Wullie wrote:
Maybe they have made a mistake with this particular Congress.
that's exactly what I meant.
I hope you aren't suggesting that the Constitution be trashed as Barry has been doing.
neither I nor they suggest any such thing. Where do you get this stupid garbage?
It's obvious the will of the people means nothing to the present turds. Or else we would NOT have a health care fuck up as we have in the making.
agreed. Where we will probably differ is that 60% of the people wanted them to extend Medicare to all.
However, when you get down to it, the nation elected the Congress as well. So far it has worked pretty as designed as far as elections go.
not a problem with that. My point was this: at the point of Jan 2009, Obama/Biden had a 70% support
level. Both GOP and Dem congresspeople had something around 20%. The election showed an electorate that
wanted immediate and decisive change. What Obama's team did was say, we're putting the House and Senate Dems in charge of designing the nature and agenda for change. Big mistake.
I'm sure the "progressives" will argue that the POTUS should be a strong leader. I would argue that his job is to be the head janitor and keep things cleaned up that THE PEOPLE tell him to via the REPRESENTATIVE government that has worked fairly well until recently. The "recently" of which I speak would be the last 20 years you made mention of.
actually, most of the 'progressives' I talk to DON'T want strong Presidents any more than anyone else. They merely want a Federal government that accepts the premise that it can be the unifying force for creating a just society for all the people. Face it, in the post-industrial era, the times when things worked best for the most people in our nation, we had strong economic regulations, a high-end tax bracket of over 60% and an executive branch willing to actually prosecute corporate fraud. I'm talking about the later part of the Eisenhower and into the Kennedy/Johnson administrations, by the way.
For what it's worth, the extreme liberals I know tend to support, essentially, something akin to anarchy. Which is sort of funny, as that is what the end result of the Tea Party movement would get you.
