You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: FIRST LADIES: OFTEN A PROBLEM FOR "DEMOCRACY"
the spouse of the president is like the spotter to the sniper. integral. partners. not less than, but different from. i didn't mean the president shouldn't be denigrated, but that the functions that the presidential spouse engages in are, or should be, vital to the function of the president. the spouse of the president is their most intimate connection. i don't believe, under such stress that one person can stand alone. i cannot let it be brought to the level of what most people think of as menial chores.
I do understand now -- and I agree. The spotter part we can't control. That's their private affair and it might or might not work. And, yes, the pressure is such that it's imperative that the president has an anchor. But the anchor has no constitutional standing. He/ she should not be permitted to undertake jobs for which congress and government departments have sole authority to conduct. Of course, history teaches us that spouses with a grudge or ambition can CHANGE history... and that is, more often than not, on the unpleasant side. So, spot all you want and let the sniper do the job.... I'm all for it.
i will have to think some more about it. i wouldn't have a problem if they jointly, publicly ran for the office., but, as you imply, there might be covert or competing agendas. i think whomever the people vote for, singly or otherwise should fulfill the duties of the office. i do also think that a spouse fills the role of confidant better than a vice president. however, the duties are still significantly different.