Hi Julie: Well, I just got through giving you a compliment in another post, and then I see your response here [:)) Oh well, I will try to wrap this up in a way that works for you.
You said,
"I have just realized how incredibly far apart you and I are in our thinking. See you thought the money "involved" in the presidency was a reference to salary. You are much mistaken though understandably so. No I was talking about the Campaign Fundraising sort of money.
You and I are not all that far apart, but I think you just want to pick a fight. Recently, someone on another forum complained that my posts are 'too long and detailed.' When I try to be succinct, then the one little thing 'left out' suddenly takes one major importance ... as though I was trying to 'hide' something.
Of course Campaign Funding is a major issue, and such money is given by individuals and corporations and other special interest groups. This is not new to American politics, but it has reached very expensive levels given the cost of advertising. Campaign money is unquestionably needed, and I believe that in many respects it is a healthy way to exercise political expression.
So, then, your main issues is that the $Big Bucks$ would not be spent by various groups and corporations in support of a candidate(s) unless these "Offices", notably the President, had some important level of 'real power'. I have acknowledged that the Office of President has some power. The thrust of my last post was to show the kind of power it has is,
"The Office of President is not so much one of power as influence and prestige.
Ahhhhhhh ..... INFLUENCE! ... that is what is bought and sold in the political marketplace on a daily basis. When I was trying to get a project going here in Chicago, I stuffed some $dough$ into the campaign coffers of a Democrat (I am Republican) ... so what? It was for a good cause that I will save for another time. Yes, by all means the President of the USA has such influence, and it is sufficient to translate into power in some ways. But ...
$Big Bucks$ are given to Congressional Candidates too. My previous employer used to send a check for the maximum allowed by law to BOTH the Democrat and Republican candidates. What is that? Both? Yep! That way, regardless of who wins, the company could get their foot in the door to make their case in the event some unwanted legislation emerged. Yep!
But, the kind of POWER I was talking about in my original post was that the American individual citizens place far too much concern into who is President because of a misguided belief about his power. Far too many Americans do not need the President for what they believe they needs him for. As a business person, I couldn't give a rip whether Al Gore or George Bush is President. Oh, yes, it is nice that a fellow Republican Buddy is in the White House. But the relevance to me is not that great. The Congress, notably the House of Representatives is where I place my political interests. I occasionally talk to these people. And, if I am not mistaken, the republicans have held the House since 1994, and our economy is doing very well ... especially in real estate right now. Thank you GOP for getting us Tax cuts and other needed corporate welfare! Thanks Gawd!!!
You continued,
"You will note a direct correlation to Major Campaign Contributions and the attitudes taken by many lawmakers, the president (some more so than others, but all to a degree) etc. I have seen donar lists that explain many a vote/policy decison (in all fairness this applies equally to both parties, especially the last few years since the Dems have also opened their doors and coffers to big corporate $$$ too)."
You must be awfully young kiddo to think that the Donkey-Ass Party (oops Democrats) are just now opening up their coffers to $Big Bucks$ from Businesses! In the example above, you can look at the donations made by Portland general Electric, Portland, Oregon to see what they disclose about campaign contributions. Whether they are still dividing equally among candidates is something I don't know ... but that is what they did when I was still employed there.
Average Americans believe that some corporation goes in and stuffs $Big Bucks$ into a politicians pocket, and like magic they get what they want. This is the most naive thinking I run across. When I was at the Democratic fundraiser (keep in mind my GOP membership) I stuffed a good amount of $$$ into the coffer and got the Dem candidate to listen to me for 45 seconds. Oh, his staff sends out nice letters with his signature ... and because I gave more, have scribbled in a nice little extra note. But, these guys don't then go in and start mucking around with legislation just to please donors. And, I have this gut instinct that you are going to take exception to this, so I will make a new post special for you and explain what happens in Real Life and not the conspiracy-fantasies that many have about money, politics, and influence.
