[Helmling]

Dear President Obama,

What a disappointment you have become, Mr. President. I still remember clearly the sense of hope and possibility I felt that night in January when you accepted the results of the election. I had never believed in the wisdom of democracy and the potential of the American experiment more than I did on that night. After the disgraceful behavior of both parties in the 2000 election, I had vowed to never vote for a Democrat or a Republican again, but I broke that promise because I believed in you. Now, nearly a year into your term, I feel as though all that hope has been exhausted.

The current financial crisis is a sign that post-industrial capitalism is fundamentally flawed, that it is a paradigm destined to drain our world’s natural resources and commoditize every aspect of human life--to market the human spirit itself and sell it to us as a pale, shrink-wrapped imitation of itself. Instead of heeding the warning this crisis has offered to us about our future, you and the Congress have continued in another form the flawed policies of your predecessor, propping up a financial industry that is failing not because of a few poor choices, but because of the fallacious and avaricious assumptions that ungird its every move.

In Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, there is clear evidence that outside force--no matter how well-intentioned--will never pacify a region so mired in the ebb and flow of another culture’s troubled history. When revolutionary and visionary policies are needed, you offer a better-written version of a speech President Bush might have delivered on the same subject. Meanwhile, the cost of our increasingly pointless endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan could provide clean drinking water for the entire population of the world. If our struggle against terrorism is a battle for the hearts and minds of the people of the globe, then imagine what a victory it would be if the Afghan people no longer felt molested by predator drones but knew instead that America was lifting up communities everywhere--from the impoverished of Africa to their own remote villages.

Your tenure thus far has not demonstrated the change you promised us, President Obama.

We need that change. If America in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries represents the pinnacle of Western Civilization, then there is one inescapable conclusion: Western culture is sick. We live lives of wealth that subtract from the health of our environment and our own bodies. Our society is wasteful and materialistic. It is not a few policies that need to be changed, but the very fabric of our lives.

For this we require true leadership--a revolutionary hand steering the ship, not just a course correction.

I urge you, President Obama, to consider real changes, to think beyond the limits of the world as it is and see what could be:

Reform the tax code to favor cooperatives over corporations and to make corporations doing business within our borders pay the real price for their services and production, including their impact on communities’ quality of life and the global commons. Companies with massive disparity between executive pay and the wages paid to their lowest paid employees--including the labor contracted to produce wares or provide basic services through outsourcing--should pay a higher tax burden to offset the corrosive effects of the inequitable distribution of the wealth they are producing. Firms that damage our environment through hoarding of resources for production or through wasteful practices in manufacturing and packing should pay penalties to offset the costs we and our progeny will pay for their short-sightedness. The market will not force capital to obey standards of human decency and reasonable parsimony in their consumption of natural resources, but we can force these corporate entities to consider the real costs of their business practices by impacting their bottom lines.

Launch a program on the scale of the Apollo mission to cope with our rising energy needs and to ween our country off destructive energy sources. The technology and entrepreneurial talent to create clean sustainable energy exists today, but corporate behemoths and their lobbyists are too invested in a status quo built on the continual rape of the natural world to allow those possibilities to be developed. Only the collective will channeled through the leadership you have promised us can build a new energy infrastructure and produce an America that powers itself sustainably and independently.

Consider the impact these sweeping changes could have on our culture. Imagine an America reinvested with the democratic spirit so that our enterprises serve our common good and not just the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. Look with me and see a country that powers itself and exports that know-how to the rest of the world.

You have at least three more years in office, Mr. President. I hope that history will write that though your administration began with a whimper of “more of the same,” you found your footing and set the stage for a reinvigorated second American century.

Sincerely,

Richard Helmling

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

If America in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries represents the pinnacle of Western Civilization

It doesn't. End of story.

[Helmling]

Hardly the crux of the argument, Doof.

[smacintush]

You should write a letter to yourself and ask yourself why you fell for the hype and the BS to begin with.

Oh, and…we told you so.

[Helmling]

Actually, I think you told us he'd be a mad socialist and would ruin the country, not a mild imitation of every other president of the last generation.

[Chongo]

I think those who voted for him because they hoped he would be a mad socialist are the most disappointed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I think those who voted for him because they hoped he would be a mad socialist are the most disappointed.

