vive la différence?
There's been an interesting discussion here
http://schmengie.livejournal.com/612697.html
about the differences, or lack thereof, between Obama and Romney. But I think the discussion misses some of the crucial points. Without at the moment going into particular differences or lacks thereof, I present a more meta analysis.
Whatever you mean by differences, there are practical ones and theoretical ones.
For example, it is theoretically interesting that President Obama would (probably) sign a single-payer health care bill, and President Romney would veto it, but since no such bill is going to be put on their desk in the next four years this is pretty much a theoretical consideration, not a practical one.
The most important differences it seems to me between two candidates are
-- What bills will a particular President sign, given a friendly Congress?
-- What bills will a particular President sign, given an unfriendly Congress?
-- What bills will a particular President veto, given an unfriendly Congress?
-- and just if not more importantly,
-- what will said President do, given a divided Congress,
in terms of basically doing and end run around Congress by issuing executive orders
or equivalent.
-- what will said President do, on things he doesn't need Congress' approval to do?
-- What kind of appointments will be made, especially to the Supreme Court and importantly too to the appellate courts?
Aside from some influence on popular opinion (C.f. same-sex marriage) a President's specific positions on this and that aren't all that important.
http://schmengie.livejournal.com/612697.html
about the differences, or lack thereof, between Obama and Romney. But I think the discussion misses some of the crucial points. Without at the moment going into particular differences or lacks thereof, I present a more meta analysis.
Whatever you mean by differences, there are practical ones and theoretical ones.
For example, it is theoretically interesting that President Obama would (probably) sign a single-payer health care bill, and President Romney would veto it, but since no such bill is going to be put on their desk in the next four years this is pretty much a theoretical consideration, not a practical one.
The most important differences it seems to me between two candidates are
-- What bills will a particular President sign, given a friendly Congress?
-- What bills will a particular President sign, given an unfriendly Congress?
-- What bills will a particular President veto, given an unfriendly Congress?
-- and just if not more importantly,
-- what will said President do, given a divided Congress,
in terms of basically doing and end run around Congress by issuing executive orders
or equivalent.
-- what will said President do, on things he doesn't need Congress' approval to do?
-- What kind of appointments will be made, especially to the Supreme Court and importantly too to the appellate courts?
Aside from some influence on popular opinion (C.f. same-sex marriage) a President's specific positions on this and that aren't all that important.