Skip to content


Race Forecast: Uninspiring

Well, the Ds have spoken and it now looks like this year’s dog-and-pony show will be a run off between Mr. Hopey Changey and Ol’ Coots McGeezer. Oh, and then there’s Mr. Neo-Conservative Libertarian.

Well damn. What’s worse, they’re all applying for a job for which none of them have read the job description. They’re all telling us what they’re going to do about the economy, health care, immigration, etc. None of which is actually, you know, what the president is supposed to do.

Oh well. Those are the candidates and, as the grammatically atrocious saying goes “them’s the breaks.”

But which to vote for? It feels a bit like being asked which lumberjack I want as my dentist. Well, none. I’d really actually like someone who will do the job they’re being hired to do. I mean, I’m sure all the candidates are fantastic lumberjacks, but we don’t need anyone who’s good with a cross-cut saw at the moment.

*Sigh* Oh well. I am going to vote (no matter how tempting is seems not to at times), but I really dislike the idea that no matter who I vote for, I’ll probably spend the next 4 years wishing I hadn’t.

Posted in Cool Stuff, Politics.


3 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Heather says

    Iiiinteresting… what do you think the job description entails? (I have my own thoughts on this, but I’d like to hear yours) Does it change when the role of leading the party is included?

  2. The Tarquin says

    The job description entails inking treaties with foreign powers, leading the military and the militia during times of conflict, making certain appointments within the government, and acting as balance to some of the activities of the Legislative branch as well as convening emergency sessions of congress. Note all of the powers of the president are held in check by the legislative branch (e.g. treaties have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate, etc.)

    As for the matter of leading a political party, I don’t think that that changes his responsibilities at all. A party, after all, is not a part of the government. Leading a party doesn’t change the job description any more than leading a Welder’s Union changes the job description of a welder.

  3. Heather says

    If you look at the presidential powers as laid out by the framers, you’d be right. But then we wouldn’t get judicial review, either. The executive has a significantly larger set of powers now, both in fact and in theory. And leading the party includes setting priorities and message for the entire party- all elected legislators and others.

    The president is technically just our head of state, and similarly powerless- think the Queen of England. Good for photo ops. But the position has grown significantly. The president has a lot of weight to throw around in terms of shaping legislation and priorities; I want to know what they are going to do with that weight. And you don’t seem to have figured for signing statements and executive orders… both of which are used early and often by this administration, and have effect on *all* policy, not just foreign policy.