--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > > I dare you to read this article by Glenn Greenwald > > > on Salon.com: > > > > I read it, although briefly. I think I understand his points. > > But the political climate does change. Seems to me you didn't > > have the tea partiers back then. > > You had Democrats who were very strongly opposed to > many of Bush's agenda items, but he got most of them > through anyway. > > > Some big differences between then and now.
Another big difference, BTW, was that Obama came into office with a huge mandate and all kinds of goodwill, including a Democratic House and (for a month or so anyway) a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Bush didn't have a mandate (Gore won the popular vote, remember), and he had a great deal of ill will because of how he "won." I > > didn't feel that the article made the stongest case for why > > the President is ineffectual or seems ineffecual. > > Greenwald's point is that Obama "seems" ineffectual > only if one assumes he wanted different goals. Once > you realize he's center-right rather than center-left > (let alone liberal), his behavior makes a lot more > sense. > > > Maybe the idea proffered by Maharishi that national > > leaders can only give the people what they deserve is > > as good a theory as any other. > > That's fine as a theory, but we have to deal with the > reality. > > > http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/18/obama_v_bus\ > > h/index.html > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/42w2hme > > > > > > We tend to forget that Bush did quite well with his > > > *conservative* agenda even when he had a Democratic > > > Congress. > > > > > > > I'm part of the 39% that approves of his performance. > > > > Not an unconditional approval by any means. But given > > > > the environment he has to work in, I give him my support. > > > > > > If he can't get anything done because of the Republicans, > > > why is it important to reelect him? If the presidency is > > > so weak in comparison to Congress, what does it matter > > > who's in the White House? Why is anybody worried about a > > > conservative winning the election if the president doesn't > > > have the power to get Congress to pass his agenda? > > > > > > Something doesn't compute here. >
