Full Version: How would Kerry/Edwards govern?
Greetings. This is a topic I had been mulling for a few days...given the various leadership threads going on, thought I'd throw this one out there. It is an issue I think is very worthwhile to think about. If possible, I would like for it to be discussed without reference to the current administration...one of the points of the question is that Kerry seems to be running mainly on an ABB sentiment, which really bypasses the question of how he would fare if elected. I do not mean for this to turn into a Kerry/Edwards bashfest, either--I think it is a very objective question, and hopefully it can be addressed in that manner. Almost all the political analysts seems to agree that regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, there will be little change in Congress. This would then mean that Kerry, if elected, would face a Congress controlled by the opposition. I also think it most unlikely he would win by any sweeping majority, giving him little political mandate as well. Several of the complaints leveled at Kerry/Edwards are that they seem inconsistent on their stances and have no detailed plan to enact (I will admit that there seem to be more details recently). Also, is anyone else surprised that there has been no discussion at all what a Kerry cabinet would look like? All of these factors would not bode well in the environment Kerry would find himself--he would almost be set up to fail, or be forced to follow an opposition agenda (which even Clinton did with somewhat of a mandate). So, I think the question of how Kerry would govern is an interesting one, and very legitimate given the criticisms leveled against him.
Question for debate:
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
(again, I think all these questions can be answered without reference to the current administration--which I think would only lead to the topic getting side tracked. I intend this as a very legitimate and objective topic, and one in which I would genuinely like to hear the 'liberal' take on this issue.)
Question for debate:
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
(again, I think all these questions can be answered without reference to the current administration--which I think would only lead to the topic getting side tracked. I intend this as a very legitimate and objective topic, and one in which I would genuinely like to hear the 'liberal' take on this issue.)
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 6 2004, 11:14 AM)
Question for debate:
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
You pose some good questions Hobbes and I think it's worth pondering...
Okay, enough pondering. Here's my "American" view (the liberal one comes gratis). The prospect of a President Kerry Administration means that the U.S. returns to an era of divided government and checks and balances. Something that is presently not in place.
Obviously if Kerry had to deal with a Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert and Bill Frist running the Congress, he's not going to be able to implement an agenda of big ideas and sweeping reforms. Not that I see Kerry as some kind of populist reformer anyway. Kerry would have to pursue a common sense, moderate agenda until time or circumstances blesses him with a more sympathetic Congress.
Barring that, Kerry would have to both negotiate and at times follow the example of Ronald Reagan and go over the heads of Congress when he could. If Kerry should win he's not going to have a mandate to lead, but neither did Bush and he was very agressive in pushing for the programs he wanted (No Child Left Behind, tax cuts, etc).
Kerry is not going to rubber-stamp a Republican agenda. They can delay, frustrate and foil many of the initiatives of a Kerry Administration, but even without Democratic control of Congress, Kerry would be able to get a lot of things accomplished. Merely by reversing some of the Bush Administration's policies would be enough to keep Kerry busy for four years.
A President Kerry would probably undertake a tour of Europe, Asia, South America
and other countries in a goodwill effort to forge and rebuild relationships undone by the indifference and bellicose rhetoric of the Bush43 Administration. It's going to take some "hands-on" diplomacy to help the nation retain its respected stature as the primary beacon of Democracy in the world. Kerry would be committed to making this happen. While neo-conservatives at home and in the halls of Congress might sniff at this, Congress follows the lead of the President, not the other way around. Only a President can set the nation's agenda. Congress can obstruct, dilute and ultimately defeat that agenda, but the Republicans, like the Democrats do now, would have to pick their shots and battles. Obstructionism based soley on partisan political differences isn't going to fly.
Regarding a Kerry cabinet, I'd like to see some smart and tough guys like Wesley Clark replacing the likes of Donald Rumsfeld or a Congressman John Lewis taking over for John Ashcroft at the Justice Department. I'm undecided about who gets the vitally important job of Secretary of State, but I'd like to see someone like Warren Rudman and some moderate Republicans invited to be in a Kerry Cabinet.
Playing "what if" is fun because you can't be wrong. Right?
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
I have to agree with Nighttimer that he certainly won't have an easy time implementing big ideas and sweeping reforms on day one, now as he does a good job and his approval rating increases and the country (hopefully) gets better I think he'll be able to get back to some of his bigger plans.
But, being completely honest and objective I'd say that Kerry's first term will be what they like to call in the sports world a "rebuilding year". I think that most of what Kerry will be able to accomplish during his first term in office is to change the track that the country has been put on by the neo-conservatives that support Bush. I think there is plenty of honor in that because there is a LOT of work to be done in that area, they have done the job of promoting their agenda well. Just to list a few things I think would be included:
- Roll back most if not all the provisions of the Patriot Act giving us our civil liberties back.
