liberalogic said:
I wouldn't call him dumb, but he is moderately intelligent at best. Your citing policies as if they were all his ideas. To me, he comes across as the mouthpiece for Karl Rove. HE IS JUST AS MUCH OF A POLITICIAN AS BILL CLINTON WAS, he just reaches a different demographic. His appeal is in the stuttering and limited vocabulary-- people can relate to him, they can see him as some sort of a Washington outsider because he is not polished.
While I admire you for sticking to your opinion, I suggest you look at President Bush's record before making intelligence judgments.
Regardless of whether the policies 'were all his ideas,' he still managed to assemble a good team and select at least understandable policies.
I'm glad to know that you think President Bush is Karl Rove's mouthpiece, but just because you hold an opinion doesn't make it true.
liberalogic said:
I'd love to put him in the public debates that Tony Blair has to withstand in British Government. There's no filter there and you have to know your shit like the back of your hand. He wouldn't last a day there unless they put a wire in his ear that leads to Karl Rove's office.
It would be nice. That highlights the difference between American Democracy and Parliamentary democracy. In America, the executive and legislative branches are seperated. The legislature is responsible for making law and setting most policies, the President is in charge of enforcement. Under our system, technically the President doesn't have a say in how Congress goes about its business, but because the parties are responsible for setting the legislative agenda, and the President is the head of one of the two major parties, he holds significant influence. However, since the Constitution doesn't 'officially' recognize the impact the president has on the legislative process, he is not allowed to formally participate except for in the state of the union.
In Britain, however, the executive is made up of members of the legislative, Tony Blair is a member of Parliament. The executive is subject to the legislative. Once you factor in that Great Britain has no Constitution or Basic Law which it must follow, the British system allows for a surprising amount of flexibility (though precedence and tradition are then allowed to play a disproportionate role thus establishing set proceedings) that eventually resulted in the government we see there today.
Personally, I prefer our own system, I would rather have seperate, independent legislative and executive branches. I think it is better that our executive can focus on enforcing the law and relys on like-minded legislators to defend his positions. That allows the executive to focus on managing the day-to-day operations of the government.
