Clearly, you do not understand the relevance of the positioning of candidates as they appear on ballots in polling stations.
I wasn't aware that the President had the power to unilaterally order tax hikes. But you seem to be the constitutional expert around here.
If you'd have read more carefully before posting you'd have noticed that I said Democrats, not just "President."
What's even more probable, given current trends, is that whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the WH, federal spending will continue to rise, and with it will rise the political difficulties inherent in trying to make those cuts permanent. That is, unless the Republicans receive a certain amount of "encouragement" to maintain their proper commitment. Is there a risk stemming from this encouragement? There's always a risk with everything. It's just that there's a much greater risk that, left to their own devices, the Republicans will do what I described, with the outcomes that I described.
I see. You trust the Democrats more than you trust the Republicans, and it is a greater risk to vote for Republicans. And on top of that you think you have a chance of "encouraging" Republicans by NOT voting for them. Bilge. Empty assurances as to what they might do have little meaning when juxtaposed against what they actually are doing.
I took your advice and this is what I found:
From Article II, Section 3: "[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient"
Ever try pay for something with a recommendation? What demoninations are your recommendations calculated in? How many of your recommendations must I use to pay for a cup of coffee and a bagel in the morning? What is the current exchange rate of your recommendations at my local Dunkin Donuts?
Any recommendations you've made for considering voting CP over Republicans have garnered no currency with me and only have a measureable value amongst those with a self-congratulatory sense of their own ideals. Hence, it is of little surprise that promotion of the CP outside of it's intellectually inbred circles typiclly has no value anywhere else.
So, any wagers on what some of these recommendations have been from him? He shares the responsibility for the excessive spending.
Back to basic 9th grade Civics class for the answer: The President proposes, Tom Delay "hammers" out what monetary form those recommendations will take and Denny Hastert decides what bills actually make it to the floor of the House. The big picture is that Bush has neutralized the issues of value to the opposition and done so quite successfully. maybe very few if any "big ticket" or controvesial (e.g., immigration details) items even see the light of day ultimately, but he's neutralized the attempts by Dems to make them lighting rod issues.
Any president can propose a big picture vision for all it is he wants. Micro managing minutiae over which he has no spending authority only diminishes him a la Jimmy Carter. The levers of spending are not manned by him. The way you post you'd think like-minded conservative Texan Tom Delay and Bush don't strategize and talk to each other. That's where you are demonstrating that you and other CP proponents either can't or are simply not thinking strategically.
The chances of another election as close as 2000 are infinitesimal. If the Democrats are depending on the Constitution Party to turn the election in their favor, and if the CP has as little support as you say, then the Dems simply have very bad strategy. The only other conclusion is that they view the CP as a threat, not an asset.
Interesting you would say that. After the historic Reagan landslide in 1984, the Republicans lost the Senate in 1986. Who'd have guessed it? Now you think the Dems view the CP as threat to themselves?? I will waste no more time or band-width on repeating something I have already discussed thoroughly enough already (see post 144).
Now you're missing my point. I asked you a question: Why did the media give Nader so much publicity when they knew the election would be close? I think that once you arrive at an answer, you'll find it instructive.
You think philsophical disunity only effects the Republicans? I revel at every vote the Greens get the same way the Dems revel at every vote the Constitution Party gets. You mistakenly think the Dems have every liberal media person in the pocket. Some of them would just as soon vote for a Communist, or failing that, one of their philosophical step-brothers named Nader.
Is this clear to you now?
Whatever "relevance" you're talking about in no way changes the validity of what I said. People can vote CP for president and GOP for Congress - period.
If you'd have read more carefully before posting you'd have noticed that I said Democrats, not just "President."
If you'd have read more carefully before posting you'd have noticed that the Presidency is the subject of our discussion. The fact that you maintain the mistaken notion that voting CP for president somehow affects congressional races, doesn't mean I do.
You trust the Democrats more than you trust the Republicans, and it is a greater risk to vote for Republicans.
Totally wrong. Nowhere did I say that.
And on top of that you think you have a chance of "encouraging" Republicans by NOT voting for them. Bilge.
If, as you say is true, the threat of voting CP presents a risk to a Republican politician, he'd be foolish not to take it into account. How he actually does respond is of course impossible to predict for certain, and known only to him.
The big picture is that Bush has neutralized the issues of value to the opposition and done so quite successfully.
And how exactly has he done this, if as you say he lacks the constitutional power? You're basically trying to argue that he can take the credit for doing something, but not the blame for doing the exact same thing.
Interesting you would say that. After the historic Reagan landslide in 1984, the Republicans lost the Senate in 1986. Who'd have guessed it?
Congressional politics is very different from presidential politics. In any case, my point remains that it's impossible to say for certain when a presidential election is going to be hair-thin close, so if the Democrats are depending on that to happen, they're exercising bad strategy. To say, therefore, that they consider the CP their allies isn't borne out by their actions.
You mistakenly think the Dems have every liberal media person in the pocket.
Not at all. But what's clear is that the media are liberal, and what's equally clear is that they know very much how to keep liberalism in charge, even when ostensible liberals aren't in charge. They're not stupid, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to maintain their power for so long. They know what they're doing. They weren't making a mistake by supporting Nader.