- Get our economy in shape by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, closing loopholes in the tax code and reducing the massive deficit. Edwards alluded to some of these things in the VP debate and I find it rather ironic that it is Democrats talking about fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government.
- Work on rebuilding our international credibility with our allies and those countries where relations have cooled.
- Get us out of Iraq as soon as possible and share the burden with others.
- Refocus the war on terror on the appropriate parties such as Al Qaeda, Iran, N. Korea, etc.
Kerry is not in for an easy four years by any stretch of the imagination but I think that his most important duty is to change the momentum and direction of this country because we are barrelling down a very treacherous path at the moment.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
No, he does still have the power of veto. Honestly a lot of good would be served simply by blocking a lot of things the Republican congress is trying to pass, instead of creating his own legislation. We have more than a few topics started here about legislation pending in congress that is simply outrageous. Like I said before, a lot of his job is going to involve changing the direction we are heading in and that isn't an easy task.
I think that he'll meet with a lot of resistance in Congress initially, but eventually they will have to compromise or face getting voted out as his approval rating climbs. I also disagree with your premise Hobbes that the makeup of Congress won't change this year - I see quite a few Democrats poised to take Republican seats.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
A case could probably be made that his primary influence will be on foreign affairs, but I think his most lasting influence will be on the courts. It is highly likely that one or several members of the supreme court will have to retire in the next 4 to 8 years. We haven't had a new supreme court justice in upwards of 10 years. Given the delicate balance between ideologies in the court, Kerry could all but ensure that our society continues to make progress by getting a liberal or moderate judge in. If Bush wins we would most assuredly replace the judge with a harsh conservative and that could have implications to numerous things such as abortion, gay marriage, first amendment cases and civil rights in general.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
I'm not aware of democratic insiders enough to really make any predictions here, so I would probably find myself in the position of evaluating his cabinet choices rather than predicting them. However, the main benefit is that it won't be filled with neo-conservative hawks bent on global hedgemony and power.
Edited to add: But, to be fair Hobbes, it is going to be extremely difficult for either candidate to govern this time around for different reasons. I just wanted to throw that out there in case someone was thinking, oh lets elect Bush because he'll be able to do his job. I think an equivalent thread could easily be started for Bush if someone chooses to do that.
I have to agree with Nighttimer that he certainly won't have an easy time implementing big ideas and sweeping reforms on day one, now as he does a good job and his approval rating increases and the country (hopefully) gets better I think he'll be able to get back to some of his bigger plans.
But, being completely honest and objective I'd say that Kerry's first term will be what they like to call in the sports world a "rebuilding year". I think that most of what Kerry will be able to accomplish during his first term in office is to change the track that the country has been put on by the neo-conservatives that support Bush. I think there is plenty of honor in that because there is a LOT of work to be done in that area, they have done the job of promoting their agenda well. Just to list a few things I think would be included:
- Roll back most if not all the provisions of the Patriot Act giving us our civil liberties back.
- Get our economy in shape by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, closing loopholes in the tax code and reducing the massive deficit. Edwards alluded to some of these things in the VP debate and I find it rather ironic that it is Democrats talking about fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government.
- Work on rebuilding our international credibility with our allies and those countries where relations have cooled.
- Get us out of Iraq as soon as possible and share the burden with others.
- Refocus the war on terror on the appropriate parties such as Al Qaeda, Iran, N. Korea, etc.
Kerry is not in for an easy four years by any stretch of the imagination but I think that his most important duty is to change the momentum and direction of this country because we are barrelling down a very treacherous path at the moment.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
No, he does still have the power of veto. Honestly a lot of good would be served simply by blocking a lot of things the Republican congress is trying to pass, instead of creating his own legislation. We have more than a few topics started here about legislation pending in congress that is simply outrageous. Like I said before, a lot of his job is going to involve changing the direction we are heading in and that isn't an easy task.
I think that he'll meet with a lot of resistance in Congress initially, but eventually they will have to compromise or face getting voted out as his approval rating climbs. I also disagree with your premise Hobbes that the makeup of Congress won't change this year - I see quite a few Democrats poised to take Republican seats.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
A case could probably be made that his primary influence will be on foreign affairs, but I think his most lasting influence will be on the courts. It is highly likely that one or several members of the supreme court will have to retire in the next 4 to 8 years. We haven't had a new supreme court justice in upwards of 10 years. Given the delicate balance between ideologies in the court, Kerry could all but ensure that our society continues to make progress by getting a liberal or moderate judge in. If Bush wins we would most assuredly replace the judge with a harsh conservative and that could have implications to numerous things such as abortion, gay marriage, first amendment cases and civil rights in general.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
I'm not aware of democratic insiders enough to really make any predictions here, so I would probably find myself in the position of evaluating his cabinet choices rather than predicting them. However, the main benefit is that it won't be filled with neo-conservative hawks bent on global hedgemony and power.