You continued,
"I agree completely with you that Presidential Power has it's limitations and I believe it to be a good thing as I am sure we all do. As for actual monetary compensation for the job, no it isn't much of a salary when compared to the incredibly high incomes of many a corporate exec but the influence and perks are priceless."
Yep! We're on the same page here. Good points!
You continued,
"There is more to consider though of course. The president does represent us in other nations. I can just imagine the difficulties Putin had not laughing when Bush was blathering about looking "into his soul". LOL What a moron. Is this what I want Russia (or anyone else for that matter)to think of the American people, no, how about you?"
I did not read about this or hear of it, so I cannot make any comment until I understand the context. On the surface, it is understandable that Bush would make such a comment given his southern religious beliefs. he may have been trying hard to make a meaningful connection, and forgot that Putin may not be religious given that he comes from the old Soviet guard.
You continued,
"Heady stuff, representing the US around the world. I would guess such a thing would even be intoxicating, maybe even addictive. Yes, I think there is a great amount more at stake than what the Executive powers ential. Things that you cannot buy, at least not outright."
I think again we are on the same page here as well. Again, it matches my own point about personal prestige, influence, and some limited power. My only point is that a politician, even the President, is not somekind of Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy who can grant any wish ... just pop your coins into the coffer. Yes, these men can talk, negotiate, and shake hands ... but then the President has to bring back all his promises, put them on paper subject to a major staff involvement to sanitize it ... then send it to the US Senate for a thorough Political Rectal Exam ... and by the time he presents it back to another world leader ... it is nothing like what he promised, and then the negotiations go around and around for years and years until the next President takes over. That is exactly what happened with the Chem-Weapon Treaty of 1972 ... the Treaty is still in effect, but Clinton worked with world leaders for 7 years trying to work out the "Enforcement" phase ... and they could never get anywhere ... and when George took over in January, the Bush team just threw up their hands and walked away. When I read the reports, I can see why, but what a long battle to get nowhere ... and neither Clinton nor Bush has been able to get anywhere on this ... not yet. So for an all-important 'powerful' job, with all that so-called 'influence' these President are very limited.
You concluded,
"P.S. I forgot I wanted to comment on the whole "majority" thing (hence this edit). I would like to substitute "most" for "majority" in my post sharing the full election results of 1992 and 1994. That is more accurate in the point I was trying to make and the one I Thought you were incorrectly making. I'll try to remember to be more of a literalist when exchanging thoughts with you."
Again, you can drop the surly sarcasm with me ... it is really not necessary. The issue germane to my point is that a common 'feeling' among Americans is that we should go to a 'popular national vote for President and eliminate the Electoral College. Democrats, in complaining about Gore losing to Bush argue that Gore won the 'popular' vote, and thus this should have been the 'Will of the People.' My argument is that 'majority' rule is not always wide, nor was the concept of democratic majority built into our system of States. So, I cited that Clinton won only 43% of the vote, or substantially less than George Bush, and yet the Democrats did not feel shy about Bill Clinton being a legitimate President. Bush gets 49% of the vote and all hell breaks loose because Gore got more.
Our system is about Electoral Game of States, thus one must win the most Electoral Votes ~= The most games in the World Series, and not necessarily the most votes on the popular scale ~= Total points scores in all 7 games if the Series. In this regard, Bush won 30 of 50 States, and has more legitimacy based on this from a Constitutional perspective than Al Gore had with his ever so slight national majority. Gore received over 300,000 votes more than Bush, but the margin of error with the national undervote was 2.9 Million ... thus the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory on a popular vote scale ... but on the majority of States, Bush won hands down. All of this was meant to be a simple point that got you and I off into Plurality, Most, Majority, etc.
My greatest concern with you is that you take things too personally. You read into posts emotions that the author does not intend. And you take some missing item and assume deliberative intent of the author to obfuscate it. This is not healthy, fair, or rational debate. It is false argumentation. - Amazing