I reckon Barry had every intention of being a mad socialist until The Powers That Be had a little word with him.

Barry: "We're going to close down tax havens!"
Barry: "We're going to close down tax havens!"
Barry: "We're going to close down tax havens!"
Barry: "We're going to close down tax havens!"
Gordon: "Yay we're going to close down tax havens!"
Barry: "We're going to close down tax havens!"
Barry: "We're going to close down tax havens!"
TPTB: "No you're not. Remember that Kennedy dude?"
Gordon: "So, Barry, we're gonna close down tax havens this week?"
Barry: "Ummm."

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Actually, I think you told us he'd be a mad socialist and would ruin the country, not a mild imitation of every other president of the last generation.

No, actually that isn't what I said, though others have. I said he was just like the rest, he is just another ambitious, lying politician who will say what he needs to say to get elected then do the same crap as everyone else.

That is the point, you were being sold a bill of goods and we knew it. His campaign was always about creating the image needed to get him in office. That's it.

I personally am glad he IS a fraud, because if he actually did what you seem to be Hoping™ for, it would be a long way down a road that I don't wish to travel.

[turtle777]

Well, he definitely failed.

Nice comment in the WSJ today.

Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove of his job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.

There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful health-care plan his signature domestic initiative. ...

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

I guess he should change his name to "Cheetah" Obama!

[Osedax]

Just to touch a few points...

The economy
An economic down turn is not "a sign that post-industrial capitalism is fundamentally flawed", it's just an economic down turn. That is simply how pretty much all systems work - in ebbs and flows.

And while the "post-industrial capitalism" system is flawed, it is far less flawed then any other system out there.

As far as Obama's campaign promises, to my knowledge he never suggested he would try to change the nature of the US econonmy, a task that would be all but impossible for one man to do.

Afghanistan
If I remember correctly, durring his campaign for President, Obama repeatedly said Afghanistan was a just war. It was Iraq that was not.

How Obama's Promises on Afghanistan Could Hurt Him | Newsweek World | Newsweek.com
It's no small irony, then, that the foreign-policy issue Obama has emphasized most of late is Afghanistan. Arguing that it, not Iraq, is the real central front in the war on terror, Obama has promised to send in about 10,000 more troops and to strike next-door Pakistan, if top terrorists are spotted there. Yet should President Obama really follow through on such aggressive promises, Afghanistan could become an Iraq of his own—a quagmire that alienates allies and his key political base.

Sounds to me like he's pretty much doing what he said he would, which is to make Afghanistan the focus of our war efforts that it should have been 8 years ago.

As for your argument against Afghanistan, that we could be providing drinking water for the entire population of the world, or that we could have a victory in Afghanistan by not molesting them with predator drones... It makes no sense.

Our struggle against terrorism is not a battle for the hearts and minds of the people of the globe. It is to stop those that would take up arms against us.

And while the thought of people being molested by drones flying so far over head that they can not be seen is ammusing, stopping them or our actions in Afghanistan most certainly would not be a victory in or for Afghanistan.

The fabric of our lives
Did you really think Obama was going to effect massive changes to the US economy and social structure? Re-write our entire culture?

Wow.

Tax Reform
You speak with such high ideals, yet your ideas are completely impractical and even destructive.

Make business pay the "real price" for their services and production including their impact on quality of life and the global commons?

I assume you mean raise taxes on companies so the government can provide more services etc?

A community, wheather it be a small town, big city, a state or the nation as a whole, is impacted by moreso by jobs then by any other factor. Jobs give people a means to support themselves and give government income needed to support the community.

If you start taxing companies more then we do now, based on some "real price" impact, then the companies will have less money to hire people which means fewer poeple working. More unemployed people is devistating to communities.

Going Green
All across the land there are many incentives, federal and local, to doing it yourself. In some places you can save as much as ~$6000 on the ~$6500 price to purchase and install a wind turbine on your home. So the incentives are out there, people just need to be aware and take advantage of them.

[ort888]

I think a good two thirds of this board is just people masturbating over any bad obama news they can find.

Ooh... Obama screwed this up... so good... so... i knew it all... uhh... along... im so right... bad economy... uh huh... so bad... racial tensions... ohhhh... ahh.... bad approval ratings... uh... ooohhh... socialism... ahhh... uhhh.... he bowed to a foreign leader... ughh... ahhhh.... oooojjjjjekdfnlsdkfa;sdlasd/v aba'sdfLAJKSHDFL ASLFHOIGN/SDGNSLGHSGLGSGHSH


...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I think a good two thirds of this board is just people masturbating over any bad obama news they can find.