Edited to add: But, to be fair Hobbes, it is going to be extremely difficult for either candidate to govern this time around for different reasons. I just wanted to throw that out there in case someone was thinking, oh lets elect Bush because he'll be able to do his job. I think an equivalent thread could easily be started for Bush if someone chooses to do that.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 6 2004, 08:14 AM)
Greetings. This is a topic I had been mulling for a few days...given the various leadership threads going on, thought I'd throw this one out there. It is an issue I think is very worthwhile to think about. If possible, I would like for it to be discussed without reference to the current administration...one of the points of the question is that Kerry seems to be running mainly on an ABB sentiment, which really bypasses the question of how he would fare if elected.
The problem is, while your wish here is certainly worthy, I have questions about your premise, and bringing up other administrations seems a legitimate method of answering. You say that one of the points of the question is that Kerry seems to be running on ABB sentiment. Why do you feel this is more true than in any other election? In 2000, Republicans seemed to be more concerned with ending the Clinton/Gore legacy than they were with electing a particular person in a positive sense. And in a way, the challenger is always running from this perspective. I think in this case, you are confusing the feelings of many voters, who are by now thinking they would rather elect an armadillo than see Bush in office for another four years, with the actual campaign of John Kerry, which posits itself (like all opposition challengers) as an alternative to the current administration. Kerry has released a very extensive book all about the policy ideas of a Kerry administration. Nowhere has Kerry stated in this tract (or elsewhere) that his policies are only important insofar as they are different from Bush's. Indeed, in 2000, Bush ran a vague, platitude filled campaign, which certainly could have been seen as an "ABC" campaign and nothing more (though Gore was the candidate, Clinton was really the heart of the opposition.
QUOTE
I do not mean for this to turn into a Kerry/Edwards bashfest, either--I think it is a very objective question, and hopefully it can be addressed in that manner. Almost all the political analysts seems to agree that regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, there will be little change in Congress. This would then mean that Kerry, if elected, would face a Congress controlled by the opposition. I also think it most unlikely he would win by any sweeping majority, giving him little political mandate as well. Several of the complaints leveled at Kerry/Edwards are that they seem inconsistent on their stances and have no detailed plan to enact (I will admit that there seem to be more details recently). Also, is anyone else surprised that there has been no discussion at all what a Kerry cabinet would look like? All of these factors would not bode well in the environment Kerry would find himself--he would almost be set up to fail, or be forced to follow an opposition agenda (which even Clinton did with somewhat of a mandate). So, I think the question of how Kerry would govern is an interesting one, and very legitimate given the criticisms leveled against him.
What does a mandate have to do with it? Bush had no mandate in 2000, but acted as though he did. Which is what most politicians are likely to do. The questions I have regarding your premise here are that you seem to feel that this is somehow a different situation than we have faced before. But it isn't. Kerry's campaign is no more defined by this so-called "ABB" mentality than any other election was.
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
Kerry is a conservative Democrat, in the Clinton model. While this will not endear him to me, it probably means he will do OK with a Republican Congress. I don't think it's necessary to know exactly how Kerry will govern - only that he can sell it as being better than the way Bush governed - which for the majority of the American people will be enough. Of Kerry's more liberal policy ideas - yeah, probably a lot of them will be stalled by a Republican Congress. That's sad, but I don't see it as a legitimate argument to not vote for him anyway. I'd certainly rather have some liberal ideas tried and blocked, than never tried at all. I do think we'll see him using the veto a lot more than Bush - at least if he has the guts for it. Most Republicans and Democrats in Congress are moderates. I just don't see this as any more of a problem than it has ever been.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
In some areas, sure. But it could be argued that this is precisely the American system working - a series of checks and balances. In fact, having Congress and the president of two opposing parties is more likely to result in a moderate administration, and moderate judges, etc. With one party controlling all branches of government, things are likely to move farther right or left.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
I don't know. I certainly hope we have the chance to find out, though. Frankly, I don't have very high hopes for any sweeping foreign policy changes under Kerry. Of course, the subtle differences are important, but they are still subtle. Bush and Kerry are arguing about foreign policy within a very narrow framework of discourse. I would prefer a president who could actually step all the way outside that narrow band of thinking, in which Democrats and Republicans differ mostly in the details, not in the bigger picture.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
I don't know, but my guess is they will be moderates.
QUOTE
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
He could force Congress into veto-overriding majorities, thus giving the Democrat minority a real voice. The veto: great check and balance.
