well, it would seem something other than the content of the OP.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
well, i cannot be held accountable for what makes sense to you, nor what fails to make sense to you.
Bush, nor Clinton, were the elected dictators of the U.S. during those years.
"was". 'neither' is singular....
and no, they were the presidents of the United States. They do not create policy in a vacuum, but in cooperation with other elected representatives.... well, except when we have a black, muslim, socialist foreigner traitor in office... we always have to allow for exceptions. They bring with them large staffs of people (hopefully) highly qualified in a variety of policy areas to assist them with the specific intent of crafting policy that will, they hope, become practice. that those hopes are often fulfilled is no coincidence.
in particular, the fact that they are elected by ALL the voters provides them with the aura of a 'national will' which all those with whom they cooperate lack. because of this the wield considerable power in policy. that is why they are often referred to as the most powerful individuals in the world and that is why they go to such an extent to convince us to elect them. that is, in fact, why we elect them and that is why the policies that are enacted under their aegis are often inseparable from them such that we refer to them with the presidents name: The Bush Tax Cuts, ObamaCare.
that no president can be held wholly responsible for what happens during his term is certainly true. that no president can be held responsible at all... doesn't even come close to being true.
critical evaluation... yep. let's do a little.
was bill clinton responsible for the huge boom during his term? hell no. certain of his policies were beneficial to an upward swing already in place... most of which, by the way, such as crushing what little remained of welfare, creating NAFTA to make the rich richer... I very much disagreed with. can he be credited with at least not creating policies that interfered with it. certainly, many of the very same ones i disagreed with. and some policies did, in fact, benefit us, specifically, increasing federal revenues - raising taxes contributing to a comfy surplus.
can GW be held accountable? well, for the wars, yes. he IS the commander in chief. for cutting taxes while fighting the two most expensive wars we have ever fought? yes. for the resultant contributions to the economic descent? damn right.
You're inflating the importance of these people.
which, no doubt, accounts for all those posts you make advising the antiObamistas that they are holding him accountable for things he has had no influence on.
perhaps you are not affording them enough importance. the president is more than an executive, he is a symbol and rallying point. the presidential persona effects the thinking of all americans and influences our own attitudes toward the direction we are taking and the road we are on. they may, in fact, wield the as much power in their persons as in their office. and they may reasonably be held accountable for that influence when it affects attitudes in voters that sway public policy.
I think you should tone it down a bit
and i think i should turn it up a bit... the irrational right is getting pretty loud. we are gonna have to shout to be heard.
geo.