Like the Liberals who masturbate over every single word he speaks ?

-t

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I think a good two thirds of this board is just people masturbating over any bad obama news they can find.

If I think that a President's policies would be dangerous, or at least undesirable to me why wouldn't I be pleased to see him fail, flounder and (hopefully) ruin his chances for re-election?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, he definitely failed.

Nice comment in the WSJ today.



-t

No, I mean punish companies so that they will adopt policies less destructive to society.

I didn't mean to suggest that Obama promised to do everything I suggest he do, but simply that we are at a crossroads in history that demands more than simply a moderate hand--which is all Obama is giving us.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

No, I mean punish companies so that they will adopt policies less destructive to society.

I'm not sure what you mean.

You can't efficiently punish companies (or people) into doing something.

Give the right incentives, and the right actions and outcomes will follow.

The clusterfu*k we're in is due to wrong government policies that tried to punish or created wrong incentives (e.g. cheap money).

-t

[ort888]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If I think that a President's policies would be dangerous, or at least undesirable to me why wouldn't I be pleased to see him fail, flounder and (hopefully) ruin his chances for re-election?

No, I understand that.

It just seems to me like people are carrying on like our way of life has fundamentally changed. Like there are now armed soldiers patrolling the streets and taking our possessions for redistribution to lazy immigrants.

The truth is that all of these people are 90% the same and their are so many checks, balances and roadblocks in the way that no one is every going to be able to do that much.

Anyone with half a brain knew that all the hope and change bull**** was just that. Not only are all these guys more or less the same... but the system of government we have in place is designed to make change really difficult.

The Dems have the white house and a strong majority in both houses and they still can't get squat done.

I think most people treat politics as more of a sports match then anything. You get your team, you root for them, you yell at them, you bitch at the tv when they lose, you cheer when they win, you spin things to make your team look good and the other team look bad... instead of painting your face green and tailgating, maybe you put a hitler moustache on an obama picture and go to a townhall... but at the end of the day, you go to bed, wake up and go to work and nothing really changes. It really all has very little bearing on your day-to-day life.

If we would just turn off the tv, turn off the internet and stopped reading about all of this stuff... would we really notice a difference? Would you really be able to tell that a republican or a democrat was running things? Does your life really change?

Does anything really change?

[BadKosh]

except for the gigantic deficit caused by the current admin.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

except for the gigantic deficit caused by the current admin.

Bush's fault™

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

except for the gigantic deficit caused by the current admin.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Bush's fault™

After signing this, it's his baby now.
Obama signs $1.1 trillion spending bill into law - Yahoo! News

[Big Mac]

I wonder how he justifies an 8% increase in discretionary spending on top of the $311 billion in stimulus in the face of the enormous deficits.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

If we would just turn off the tv, turn off the internet and stopped reading about all of this stuff... would we really notice a difference?

The answer's "no". I haven't seen a TV for years, haven't read a newspaper (online or dead tree) for about four months. No change.

[imitchellg5]

Are any of the things that you're bringing up truly related to the President? Or are they more the fault of a Congress that is about as unified as water and oil?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It doesn't. End of story.

Agreed. I think the pinnacle for Western Civilization was somewhere around the 50's.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I think a good two thirds of this board is just people masturbating over any bad obama news they can find.

Ooh... Obama screwed this up... so good... so... i knew it all... uhh... along... im so right... bad economy... uh huh... so bad... racial tensions... ohhhh... ahh.... bad approval ratings... uh... ooohhh... socialism... ahhh... uhhh.... he bowed to a foreign leader... ughh... ahhhh.... oooojjjjjekdfnlsdkfa;sdlasd/v aba'sdfLAJKSHDFL ASLFHOIGN/SDGNSLGHSGLGSGHSH


...

Perhaps. But, he is a pretty mediocre President at best. He's not the worst, but it's becoming quite clear that there will be very little "change".

[Orion27]

The truth is the last time the American people saw how a liberal Democrat congress and Liberal President govern was the Johnson administration 45yrs ago. They're seeing liberals govern once more and the American people are recoiling in horror. If you had happened to see the speech Obama gave this morning in Copenhagen, where is the truth in anything this man says.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, he definitely failed.