Since he'll be replacing the war-time President currently sitting, he will retain the war-time powers granted by Congress to Bush. At least I think that's how it works. So he'll have some clout there.
He could do old-fashioned politicing by calling key members of Congress and working out solutions to problems.
He could propose balanced budgets to Congress.
He could make Executive Orders. He could hold press conferences. He could push and prod the legislature, using his extensive experience in the Senate as a strategic base.
Not sure what you mean by "explain position." My position is sitting. The reason I think Kerry will use all of the above and whatever else he can think up is that he is smart and a good politician/legislator, if that's what you were looking for.
QUOTE
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
Nope. I'd not be surprised if a Republican-controlled Congress decides to pull another un-American run on power over irrelevant things. Maybe not -- Kerry is a lot smarter than Clinton was regarding not giving the wolves any meat. And who knows, the balance of power in Congress could shift either this election season or the next one in two years.
Anyway, due to the reasons given in the first question answer, Kerry will not be forced into a Republican agenda. Quite contrary: The Republican agenda will be forced to become moderate.
QUOTE
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
Kerry's criticisms of the current administration run across the whole spectrum of problems. I have no answer to this question, as it is based on Republican campaign talking points. Also, it assumes that the first two questions establish "liabilities." My answers to those first two questions refute this idea of liability. Therefore, this question does not have meaning.
QUOTE
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
I suspect Dean gets a spot somewhere. You might see a few old faces again, like Reicht in the Dept. of Labor. He might ask Powel to sign on for Sec. of Defense, which would be quite a hoot. Free at last!
Jimmie Carter for Sec. of State? Ah, if it could only be so. Or could it come to pass? Could you imagine how much headway we could make in the world? How much peace might come about?
Eh, I'm just dreaming.
Beyond this, I have no clue. Who ever heard of Condie Rice before the current admin took power? Only wonks.
This question has no effect on my previous answers.
After thinking a bit more on this, and reading some of the responses by others I want to expand my original post to include the following:
I think that a Kerry presidency could draw several parallels to what happened in California when Gray Davis was removed from office. I realize that even under optmisitic projections, Kerry wouldn't carry near as much of the popular vote, but I think the comparison is still valid.
Swartzenegger took office under the banner of "change" and he did so with a large democratic majority in the legislature. The Kerry campaign is also running under a banner of change as well, their theme of "If you want change vote for Kerry/Edwards, but if you want more of the same vote Bush/Cheny" comes to mind. Clearly they would be coming into office with a fairly evenly divided senate (assuming nothing drastic happens in November) and a Republican controlled House.
Now the one thing that Swartzenegger has done to really drive his agenda through is take the problems to the public. I'm sure he does his fair share of backroom deals, but when it comes down to the line, if he is getting nowhere he simply takes the inefficiency to the people. Public opinion can be a very powerful thing for congressmen and a great motivating factor. So if Kerry makes a point to be in the public eye a great deal, this strategy could work for him too. Bush has taken the opposie route in his administration and has probably set a record for the fewest press conferences and public speeches. Of course I don't think it would work with extremely liberal and visionary legislation (much to my dissatisfaction), but it would work perfectly with more moderate stuff with broad appeal that the GOP is locking simply to spite him. I think it would also work with some of the more radical things the GOP managed to pass when everyone was 9/11 crazed - fear is also a powerful thing that kills your judgement.
If Kerry gets elected, I think that regardless of what the popular vote turns out to be, it is going to represent the desire for change from the majority and if done correctly that can be used to a better advantage than a land slide victory or a friendly congress.
I think that a Kerry presidency could draw several parallels to what happened in California when Gray Davis was removed from office. I realize that even under optmisitic projections, Kerry wouldn't carry near as much of the popular vote, but I think the comparison is still valid.
Swartzenegger took office under the banner of "change" and he did so with a large democratic majority in the legislature. The Kerry campaign is also running under a banner of change as well, their theme of "If you want change vote for Kerry/Edwards, but if you want more of the same vote Bush/Cheny" comes to mind. Clearly they would be coming into office with a fairly evenly divided senate (assuming nothing drastic happens in November) and a Republican controlled House.
Now the one thing that Swartzenegger has done to really drive his agenda through is take the problems to the public. I'm sure he does his fair share of backroom deals, but when it comes down to the line, if he is getting nowhere he simply takes the inefficiency to the people. Public opinion can be a very powerful thing for congressmen and a great motivating factor. So if Kerry makes a point to be in the public eye a great deal, this strategy could work for him too. Bush has taken the opposie route in his administration and has probably set a record for the fewest press conferences and public speeches. Of course I don't think it would work with extremely liberal and visionary legislation (much to my dissatisfaction), but it would work perfectly with more moderate stuff with broad appeal that the GOP is locking simply to spite him. I think it would also work with some of the more radical things the GOP managed to pass when everyone was 9/11 crazed - fear is also a powerful thing that kills your judgement.
