Jim Colyer Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 History only cares about presidents, what they did and the events of their presidencies. We do not teach the lives of Senators or Representatives in school. George Bush understands this and knows that history will judge him a great president, one who defended America and western civilization in the wake of 9/11. Urged on by ultra-liberals Pelosi and Reid, Congress is trying to usurp the authority of the president as commander-in-chief. But George Bush is "the decider" when it comes to the military, not Speaker Pelosi. He will veto the bill tying troop withdrawals to funding. Congress needs to send him a bill consistent with history and one which provides our troops with the funds and supplies they need. US Presidents Jim Colyer :: News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 George Bush understands this and knows that history will judge him a great president, one who defended America and western civilization in the wake of 9/11.Well, we certainly know that Dubya believes this! And although his mom shakes her head, she'll kneecap anyone who speaks ill of her boy. And Poppy keeps trying to send in his fixers to straighten out the problems, but Vice-is-more-important-than-the-President Dick makes sure to off them before they can do anything to help. Why does this sound like an episode of the Sorpranos? So do ya think he's a brilliant military tactician? How about that *perfect execution* of the well-thought-out occupation plan post-"mission accomplished?" But to keep this thing in the confines of the History Forum:History only cares about presidents, what they did and the events of their presidencies. We do not teach the lives of Senators or Representatives in school.True! I mean, I'm old enough to remember Tip O'Neill [sounds of conservatives knashing their teeth and screaming "Ultra Liberal!" (is there another kind?)], but who would ever remember the really obscure ones like Newt Gingrich? No seriously, not many memorable ones. Henry Clay was a great one, and James K. Polk became president, but how many do you even recognize? If someone asked you who Galusha A. Grow was, would you be able to immediately retort "Speaker of the House during the Civil War?" Does Nancy really matter any more than Newt did? In the big picture, probably not. Why is this? Is it just Shakespeare's line about people only caring about the stories of Princes and Kings? Or is it just that its "Congress" that's important, not the "Speaker" or the "Senate Majority Leader"? Don'tcha think that maybe that's the *point*? The balancing Congressional Branch of our government is explicitly supposed to represent the *collective* beliefs of minority opinions of The People, whereas the Executive Branch represents the *majority*. If you think this is nothing important, just this weekend we almost lost Dubya this weekend when he tried to plug the power cord into the fuel socket of a hydrogen vehicle. Can anyone say "science experiment?" Someday James K. Polk will no longer be the only Speaker ever to become President. Darwin award nominations are open,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 Simple, really. For every one president, there's hundreds of senators and congressmen. We try to concatenate the decisions and actions of hundreds of people into a bite-sized easily digestible term "President X's Administration". You remember Julius Ceasar's reign, as a time-slot in history, but all his senators and advisors are lost in history. Imagine what our history books would look like if we didn't do it! It's sad, really, because it obliterates the finer details of history. But from a practical point of view, there's not much to be done about it. For instance, HF Verwoerd is remembered as the "Architect of Apartheid". But every single one of his decisions in implementing the policy of Apartheid was based on the recommendations of his advisors. Presidents are mostly figureheads and the final signature of processes and decisions that involve hundreds, even thousands, of people, all little cogs in a bigger machine. As an analogy, you'll recognize a vintage Aston Martin at a glance in looking solely at the bodywork. But you won't recognize a piston or a ball-bearing or a spark plug as belonging to an Aston Martin, even though the car would be immobile without any single one of those parts. The prez is the bodywork encapsulating all the parts, and the congressmen and senators are simply the spark plugs, pistons, ball bearings, valves, pushrods, conrods and prop shafts making the bodywork a fully functional car. The public, however, is mostly confronted only with the car, and that's what'll stick in the public mind for ages to come. Having just unseated the King of Analogies, I'll sign off... Boerseun GTi Deluxe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 History only cares about presidents, what they did and the events of their presidencies. We do not teach the lives of Senators or Representatives in school. George Bush understands this and knows that history will judge him a great president, one who defended America and western civilization in the wake of 9/11. Urged on by ultra-liberals Pelosi and Reid, Congress is trying to usurp the authority of the president as commander-in-chief. But George Bush is "the decider" when it comes to the military, not Speaker Pelosi. He will veto the bill tying troop withdrawals to funding. Congress needs to send him a bill consistent with history and one which provides our troops with the funds and supplies they need. US Presidents Jim Colyer :: News Mr. GW Bush, is a leader and one of a handful that have lead our nation over the years. yes, historians will do what they do, fight out the issues and in time he will receive the credit where it may seem none is currently given. Polosi and Reid are in the midst of the 2008 political campaign. it only seems they are pathological egotist, but are due the credit for the recent 06, take over of Congress. on a state wide level, where the senators/representative election are won or lost, the views of San Fransisco's Polosi or that of Harry were not the issues that won their victory. as for the members of Congress, for the most part are team players and recorded history is in a particular era, much as the third branch, the supreme court. history, for some reason does distinguish many individuals that served, but in the referance of some act or some particular action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 History only cares about presidents, what they did and the events of their presidencies. We do not teach the lives of Senators or Representatives in school. George Bush understands this and knows that history will judge him a great president, one who defended America and western civilization in the wake of 9/11. Urged on by ultra-liberals Pelosi and Reid, Congress is trying to usurp the authority of the president as commander-in-chief. But George Bush is "the decider" when it comes to the military, not Speaker Pelosi. He will veto the bill tying troop withdrawals to funding. Congress needs to send him a bill consistent with history and one which provides our troops with the funds and supplies they need. US Presidents Jim Colyer :: NewsI take issue with your statement about senators and representatives. It would be impossible to study many members of Congress. Instead we focus on those who dominated. From the very beginning we learn about the Continental Congress and its leaders. Next we learn about the Confederation Congress and its weakness. After 1789 we learn about Congress passing the Judiciary Act, Assumption Act, and the Bank Act with Madison leading the opposition. It is not until after the War of 1812 that we learn about Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun as prominent members of Congress. We also learn about Rep. James Tallmadge of NY. Senators Daniel Webster of MA and Robert Hayne of SC have their debate on the tariff. Senator Thomas Hart Benton of MO is also made known. Representative Abraham Lincoln leads a protest against the War with Mexico. Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Il. becomes a force prior to the Civil War. Senator John Crittenden of KY attempts a compromise over slavery. Representative Thaddeus Stevens led impeachment charges against Andrew Johnson. And two African Americans become US senators during Reconstruction. Congress is mentioned many times when it debates issues and votes on important legislation. Presidents drive policy and have veto power over Congress. One only has to look at George W. Bush and his first 5 years without a veto to realize the power and influence of the US president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 ... Urged on by ultra-liberals Pelosi and Reid, Congress is trying to usurp the authority of the president as commander-in-chief. ... I watched some good programming on this question on PBS just a couple days ago. Can't remember if it was Charlie Rose or the NOW program. At any rate, they gave a synopsis of war powers going back to the founders and the Constitution. As I understand it, Congress is trying to re-assert their power to declare war which the President(s) have usurped. Did you see what I saw? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.