Nice comment in the WSJ today.



-t

While I can't say that the information is at all untrue, it's misleading, particularly in the wording of the headline. LOTS of presidents have sucked in retrospect at the end of their first year, but either there was no poll like this or the poll asked different questions.

Plus, Hoover took office in 1929 and by the end of his first year a global depression was descending, yet the most affected people in America were farmers (who had been suffering since 1920) but they were almost all still living on farms without electricity or phones, so even if WSJ had wanted to poll them (not likely then), they would have had a difficult time of it. You see the point? Framing the poll in the appropriate terms, "worst rating at the end of his first year for any president that Gallup/USA Today have polled about" would have been better. And since it was Karl Rove writing the piece, what would we expect? Even handedness from probably the most partisan person inside the Beltway?

The biggest reason the pres' approval ratings are so low is that people expected him to walk in this past January, snap his fingers, and create out of nothing some paradise of prosperity and freedom. This was of course a very naive and illogical hope, but now instead of thinking "gee, we were really asking a lot of someone in our political system," people are blaming Mr. Obama for not snapping his fingers...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The biggest reason the pres' approval ratings are so low is that people expected him to walk in this past January, snap his fingers, and create out of nothing some paradise of prosperity and freedom. This was of course a very naive and illogical hope, but now instead of thinking "gee, we were really asking a lot of someone in our political system," people are blaming Mr. Obama for not snapping his fingers...

Perhaps it *is* naive, but that's *exactly* what his campaign implied.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by ort888 

No, I understand that.

It just seems to me like people are carrying on like our way of life has fundamentally changed.

Like everyone did because their rights were stripped away by homeland security...?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps it *is* naive, but that's *exactly* what his campaign implied.

That's what every campaign implies. People act like this is all something new.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

That's what every campaign implies. People act like this is all something new.

Perhaps it was all the HOPE they'd invested in all the CHANGE they were expecting.

[BadKosh]

I guess we should blame those who fall for the lies and empty promises and voted for someone without any experience in anything.

[ort888]

What politician has run on anything beyond lies and empty promises? In my opinion, the main difference between Obama's campaign and others is that he really branded himself like no other politician has. But once you get beyond the slogan and the logo and the look and feel, it's all the same crap. He was saying the same crap every other politician has. It's not like he was really promising anything new. Every politician runs on hope and change. Every politician uses that exact same message.

Obama wasn't promising anything that every other guy who has run for president has promised.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The truth is the last time the American people saw how a liberal Democrat congress and Liberal President govern was the Johnson administration 45yrs ago. They're seeing liberals govern once more and the American people are recoiling in horror. If you had happened to see the speech Obama gave this morning in Copenhagen, where is the truth in anything this man says.

NO it was Jimmy Carters pathetic attempt at leadership. Crappy, wimpy, lame boring quitter type presidency. The Gas Lines and his idiotic way he dealt with Iran set the pattern for current liberal 'leaders'.

[andi*pandi]

In an economic downturn, I don't think any president would be popular, unless he handed out $100 bills.

And candy. Candy is always good.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

What politician has run on anything beyond lies and empty promises? In my opinion, the main difference between Obama's campaign and others is that he really branded himself like no other politician has.

Rubbish. I told you that this guy was just like Blair (right down to the campaign speeches) before you elected him. Barry = Blair mk3 (mk2 is that idiot Rudd over in Oz). Camoron (over here) is mk4.

[ebuddy]

Well... all I can say is that Obama appears to have united the two sides in disgust of his performance in ways I would've thought unimaginable just less than a year ago.

GoBama anyone? Here's to the New Year; 2010 and hopefully some of that change we can believe in for 2012.

[ort888]

fap fap fap

[besson3c]

Helming,

I think you have to separate out all of the things that Obama would *want* to do vs. all of the things he *can* do.

This health care bill is a great example. It originally started one way, but now it is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise. He can't just steamroller stuff that the committed left would want through if there is no way that Congress would vote for it as a whole, as having stuff so clearly shot down seems to result in a much lower chance that a bill will ultimately pass. It is probably better, in some cases, for a compromised bill to pass than having nothing at all pass.

