"A Clinton-Obama Presidental Bid?"

[Zkribbler]

Wigs --
Good post
Bad avatar
Change it. It scares me.

[Wezil]

Interesting legal argument.

[Wiglaf]

Mostly semantics, and I think the public (and the supreme court) would toss it before it gained any traction.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Wigs --
Good post
Bad avatar
Change it. It scares me.

An H.W. Bush/Cheney presidency is still quite possible

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Mostly semantics, and I think the public (and the supreme court) would toss it before it gained any traction.

I have no idea what your courts would do with it. It's a debate between the letter and the spirit of the law with, if I read the article correctly, some issue with what the spirit of the law actually is. Interesting argument for sure, but I don't have any idea if it would work. I don't know your Supremes well enough.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd put money down the courts wouldn't let him run.

[Wezil]

I think we should have a Clinton-Clinton ticket just to find out.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


First, domestic policy frequently has little to do with Congress, being set by executive agencies that Congress does little more than fund. Second, the president has tons of sway with Congress, particularly when her party controls Comgress (as the Dems will). Third, presidential elections almost never focus on, or are determined by, foreign policy issues. 2004 was a rare exception.

And even so, polls are now consistently showing that the public trusts the Dems more on national security and foreign policy as well as the economy.

Just keep telling yourself that. No wonder you're so easily disappointed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's right, Slow... lecture the government worker on how the government works

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Just keep telling yourself that. No wonder you're so easily disappointed.

Sloww, I'm a Democrat, a Cubs fan, and the father of a teenager. I'm the least easily-disappointed guy I know.

I don't think we're talking at cross purposes. You're right that the prez has more control over foreign policy than domestic policy. But that doesn't change the fact that, 2004 notwithstanding, voters tend to vote based on a candidate's domestic views.

[DinoDoc]

Did Kerry have domestic views for the voters to judge?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


First, domestic policy frequently has little to do with Congress, being set by executive agencies that Congress does little more than fund.

Oy. Little more than fund. They FUND you. You run to the hill and see what makes them happy. They have HUGE power over agencies by that alone. Oh, and they also write legislation that directly affects what a domestic agency can and cant do, and what it is mandated to do.

[lord of the mark]

I think a clinton-obama ticket is unlikely. Clinton will want a Veep she considers relatively loyal. That aint Obama.

Clinton-Clark is possible, but Im not wild about Clark for Veep, and agree some domestic something is needed. Some have said that the Clintons are on the deep outs with Richardson, thats too bad. I wouldnt mind Clinton-Warner.

Any other decent southrons? Is Clinton-Graham possible?

Youd have to like the chances of Clinton-Gore, but Im not holding my breath.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Oy. Little more than fund. They FUND you. You run to the hill and see what makes them happy. They have HUGE power over agencies by that alone. Oh, and they also write legislation that directly affects what a domestic agency can and cant do, and what it is mandated to do.

LOTM, I'm not denying the role of Congress; I'm just suggesting that a considerable amount of what happens in regard to domestic policy is in the hands of the Executive Branch (including Bush's lovely habit of granting himself "exceptions" to the bills he's signing). Agencies have broad latitude to make their own rules; they need to not run afoul of Congress, but short of that Congress tends not to get too involved. A simple glance at the sheer size of the Executive Branch, as compared to Congress, gives you a good sense of why. The Founders certainly didn't intend ot to be this way, but that's where we are.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Agencies have broad latitude to make their own rules; they need to not run afoul of Congress, but short of that Congress tends not to get too involved.

Unless the agency is chronically strapped for funds, in which case they are constantly trying to think what they can do to please the folks on the Hill.

Or if there are powerful constituent groups who run to the Hill regularly, either to stop the agency from doing something, or to protect the agency from its nominal departmental superiors.

And of course the numbers of members of an agency is irrelevant, as most are civil servants and are "neutral" or may even prefer whatever agenda the committees have (and its the particular committee supervising thats important, not "congress" in the abstract) So its the political appointees in the agency, versus the congressmen and their staffs, should it come to a head to head fight of exec vs leg. Of course its more complex than that, cause not only does the exec have influence over congress, but, OTOH, some of the politicals may well have ties on the hill - no small number of them may be former Hill staffers for the presidents party, and may be hoping to back to the Hill if the Presidents party looks lameduck in the exec branch (as indeed, the GOP does right now)