I was always speaking of my opposition to President Obama based on his ideology and he continues unabated...

"Only last summer we were told that Barack Obama’s political appeal rested on his vision for a “post-partisan future.” The post-partisan future was one of the press corps’ favorite phrases. It served as shorthand for the candidate’s repeated references to “unity of purpose,” looking beyond a red or blue America, and so on.

Six months into the president’s term, you don’t read much about this post-partisan future anymore. It may be because on almost every big-ticket legislative item (the stimulus, climate change, and now health care), Mr. Obama has been pushing a highly ideological agenda with little (and in some cases zero) support from across the aisle. Yet far from stating the obvious—that sitting in the Oval Office is a very partisan president—the press corps is allowing Mr. Obama to evade the issue by coming up with novel redefinitions."

This President as has been said is VERY political and VERY ideological !!! Now I, and many many others, know that they all are of both parties, but this President was sold in a different package and so many sincere people got caught up in his pretty words.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...588765812.html

can re-evaluate what they bought into.
Add to them the ones who stayed home from voting (see my post of the article by Hope Yen) and it adds up to him winning the election.
While all that counts is who won....when reviewing the total number of votes he won the election by, his election was not a landslide mandate.

Another reason he is in the fast track all his programs mode....he knows he cannot maintain his agenda and the backing of the American people.
He knows they will sit on their duffs until sooner or later they get inspired to do something. He knows that could well turn him into another Jimmy Carter POTUS.

2010 could and should start to show the trend. The desire of the non term limited politicians to remain in office will soon start to have an impact. In fact some of that is starting to show on the health care reform.

We can only hope these trends continue.

btk

Except for a few, politicians are more concerned with being re-elected than any issue on the table. So, the only way for the public to sway a politician (especially when the DNC or RNC wants otherwise) to vote the constituents' way is to make darned sure the politician is afraid of losing the next election. That's not as easy as it sounds, as politicians are very aware that the public long-term memory and short-term memory are one and the same.

Personally, I don't care if President Obama is re-elected in 2012 AS LONG AS either the Senate or the House has a majority of Republicans (or Independents who caucus with them) from 2010 onward. That way there really is a "check and balance" and the DNC cannot ramrod what's good for the DNC onto the public. I felt the same when Pres. Bush was in office, and was pleased when the Democrats won Congress. Whenever this check and balance isn't in place, the country gets overwhelmed with partisan laws aimed at rewarding special interest groups at the expense of everyone.

When a bill requires a "super-majority" to insure it will be law despite a Presidential veto, the odds that the bill will actually be in the nation's best interest (versus the DNC or RNC) is much higher. Additionally, when a President submits a budget to Congress in this situation, then odds that the budget really covers expenses and needs to run the Executive Branch, versus party-inspired fishing expeditions, is much greater. When neither the Congress or the Executive has to justify its actions to the other, (because who is there to challenge after the campaigning is over?) we always seem to go deeper in debt, taxes get raised, government gets bigger, and less gets done.

So, if the goal is "my party, first and foremost," then "my country" has been relegated to second-place. If there does become a Republican Congress in 2010 or 2012, AND a Republican President in 2012, we're no better off than now in the Obama Administration of today, or during much of the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2007. One Party Rules! The history of what happens then is written in the national debt and the IRS regulations.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Except for a few, politicians are more concerned with being re-elected than any issue on the table. So, the only way for the public to sway a politician (especially when the DNC or RNC wants otherwise) to vote the constituents' way is to make darned sure the politician is afraid of losing the next election. That's not as easy as it sounds, as politicians are very aware that the public long-term memory and short-term memory are one and the same.

Personally, I don't care if President Obama is re-elected in 2012 AS LONG AS either the Senate or the House has a majority of Republicans (or Independents who caucus with them) from 2010 onward. That way there really is a "check and balance" and the DNC cannot ramrod what's good for the DNC onto the public. I felt the same when Pres. Bush was in office, and was pleased when the Democrats won Congress. Whenever this check and balance isn't in place, the country gets overwhelmed with partisan laws aimed at rewarding special interest groups at the expense of everyone.

When a bill requires a "super-majority" to insure it will be law despite a Presidential veto, the odds that the bill will actually be in the nation's best interest (versus the DNC or RNC) is much higher. Additionally, when a President submits a budget to Congress in this situation, then odds that the budget really covers expenses and needs to run the Executive Branch, versus party-inspired fishing expeditions, is much greater. When neither the Congress or the Executive has to justify its actions to the other, (because who is there to challenge after the campaigning is over?) we always seem to go deeper in debt, taxes get raised, government gets bigger, and less gets done.

So, if the goal is "my party, first and foremost," then "my country" has been relegated to second-place. If there does become a Republican Congress in 2010 or 2012, AND a Republican President in 2012, we're no better off than now in the Obama Administration of today, or during much of the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2007. One Party Rules! The history of what happens then is written in the national debt and the IRS regulations.

Spot on and well put as usual.

Yep, after the Contract With America put the Republicans in control of Congress, Clinton had to do a 180 degrees and abandon his extreme policies including the take-over of 1/6th of the economy with his ill-conceived Socialized Medicine Scheme.
Funny, how he credits balancing the budget when his party was not in control of congress. But, it is understandable from a guy who claimed to be the first black president.