windcatcher
New Member
Pastor Larry, while I've been pretty negative about President Bush, still I think there is much which you've said which is true..... and given the choices which we had at those times, the best one went into office. I do believe the office of the Presidency has many pressures put upon it to conform to the advice and plans of others, less known, but more established in positions of influence, power and finance and no President today has the freedom of choice and the backing of people in quite the same way that history has me believing our early Presidents had.Pastor Larry said:
Who President Bush might appoint is one example: No matter who he appoints..... the Congress doesn't just approve based upon preparation and qualification for office, but often exercises its powers by acting as the gatekeeper screening for differences in policy or agreement in values with the collective values of those, first in the screening committee....which controls whether or not an appointee comes to a vote.... to the moderation of the whole body which must also pass agreement.
We give much blame to the President for decisions which result from the actions of Congress: I feel blessed to be living in a congressional district in which both parties are active, but not nearly as established in power and influence over the values of those in the district..... thus, the representative of my district is frequently not as dependant upon being a political patsy to the organization, and the representation is more in line with the opinions of the people. Not all representation is as close to the people because the ones promoted in elections are already agreed with the established influence of party leadership within their district instead of agreement and closeness to the people....and are dependant upon the activism within their party both for funds to run and promotion ....which the latter is purposely slanted to win the vote. Every 2 years, a representative is elected to office, and once sworn, starts getting indoctrinated into the mores of that body, and learns quickly, that to get anything done for his district and state, he must reach points of agreement with others, often with compromise.
Every 6 years we send two senators to office...... by the popular vote in the state. The newbie in the Senate, especially if without prior experience in either body of Congress, comes under the similar processes in orientation and blending in as did our representatives..... but have longer to carry forth their function.
But our orignial constitution required that it was the State Legislatures who were to elect the Senators and not the popular vote of the people. Our forefathers recognized that a body in the Congress whose office was under the control of the leaders within each state, would be more answerable to the people of the state in their dependance, and more protective of the powers which belong to the state or they would be removed by the oversight of the body which put them there in the first place.... Thus their loyalty was subject more to the state and its people than to a particular party or other influences. It was a very good plan...... but that plan was changed..... and now we have what we have.
Sorry, but I guess I got off topic.
raying:
Last edited by a moderator:
