In Their Own Words

Well, I’ve gone through the campaign sites of the top two tiers of Democratic presidential aspirants and, honestly, I find their contents pretty dismaying. With few exceptions they do not seem to have much idea of what the president actually does. They appear to be running for Senate Majority Leader rather than for President of the United States.

Not to be a pill about it but here’s Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution in which the responsibilities of the president are defined:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

It corresponds to Section 8 of Article I in which the powers of the Congress are specified or Section 2 of Article III in which the powers of the Supreme Court are defined. Note that Article II is much shorter than Article I. That isn’t an accident.

Other than in a few rare instances the amount written about foreign policy wouldn’t be enough for a good blog post. They’re more like tweets. All of them are making an assumption of something for which I see no evidence—that the world is thirsting for American leadership. Quite to the contrary I don’t think a lack of American leadership is as much in evidence as an utter void of followership.

Additionally, they are very long on aspirations and pitifully short on details. I guess that’s to be expected on campaign websites.

From a total content standpoint I would say my three favorites were Tulsi Gabbard’s, Joe Biden’s, and Pete Buttigieg’s, pretty much in that order. I thought the worst was Kamala Harris’s. Sen. Harris’s uses much the same approach in providing content as far too many supermarkets use in marketing their goods. You have to search through the entire thing to find what you’re looking for. Maybe that’s deliberate but I doubt that many will have that sort of patience.

8 comments… add one
  • Guarneri Link

    The DNC drove off Tulsi Gabbard.

    Nuff said.

  • TarsTarkas Link

    As I said on another site, they’re not running for President, they’re running for dictator. God help us should one of them win.

    Gabbard had to go because she took down Harris, who many wanted to be the candidate, especially since she checked off so many intersectionality checkboxes. An example of what happens when one speak Truth to Power in the Democratic party. Now they seem to be pushing faux-Indian Warren, who’s being backed by HRC, and who is trying to lead the pack with ever more shrill and insane calls for reparations, amnesty, and debt forgiveness, none of which she has any idea how to pay for (not that she cares, it’s just a means to an end).

  • steve Link

    I think Warren actually said that we will provide reparations and Mexico will pay for them.


  • Guarneri Link

    “Additionally, they are very long on aspirations and pitifully short on details.”

    That may be the least of the transgressions. Politicians are gonna be politicians. The issue is more with voters and those who actually believe this stuff, or are willing to go along with the gag. And they do believe this stuff, or go along. Go to the OTB’s, NYTs, WaPos, CNNs and MSNBCs of the world. I hear the latest is that the weather service was threatened with firings. The NYTs. Uh, er, unnamed sources. Natch.

  • Andy Link

    I’m not keen on Gabbard. She wants to free Assange and pardon Snowden which is all I need to know. But more than that, she has a long and troubling history of support and association with Hindu nationalists. I don’t care that she’s Hindu, but her religion is being expressed in terms of South Asian policy.

  • TastyBits Link

    As an unreconstructed sexist, I would definitely leave the house to vote for Rep. Gabbard.

  • Mary Link

    We have a dictator in the WH now, and hundreds of Republicans enabling him. I’ll vote for any Democrat who is nominated.

  • Grey Shambler Link

Leave a Comment