If Kerry gets elected, I think that regardless of what the popular vote turns out to be, it is going to represent the desire for change from the majority and if done correctly that can be used to a better advantage than a land slide victory or a friendly congress.
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
Oh Hobbes! Dare i dream? political gridlock. Why any American with respect for the Constitution and limited government should be estatic over the thought.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
Depends on the actions of the republican agenda. remember Hobbes, When gingrich pushed, Clinton didn't blink and the republicans got the blame. If conservatives try to Blitzkrieg it would have a good chance of gaining Kerry support. I think the Moderates of BOTH parties might regain some power and get some things done that would be viewed favorably by the American public at large--instead of the outer fringes of each party
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized? The liablity is that if the conservatives lose, i do not think they will respond well at all. probably hear some speeches on secession
I really don't expect much change in foreign policy at all. maybe a few countries deciding to participate and some changes in the business structure in iraq as far as where contracts are awarded, but not much else.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
Oh Hobbes! Dare i dream? political gridlock. Why any American with respect for the Constitution and limited government should be estatic over the thought.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
Depends on the actions of the republican agenda. remember Hobbes, When gingrich pushed, Clinton didn't blink and the republicans got the blame. If conservatives try to Blitzkrieg it would have a good chance of gaining Kerry support. I think the Moderates of BOTH parties might regain some power and get some things done that would be viewed favorably by the American public at large--instead of the outer fringes of each party
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized? The liablity is that if the conservatives lose, i do not think they will respond well at all. probably hear some speeches on secession
I really don't expect much change in foreign policy at all. maybe a few countries deciding to participate and some changes in the business structure in iraq as far as where contracts are awarded, but not much else.Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
Don't forget that the Democrats could also gain control of one or both of the houses being that this is an election year.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
I think that Kerry would have the power of the bully pulpit and have the ability, as mentioned by AuthorMusician to use the veto as a negotiating tool. He also has the vast powers of appointment and authority of regulatory body that have been assigned to the executive branch. He also would have the relatively unchecked powers to act as commander in chief on foreign policy.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
His influence would be across the board because of aforementioned executive powers.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
I have no idea, but I think a presidential candidate could gain a lot of momentum by lining up a few cabinet positions before the election and celebrating those peoples strengths. It would not effect my answers above. I think his cabinet would be more likely to represent a broad realm of the political spectrum.
Don't forget that the Democrats could also gain control of one or both of the houses being that this is an election year.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
I think that Kerry would have the power of the bully pulpit and have the ability, as mentioned by AuthorMusician to use the veto as a negotiating tool. He also has the vast powers of appointment and authority of regulatory body that have been assigned to the executive branch. He also would have the relatively unchecked powers to act as commander in chief on foreign policy.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
His influence would be across the board because of aforementioned executive powers.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
I have no idea, but I think a presidential candidate could gain a lot of momentum by lining up a few cabinet positions before the election and celebrating those peoples strengths. It would not effect my answers above. I think his cabinet would be more likely to represent a broad realm of the political spectrum.
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position [/b]
It would certainly be an interesting administration, Like reconstruction for the beltway. I think the best effort the two could make would be to reach out to the moderates of both parties as much as possible, try to create division between moderate republicans and the ever-growing bible belt, which currently ends in Utah. That is the only way the two are going to see any legislation such as a national health care system passed. ( If clinton failed on that one, I somehow doubt Kerry/Edwards stand a chance)
Regardless of who one supports in this election, its hard to ignore the great deal of concern directed towards the president as to how far right his policy has been; this could be an opportunity for democrats to create division among the republican leadership.
Essentially there is currently a great 'fundamental difference of opinion' between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative/self-proclaimed-terrorist-killer. For once it is the democrats who seem to be the more unified although make no mistake, the largely anti-war dems has selected a candidate that approved the war- however, I think most dems would agree that Kerry has the better plan to end the war and re-direct the country towards its tightly stretched middle.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
No, I don't. I think, without a president on top, social conservatives will have a hard time selling some of their more controversial bills like a constitutional ban on gay marriage... Kerry's job as president, will be to marginalize the christian right as much as possible, making concessions where ever possible to those just to the left of that group.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
I'm not sure what Kerry can do differently in Iraq right now... we simply don't have the troops to secure the country side, and our usual allies don't seem interested- he is absolutely right when he talks about the mistakes the president made in his war on iraq, and now we are stuck with a war that dare I say, is beginning to look unwinnable. If he can get the UN and major European powers involved in the war, then perhaps will see a turn around, otherwise this president will be forced with the impossible task of cleaning the last one's mess up.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
Here's a chance for him to reach put towards moderation. Colin Powell would be an excellent choice, since he seems to already harbor some concerns about the current administrations efforts anyway. Let the repub's pick homeland security, and the possible intelligence czar to avoid any possible criticism of kerry being soft on terrorism.
