The debates wasted too much time talking about stuff only Congress can do

[mclumber1]

Quote

The president of the United States has a lot of power.

 

She can bomb and invade foreign countries, negotiate and implement new international agreements, impose sanctions and tariffs, pardon nonviolent drug offenders, change regulations of Wall Street and greenhouse gas emitters, break up corporate monopolies, set monetary policy through Federal Reserve appointments, and reshape the federal judiciary — all with limited or no involvement from Congress.

 

That said, the president isn’t omnipotent. She cannot pass laws, or even really do more than lobby Congress to prioritize laws she cares about. She cannot enact new social programs or raise taxes on her own. She cannot repeal past laws or provide new funding for underfunded programs.

 

So it was deeply frustrating, if ultimately unsurprising, that the second round of Democratic presidential debates focused overwhelmingly on the second set of actions, not the first. Both nights were dominated by discussion of health care, first with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren arguing with Medicare-for-all skeptics, and then with Joe Biden defending his public option plan against Kamala Harris’s more ambitious proposal.

 

Full article here

 

I agree with the author of this piece. We allow candidates to discuss things they effectively have no control over.  I think the debates would be better and more interesting if the moderators chose questions that the White House actually has control over. Pretty much everything they campaign on are actually the responsibility of Congress.  This isn't a problem with just the Democratic candidates,  GOP candidates engage in this as well. 

[chakoo]

In the age of trump, the president can pretty much do anything. What’s Congress going to do about it, impeach them? 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Given the power of the house and Senate leadership, it's not unreasonable to ask where the president will negotiate from.