension of what you say, I think it very difficult to judge a
President who does not get a second term. The second term frees the Pre
sident from some of these constraining factors at least to some extent.
My overall impression of Obama's first term efforts is one that leaves
me sufficiently intrigued to want to see what he would do with a second
term. That's not to say I necessarily agree with, or even understand the
underlying issues to, many of his policies. But rather, I do think that
he made good efforts to implement the policies that he said that he
would implement. I see that as a very important quality over and above
agreeing or disagreeing with what the actual policies were. So..for
me...Obama for President! (I also think he is going to win).
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>