It would certainly be an interesting administration, Like reconstruction for the beltway. I think the best effort the two could make would be to reach out to the moderates of both parties as much as possible, try to create division between moderate republicans and the ever-growing bible belt, which currently ends in Utah. That is the only way the two are going to see any legislation such as a national health care system passed. ( If clinton failed on that one, I somehow doubt Kerry/Edwards stand a chance)
Regardless of who one supports in this election, its hard to ignore the great deal of concern directed towards the president as to how far right his policy has been; this could be an opportunity for democrats to create division among the republican leadership.
Essentially there is currently a great 'fundamental difference of opinion' between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative/self-proclaimed-terrorist-killer. For once it is the democrats who seem to be the more unified although make no mistake, the largely anti-war dems has selected a candidate that approved the war- however, I think most dems would agree that Kerry has the better plan to end the war and re-direct the country towards its tightly stretched middle.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
No, I don't. I think, without a president on top, social conservatives will have a hard time selling some of their more controversial bills like a constitutional ban on gay marriage... Kerry's job as president, will be to marginalize the christian right as much as possible, making concessions where ever possible to those just to the left of that group.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
I'm not sure what Kerry can do differently in Iraq right now... we simply don't have the troops to secure the country side, and our usual allies don't seem interested- he is absolutely right when he talks about the mistakes the president made in his war on iraq, and now we are stuck with a war that dare I say, is beginning to look unwinnable. If he can get the UN and major European powers involved in the war, then perhaps will see a turn around, otherwise this president will be forced with the impossible task of cleaning the last one's mess up.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
Here's a chance for him to reach put towards moderation. Colin Powell would be an excellent choice, since he seems to already harbor some concerns about the current administrations efforts anyway. Let the repub's pick homeland security, and the possible intelligence czar to avoid any possible criticism of kerry being soft on terrorism.
I like this thread Hobbes.
I have tried to be nonpartisan. For the mostpart I’ve been successful, but you’ll forgive the characterizations of Dennis Hastart, Bill Frist and Tom Delay later in the reply. LOL
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position.
I think there are two completely different post-WWII models that are a possibility. The first is the:
TRUMAN MODEL
When Harry S. Truman unexpectedly inherited the highest office in the land on April 12, 1945, he enjoyed a Democratic majority in both houses of the 79th Congress.
House of Representatives
Democrats=245
Republicans=190
Senate
Democrats=57
Republicans=38
Note: All figures for Congressional make up are in this link.
http://ustudies.semo.edu/ui320-75/course/presandcongress.asp
In Truman by David McCullough we find the following description of Truman’s early days:
Then came the midterm election of 1946 and a dramatic shift in the make-up of Congress. Republicans gained control of both houses in the 80th Congress.
House of Representatives
Democrats=188
Republicans=246
Senate
Democrats=45
Republicans=51
Truman engaged in battle with the new Congress.
He labeled the 80th Congress as “do nothing.” McCullough, page 696.
Truman also used the veto against the 80th Congress, Most notable is his veto of the Taft Heartley legislation, which the 80th Congress overrode.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html
Truman, of course, won the 1948 election over Dewey. His victory brought back Democratic control in the 81st Congress.
House of Representatives
Democrats=263
Republicans=271
Senate
Democrats=54
Republicans=42
The midterm election of 1950 narrowed the gap, but Democrats hung on during Truman’s last two years. The makeup of the 82nd Congress looks like this:
House of Representatives
Democrats=234
Republicans=199
Senate
Democrats=48
Republicans=47
EISENHOWER MODEL
There are always power plays when the President is of one party and the Congress of the other. When Eisenhower became president in 1953 he brought with him a slight Republican advantage in both houses.
House of Representatives
Democrats=213
Republicans=221
Senate
Democrats=47
Republicans=48
In the first of his two volume set on Lyndon Johnson, historian Robert Dallek writes of Johnson as Senate minority leader during Eisenhower’s first two years.
During the midterm election of 1954 control of Congress returned to the Democrats and stayed Democratic through the end of Eisenhower’s two terms
84th Congress/85/86 Congresses
House of Representatives
Democrats=232/234/283
Republicans=203/201/154
Senate
Democrats=48/49/64
Republicans=47/47/35
When Lyndon Johnson became Senate Majority Leader in 1955, he continued his bipartisan leadership.
