Posted on 05/01/2008 7:10:34 AM PDT by forkinsocket
A simple and deceptively tricky question: What does a president do?
If you had to put together the Help Wanted ad for the position of chief executive, what would you write? Something like: "CEO needed to supervise 2.6 million employees. Must be at least 35, native-born, willing to work at home. Spectacular public failures likely."
The presidency is the most famous job in America (with all due respect to Oprah), and probably the hardest. The country is currently trying to fill the position. We have three applicants still in the running. What we don't tend to do, despite obsessive attention to this contest, is talk much about what the job entails. We talk instead about hot-button issues, the latest gaffe, the new sound bite, the polls, the electoral map. Presidential campaigns glancingly deal with the institution of the presidency while focusing on the more urgent issue of winning.
The closest thing we've seen to a job description on the campaign trail has been the 3 a.m. phone call ad, a caricature of the president as the national guardian, and one that still doesn't quite tell you what a president does during working hours.
"There's endless months of debating about this job and almost no public discussion of what the job is," Robert Caro, the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer now working on his fourth volume about Lyndon Johnson, told me last week. "There's no other job like it. I'm sitting here watching Lyndon Johnson grapple simultaneously with riots in the streets, budget problems in Congress, are the Chinese going to come into Vietnam, what's going wrong with the model cities program, how are we going to get the funding for Head Start, what's Bobby Kennedy doing today, how are we going to blunt what he's saying?"
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It is so telling that liberals think of the President first as the boss of Federal employees. They can't accept that this country would operate just fine with only a handful of Federal employees, yet the true "role" of the President would still be the same.
For the Demonrats it’s nothing but a power grab. 99.9% of those people are no damn good. It ought to be something to watch them destroy this country for good because either Obama or Hillary and we will not make it to 4 yrs. So just sit back and enjoy the “I told you so’s”. I think it’s funny how the Clintoons got away with it when Bill was in office due to the GOP Congress really saving him, but now let Hillary loose with a Demonrat Congress and just enjoy the light finally being shone on these roaches.
The way we are selecting candidates for this important office makes me shudder. However we have been blessed with some extraordinary Presidents from unlikely places...Ronald Reagan is a good example.
Must be at least 35, native-born,
Part of the problem with describing the Presidency of the United States is that the job is not properly defined. Part head of state, part political operative, part just being a “star”, with varying interpretations of just what THAT means. Just way too big a job for some individuals, and there is a sneaking suspicion that none of the current candidates would be capable of fulfilling all aspects of the job. Various “co-Presidencies” in the past have proven to be unsatisfactory, as there is a lot of shifting of blame, when there clearly is enough blame to go around for everybody.
Jimmy Carter, back in the 1970’s, was of the opinion that the Presidency should be divided into at least three parts, but it was never clear that he was competent to be even part of a team. Mercifully, the American electorate in its collective wisdom, decided to ditch Jimmy before he could initiate any more mischief. Not that he didn’t do WAY more than his share in a mere four years.
No matter how carefully balanced, nuanced, and reasoned the President’s performance in the job may be, some constituency, or several of them, shall be sure to be “offended” at whatever the President chooses to do. The wonder is not that a President keeps up a positive popularity rating, but that even a very large minority supports his (or her) positions on a relatively narrow range of issues.
I believe everyone is missing the point.
The job of running this country is much too big for any one man.
Therefore, the real job of the president is to select the right people for each of the cabinet positions, judges, etc.
That is what makes BO and Hillary unqualified. BO has never run anything and all of his friends are kooks. Obviously not a good person to select good managers.
Hillary is a crook, which has been amply documented, so her selections would be a list of scoundrels whose photos would belong on the post office bulletin board.
The president should be looked upon as a CEO. That is one reason some governors have done fairly well and other governors have disqualified themselves by their poor record as governors.
What I find annoying about all the “If I’m elected President...” B.S. is that what they usually propose to do is really the job of the legislative branch, and they are all Senators. Why haven’t you done anything yet, where were the bills?
The really smart people, who we need, will never get the sheeple to vote for them; they are scared of what they think or that they think.
In this election we need a column to vote called “none of the above”.
It's also one of the most dangerous...Eight of 43 Presidents have died in office...almost a 20% mortality rate!
The “none of the above vote” is measured at every election based on voter turn out. Lower voter turn out is usually a reflection of the lack of interest in the candidates and/or current isssues.
JMO
NO2
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.