http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4181799.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4181799.stm)

Well, it does seem like the man can do anything and get away with it.
Does he serve himself, or the people?

What a boring topic/story.

Ibudin

Sure, if the power and actions of your own presidency is somewhat trivial and boring, if the trend from limiting themselves from public reaction and scorn, and altogether extravagent controversial acts that once served as a "checking mark" to how far a president would go, is "boring", then so be it.

I find it rather interesting. I mean, without the crown jewels of a monarch, the differences aren't as great as a person might think.

Heh, you know who Ibudin reminds me of? "MATT DAEMON!!11"

Well, for one the position of US President is temporary (4 years a term, 8 years maximum) and is not hereditary, unlike a monarch who is there for life. Secondly the President can be impeached and prosecuted, a monarch not so much (depending upon the country). Although the President has powers that can impinge upon the war-declaring powers of congress, congress controls the purse strings and can effectively hamstring any policy by simply not funding it.

The BBC will take any chance (under cover of legit decenct) to make the U.S. look worse.

The checks and balances system should be well known.. at least to these reporters.

Uh, it was an American author that wrote the book, not a BBC journalist.

But what prompted them to report on the book? Did they just happen to see it the very moment before Bush's inaugaration? Seems unrelated to me.. at least in a factual sense. I haven't seen this reported on any U.S. news network either, and even though I haven't exactly looked for it, I only assume you would have posted the article from a U.S. news network as well if it existed.

That there is no real US new commentary on the book is a sad statement in its favor.

The problem is not really that any given political oligarchy is more or less powerful than it was, but that the major fulcrum of public power over them has completely and totally failed. FDR cared what the Times said about him because when he did something questionable, people actually questioned it instead of starting stupid fake debates with meaningless politi-jargon and sound bite answers.

'Seems unrelated to me.. at least in a factual sense. I haven't seen this reported on any U.S. news network either'

- And you're, what, shocked and suprised?

Not at all, which goes back to my original post.

FDR cared what the Times said about him because when he did something questionable, people actually questioned it instead of starting stupid fake debates with meaningless politi-jargon and sound bite answers.

Exactly. Funny how that last part can even apply well to people on this message board too.

Have you read the book, Halo?