MY TAKE
Kerry will start out his presidency trying to be bipartisan—the Eisenhower model. With polarization such as it is, I don’t even know if Kerry will even get the traditional “honeymoon” usually afforded a new president. While Kerry might get some bipartisan support from the likes of John McCain, I’m not sure it will be sufficient.
Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn were congressional giants, who made the Eisenhower model work. I’m not sure dwarfs like Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist and especially Tom DeLay have the vision to do much constructive.
Should the Eisenhower model fail, look for Kerry to go into Truman mode and mount an offensive campaign a congressional Republicans.
The midterm elections of 2006 would give us an idea of how thing are going.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
Again I think he will try, at least at first, to work with Republicans. If that failes, he will make it an issue in 2006 and 2008.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
No. Kerry outlined a raher far reaching domestic program in St. Louis and will be a major thrust of his presidency. Still Iraq is a mess and Kerry may haed to spend more energy on it than he’d like.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
I think Kerry will try to find talented and knowledgeable individuals for appointments. This will include more than token ethnic and gender appointments. Republicans will also be represented. Kennedy’s Treasury Secretary, C. Douglas Dillon was a Republican as was Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamera.
I have tried to be nonpartisan. For the mostpart I’ve been successful, but you’ll forgive the characterizations of Dennis Hastart, Bill Frist and Tom Delay later in the reply. LOL
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position.
I think there are two completely different post-WWII models that are a possibility. The first is the:
TRUMAN MODEL
When Harry S. Truman unexpectedly inherited the highest office in the land on April 12, 1945, he enjoyed a Democratic majority in both houses of the 79th Congress.
House of Representatives
Democrats=245
Republicans=190
Senate
Democrats=57
Republicans=38
Note: All figures for Congressional make up are in this link.
http://ustudies.semo.edu/ui320-75/course/presandcongress.asp
In Truman by David McCullough we find the following description of Truman’s early days:
QUOTE
The first test was his address to Congress the afternoon of Monday, April 16, and he passed with flying colors. Indeed for days, for weeks, he seemed to do nearly everything right. Congress, the press, the public liked what they heard and saw. Page 358-359.
Then came the midterm election of 1946 and a dramatic shift in the make-up of Congress. Republicans gained control of both houses in the 80th Congress.
House of Representatives
Democrats=188
Republicans=246
Senate
Democrats=45
Republicans=51
Truman engaged in battle with the new Congress.
QUOTE
He had just one strategy—attack, attack, attack, cardy the fight to the enemies camp. He hammered the Republicans rentlessly . . . ‘selfish men have always tried to skim the cream from our national resources to satisfy their own greed.’ [Truman quote] McCullough, page 661.
He labeled the 80th Congress as “do nothing.” McCullough, page 696.
Truman also used the veto against the 80th Congress, Most notable is his veto of the Taft Heartley legislation, which the 80th Congress overrode.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html
Truman, of course, won the 1948 election over Dewey. His victory brought back Democratic control in the 81st Congress.
House of Representatives
Democrats=263
Republicans=271
Senate
Democrats=54
Republicans=42
The midterm election of 1950 narrowed the gap, but Democrats hung on during Truman’s last two years. The makeup of the 82nd Congress looks like this:
House of Representatives
Democrats=234
Republicans=199
Senate
Democrats=48
Republicans=47
EISENHOWER MODEL
There are always power plays when the President is of one party and the Congress of the other. When Eisenhower became president in 1953 he brought with him a slight Republican advantage in both houses.
House of Representatives
Democrats=213
Republicans=221
Senate
Democrats=47
Republicans=48
In the first of his two volume set on Lyndon Johnson, historian Robert Dallek writes of Johnson as Senate minority leader during Eisenhower’s first two years.
QUOTE
Lyndon’s attraction to bipartisanship rested on personal preference and shrewd political judgments. At heart, he remained a liberal nationalist who saw broad consensus for strong national defense against external threats and for domestic programs That eased the problems of an advanced industrial society. Robert Dallek [i]Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His times 1908-1960.
During the midterm election of 1954 control of Congress returned to the Democrats and stayed Democratic through the end of Eisenhower’s two terms
84th Congress/85/86 Congresses
House of Representatives
Democrats=232/234/283
Republicans=203/201/154
Senate
Democrats=48/49/64
Republicans=47/47/35
When Lyndon Johnson became Senate Majority Leader in 1955, he continued his bipartisan leadership.
QUOTE
As Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose says, ‘the combination of a Democratic Congress and a Republican administration meant that precious little in the way of domestic legislation could be passed. Both parties were jockeying for the 1956 presidential election; neither party was willing to give the other credit for major legislation.’ Nevertheless, Lyndon skillfully drove more than 1300 bills through the Senate, including major trade, wage, and housing laws. Dallek, pages 480-481.
