I contend that it really doesn't matter who is the president anymore. In the area of civil rights, no matter what laws are passed, the constant evolution of human relations will dictate when society is ready to accept change and embrace diversity. As for the economy, we have gone through upturns and downturns our whole history as a country. Whatever proposals the President or a party come out with will do no real good or harm. Things will work out the way they will.

I think it matters a great deal. The president sets the political and ideological tenor, as well as a moral and ethical example or counter-example, for the nation and its government. He also stands as the preeminent leader of the free world, and as such has certain imperatives and responsibilities that come with his position. Our current president, for example, is a political and ideological conservative whose aims, speeches and appointments have helped to advance conservative ideology throughout the federal government, our judiciary, and in some cases, as we may see this fall, throughout state and local governments. Or voters may react; either way, the person who holds the presidency is quite important, as is the office itself.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Veto power makes it very important who the President is.

When an opening occurs on the Supreme Court, it matters who is President. A judge nominated by George W. Bush would be different--ideologically--than one nominated by Al Gore.

~Adam

[quote]Originally posted by Adam:
When an opening occurs on the Supreme Court, it matters who is President. A judge nominated by George W. Bush would be different--ideologically--than one nominated by Al Gore.

~Adam

---

Your answer begs the question: Does it really matter who's appointing the Supreme Court justices?

Some of the great liberal icons on the Court were appointed by Republicans (in some cases, to their deep regret):
Earl Warren, appointed by Pres. Eisenhower, presider over the "Warren Court," famous for its liberal reforms to the criminal justice system (Miranda, Gideon v. Wainwright, Mapp v. Ohio)
William Brennan, also appointed by Pres. Eisenhower, the only Justice ever to be awarded two votes on every matter (I'm joking - partially - it only appeared as if he were puppet master for Thurgood Marshall, as the two voted identically far more often than anyone on the Court today, including Scalia-Thomas)
Harry Blackmun, appointed by Nixon, author of Roe v. Wade and a vehement opponent of the death penalty (for criminals, as opposed to unborn babies, showing my bias here)
John Paul Stevens, the most liberal justice on the current Court, well to the left of Clinton-appointee Stephen Breyer, not only used to be the lawyer for former A's owner Charlie O. Finley, but he was Gerald Ford's lone appointment to the Court (sports reference, in case the moderator wants to switch this to the "baseball" thread.
David Souter, appointed George "41" Bush, on the left side of the current court, occasionally rumored to be within the demographic of this website.

Presidents don't control the thinking of their judicial nominees. While it may be more likely that George W. "43" Bush is more likely to appoint true-blue conservatives than would a President Gore, or President Hillary!, or even a President McCain, it's not an absolute indicator.

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Another factor you have to take into consideration when talking about Supreme Court Nominies, which side controls the Senate. Remember when 41 wanted to nominate Bork?? The Democrats in the Senate went into overdrive to find information out about the man to keep his name away from the Senate, which worked. Many times, a president is having to look for someone that not only meets their ideological classifications, but also the leaders of the Senate.

agree with alot of the above sentiments. It does make a big difference to me. The President sets the overall "tone" for where he thinks the country should be headed, and makes all kinds of very imporatnt decisions related to this. Many of which can and do affect the gay community. So I feel its very important who is running the ship.

I all I have seen so far is the "tone" for the country, or nominees that may or may not follow his ideaology. These are not definite reasons for electing a particular candidate. I assure you a President that is not in tune with the consituency out there will not be re-elected. Therefore, he has become a mere figurehead bending to the latest poll numbers.

OK tone will be left out of this response. The elected President can DICTATE what laws will be passed or brought to Congress, depending on his power. Remember FDR? He also was the reason an amendment to the constitution was created.
Also remember Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress? Nothing got done. If Clinton hadnt been in power a lot would have been done instead of being in a stalemate. So there is a result of who is elected. And you can go on and on.
And if you look at our current nimrod, Dubya, he is a prime example of presidential power. If he werent president I doubt we'd be preparing for war with Iraq. Not that thats a bad thing.

Actually quite a bit of legislation--some good, some awful--was achieved under Clinton. He both utilized his power of veto AND worked with the Republicans to pass a number of bills, including quite dramatically the Welfare Reform Act. He could never have done so with the Democratic Congress of 1992-1994, which is a sad commentary. I can assure you that Bush would benefit, particularly for the 2004, by having a Democratic Congress. He could both use any cooperation to portray himself as a consensus-builder and non-partisan (and thus not Right Wing), and damn them for any failures by claiming, as he keeps trying to do, that the Democrats are to blame for everything, even when his fingerprints are all over the legislation. Clinton's triage was clever, though it really hurt his party.

Presidents can positively or negatively affect (and effect) legislation, the economy, the judiciary, the handling and prosecution of wars, international relations, other domestic affairs, and on and on. The American President is actually much more powerful than other presidencies, which tend to be official and mostly titular (as in Germany, Israel, etc.). The president, however, cannot dissolve Congress, as in some parliamentary systems, nor call for elections outside the timetable set by the Constitution, which is very good thing.