minutia press.

This morning on the news show they were interviewing two people who fell on each side of the gay marriage issue. Both agreed that the next president might be decided based on this issue.

He or she doesn't make law -- that's why we elect a Congress and we hope it's well balanced and reasonable enough to act with deliberation and care. The Pres is our CEO, who should be negotiating for the best interests of our country and its people. Hostile takeovers may not be the best foreign policy we can offer.

It's true that the President appoints to the Supreme Court, so while I'm ranting, let me say how disgusted I am at how they vote basically along party or liberal/conservative lines. What happened to applying wisdom to figure out what's right and what's wrong?

Now there's the news that Bush may take on Gulliani for VP. At least I believe he knows where most countries are on the map.

On the gay marriage issue, I have no objection and I don't understand why others do. It doesn't affect non-gay people except in a very indirect sense because of tax law pertaining to married couples. I wonder if we can move on to more pressing issues?

You are correct that congress votes on laws and not the pres, yet for some reason we also ask the pres where (s)he stands on a number of issues, from gay marriage to tax policy. This is because although the pres doesn't have a vote, the pres frequently works with congress to create legislation, and can use the threat of veto to gain leverage in bargaining sessions. If the president's party is also in power, then the president, as the highest ranking elected official in that party, has a lot of leverage in terms of setting the agenda. A perfect example would be Bush's tax cuts. Without Bush in the whitehouse to introduce it and push it, I doubt those tax cuts would have been passed.