Highest office in the government be impartial

Once an individual is elected to the Office of President (Public Servant) they should not continue to campaign for other members of their Party. If the President is to be a representative of the “People” and not the Party, they should not be campaigning, fundraising and or indorsing support for any one party or candidate.

Shouldn’t the highest office in government once elected be a neutral identity?

I don’t what the Public Servant wasting my tax payer money supporting someone in some other state I would not vote for nor do I want the Public Servant (any Public Servant) wasting his time on matters when more important issue are at hand.

That would be nice, but is not the way the current political system is set up. The President is seen as the head of the party in power and as such campaigns for members. It is nothing new, as every President in modern history has spoke for his party.

It would great to change it, but I don't see how it would be realistically possible.

I'm curious what percentage of Dems actually want the current Prez to campaign for them?

And this thread is about what and provides what to this forum??

Oh yeah....got let Belly get his daily rant in about Presidend Obama

Ty Webb;483755 wrote:And this thread is about what and provides what to this forum??

Oh yeah....got let Belly get his daily rant in about Presidend Obama

It brings up an interesting topic, of which I will expand from Belly's idea: That the President never really stops campaigning and that he is, in addition to a host of other things, a leader of a political party. I tend to agree that the President should distance himself from Congressional campaigns, not campaign for them or push their agenda, and instead be a non-partisan leader. It should not matter who is in Congress, bu the President should have his own policies and apply them to the Congress as he sees fit.

Getting involved in Congressional politics is dirty and takes away from what he should be doing, implementing policy, not giving speeches.

ptown_trojans_1;483782 wrote:Getting involved in Congressional politics is dirty and takes away from what he should be doing, implementing policy, not giving speeches.

I agree with ptown. He is in non-stop campaign-mode because that is what he is best at doing.

He's never had to implement anything in his life. Just agitate, organize, march, condemn, study, pontificate, rationalize, theorize, and legalize. He's not an administrator, nor has he ever been one. Why should we expect him to be something he's never been?

BGFalcons82;483798 wrote:I agree with ptown. He is in non-stop campaign-mode because that is what he is best at doing.

He's never had to implement anything in his life. Just agitate, organize, march, condemn, study, pontificate, rationalize, theorize, and legalize. He's not an administrator, nor has he ever been one. Why should we expect him to be something he's never been?

This is not just Obama. Bush and Clinton did the exact same thing. It has become the norm in the modern Presidency. It is not just one party.

ptown_trojans_1;483808 wrote:This is not just Obama. Bush and Clinton did the exact same thing. It has become the norm in the modern Presidency. It is not just one party.

I disagree. They did more than just "blah blah blah" and then run for President. For example, Clinton actually was AG and then governor of Arkansas. Bush was also a governor besides working in the oil business.

CenterBHSFan;483825 wrote:I disagree. They did more than just "blah blah blah" and then run for President. For example, Clinton actually was AG and then governor of Arkansas. Bush was also a governor besides working in the oil business.

That's not the point.

The point is when a person is President, they become the default head of their political party. As such, when it is Congressional election time, instead of implementing policy and doing their own thing, they go out and give speeches in support of members of their party in Congress.

I believe, the President should not be involved in Congressional elections. Just come up with policy options and work with Congress. The President should not be judged as the head D or R.
What the President did before he becomes President is irrelevant.

Ok, I getcha. I just read it out of context and was like " say what?" LOL

Ty Webb;483755 wrote:And this thread is about what and provides what to this forum??

Oh yeah....got let Belly get his daily rant in about Presidend Obama

If threads are supposed to provide something to the forum we might have to be critical of more than just this one.

Ty Webb;483755 wrote:And this thread is about what and provides what to this forum??

Oh yeah....got let Belly get his daily rant in about Presidend Obama

I think it is spelled President.... I don't get many opportunities to be a spell checker...
I kind of feels cheap… demeaning

I also don’t see within the context of my thread any names being mentioned ..so you are assuming I’m referring to Obama which is what you assume to be the problem. So we both agree Public Servant Obama is a problem …

The only difficulty is the cowards in the House and Senate to draw up a Bill and agreeing to the guidelines.... Hell! Make an effort or slip into a Healthcare Bill or Teacher/ Government Employee Bailout Bill.... "That’s easy"

CenterBHSFan;483825 wrote:I disagree. They did more than just "blah blah blah" and then run for President. For example, Clinton actually was AG and then governor of Arkansas. Bush was also a governor besides working in the oil business.

And his company went bankrupt

Belly35;483940 wrote:I think it is spelled President.... I don't get many opportunities to be a spell checker...
I kind of feels cheap… demeaning

I also don’t see within the context of my thread any names being mentioned ..so you are assuming I’m referring to Obama which is what you assume to be the problem. So we both agree Public Servant Obama is a problem …

Who else would you be talking about??? You never talk about anyone else

Ty Webb;484192 wrote:And his company went bankrupt

Yes. He kept good company with previous and present.