MY TAKE
Kerry will start out his presidency trying to be bipartisan—the Eisenhower model. With polarization such as it is, I don’t even know if Kerry will even get the traditional “honeymoon” usually afforded a new president. While Kerry might get some bipartisan support from the likes of John McCain, I’m not sure it will be sufficient.
Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn were congressional giants, who made the Eisenhower model work. I’m not sure dwarfs like Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist and especially Tom DeLay have the vision to do much constructive.
Should the Eisenhower model fail, look for Kerry to go into Truman mode and mount an offensive campaign a congressional Republicans.
The midterm elections of 2006 would give us an idea of how thing are going.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
Again I think he will try, at least at first, to work with Republicans. If that failes, he will make it an issue in 2006 and 2008.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
No. Kerry outlined a raher far reaching domestic program in St. Louis and will be a major thrust of his presidency. Still Iraq is a mess and Kerry may haed to spend more energy on it than he’d like.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
I think Kerry will try to find talented and knowledgeable individuals for appointments. This will include more than token ethnic and gender appointments. Republicans will also be represented. Kennedy’s Treasury Secretary, C. Douglas Dillon was a Republican as was Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamera.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 6 2004, 11:14 AM)
If possible, I would like for it to be discussed without reference to the current administration... one of the points of the question is that Kerry seems to be running mainly on an ABB sentiment, which really bypasses the question of how he would fare if elected.
I'm not sure if that's what he's running on, Hobbes, but it is doubtless what he's subsisting on. That being the case, I think that comparisons are central to answering your questions. I'll do my best to avoid outright "bashing", though.
How do you think Kerry would govern in such a situation? Please explain your position
First, I don't think Kerry will govern as though he did have a mandate. You may recall that our current incumbent ran as a moderate and, as soon as he was in the White House, radically changed his agenda and became a hard-core neocon - though that is probably due to those with whom he chose to surround himself. I don't believe Kerry will do the same. I suspect he will be a much less "liberal" president than he was a senator - more's the pity.
In this campaign, he has demonstrated that he can moderate his positions and I feel he will continue to do so. I do not think that the minute he crosss the threshold of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, his entire platform will be abandoned. I can't say that he will be any more of a "uniter" than his predecessor, but he couldn't possibly be more of a "divider". I expect he will attempt to have productive meetings with the opposition and will attempt to seek compromises. I also think that he will, when necessary, stick to his guns.
Do you think he would be forced to follow an essentially Republican agenda, given the opposing Congress?
No, I do not. I expect that the Senate will remain more or less evenly divided and that the House will retain something of a Republican majority. I also expect that Kerry will actually exercise his power of veto - and I suspect he will use it often. Should his vetoes be overridden, it will at least give Congressional decisions a higher profile - and may well affect mid-term elections.
Would his influence be primarily on foreign affairs, where his criticisms of the current administration have focused, and also where the liabilities above would be minimized?
I doubt it. His positions on most domestic issues are radically different to those of the current administration and I think he will work hard at pushing many of them through. I have no idea what his success rate will be, but this may again become an issue by 2006. Unlike the Bush and Clinton administrations, I feel that under Kerry, Congress itself will have a bit more national focus (not only more balance of power, but more balance of media coverage) and I suspect [hope] that the Democrats will use this to their advantage.
Who do you think he will choose for his Cabinet, and how might that effect your answers above?
I do not know - but I am surprised that we haven't heard more about the Cabinet of either candidate. I expect that if more people knew that Powell is seriously considering resigning after the election and that he would most likely be replaced by a PNAC member (like Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz) that this could affect some votes. I also think that Kerry naming people that he's considering could help his campaign considerably (he can use all the help he can get). I can't imagine, though, that he would appoint a Secretary of State whom he would ignore, a Secretary of Defense with an agenda for global domination, an Attorney General bent on trashing the Constitution, or a Secretary of the Interior who was anti-environment.
Pure speculation:
State - George Mitchell, Joseph Biden, or Richard Holbrooke
Defense - Wesley Clarke, Sandy Berger, or Sam Nunn
Justice - Jamie Gorelick or Bill Bradley
Treasury - Robert Rubin (unless he becomes the new head of the Federal Reserve) or Roger Altman
Homeland Security - Gary Hart, Lee Hamilton, or Bob Graham
Interior - Sarah Bianchi or... Al Gore??
Commerce - Laura Tyson or Ted Waitt
Labor - Dick Gephardt
Education - Jim Hunt
I think that naming anyone (especially some of the above like Mitchell, Clarke, Graham, and Gephardt) could help his campaign considerably. Of course, if he could secure commitments from Powell or John Warner (for Defense) or Warren Rudman (for Homeland Security), it could help even more.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.