One would probably point out that the Democrats control both houses, but I'm wondering whether this doesn't mean as much as we think? During both Clinton's years and now it looks like the Republicans are united in obstructing anything and everything that the Democrats want to pass. These Republicans (many which are here) were against anything and everything Obama the second after he took office, and they still are now. Therefore, if Obama wants to pass a bill, he has to aim for the middle and hope that he can line up each and every Democrat. It is natural to expect that some Democrats would vote with the Republicans on some issues, people are not partisan robots, but it is unnatural to expect that absolutely in the Republican party, save one or two people, would vote with the Democrats on some issues. Some would say that the center is naturally where Obama's political leanings sit anyway (I don't know whether this is true or not, but he sure seems comfortable expressing moderate viewpoints).

My point here is that I think you have to look at not only Obama's rhetoric (which is always designed to win elections), and what he is actually capable of doing now. He is being blackballed.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In an economic downturn, I don't think any president would be popular, unless he handed out $100 bills.

And candy. Candy is always good.

What ?

Obama is doing exactly THAT, handing out money left and right (stimulus, bailouts, $4clunkers, homer buyers credit etc...)

Americans are not stupid, They know that they will have to foot the bill.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Helming,

I think you have to separate out all of the things that Obama would *want* to do vs. all of the things he *can* do.

Useful distinction,.

In that regard, I'm partially happy that he did NOT achieve all that he said he wanted to.

-t

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

homer buyers credit etc...)

DOH!
Sorry, couldn't resist.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

One would probably point out that the Democrats control both houses, but I'm wondering whether this doesn't mean as much as we think? During both Clinton's years and now it looks like the Republicans are united in obstructing anything and everything that the Democrats want to pass. These Republicans (many which are here) were against anything and everything Obama the second after he took office, and they still are now. Therefore, if Obama wants to pass a bill, he has to aim for the middle and hope that he can line up each and every Democrat. It is natural to expect that some Democrats would vote with the Republicans on some issues, people are not partisan robots, but it is unnatural to expect that absolutely in the Republican party, save one or two people, would vote with the Democrats on some issues. Some would say that the center is naturally where Obama's political leanings sit anyway (I don't know whether this is true or not, but he sure seems comfortable expressing moderate viewpoints).

My point here is that I think you have to look at not only Obama's rhetoric (which is always designed to win elections), and what he is actually capable of doing now. He is being blackballed.

I agreed in general with your first statement and then you promptly flushed pragmatism down the toilet.

Honestly besson, the bit above seems little more than whining about the fact that this President's lofty goals are indefensible. People who want nothing more than success for this President are becoming increasingly confused about their allegiances. They're starting to eat their young on the Hill with issues they tethered themselves to. I don't have a lot of patience for hearing about how unfair things are for the media darling and his minions. The "obstructionists" you're not accounting for of course are the American people who have repeatedly said; "We like the President, but oppose these policies." The largest loss of support for Obama has been among independents, who I would think are least beholden to one party or the other. Is Obama reacting as one who would like to remain President for a second term? Of course, but this has not stopped him from trying to throw the deep balls to his leftist base. They're just being juggled, bumbled, fumbled, and turned over to the defense. What can I say? They're just not putting a lot of thought into these great big ideals.

What to do? Come back down to earth, run back to where common sense is and where the lofty goals of failed ideology take a back seat. After all, that's what they did to get into office and they go back to it to bolster support. What you have in the meantime is a President doing exactly what he didn't want to do and it's beginning to show in his sales pitch. It seems he often has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the sensible solutions. The question is, how much damage does he do while trying to stay in office long enough to do what he wants?

I'm sure you're already disgusted with this post so I may as well close by saying that the problem can be summed up in two words IMO; indefensible ideals.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What ?

Obama is doing exactly THAT, handing out money left and right (stimulus, bailouts, $4clunkers, homer buyers credit etc...)

Americans are not stupid, They know that they will have to foot the bill.

-t

You mean how Bush's popularity spiked after tax rebate time? Were those Americans stupid?

I should have specified, to Joe Taxpayer not corporations.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You mean how Bush's popularity spiked after tax rebate time? Were those Americans stupid?

They were sold more effectively and the dollar amount was more palatable than the numbers we're throwing around nowadays, although I expressed a problem with them at the time. How is bringing up Bush supposed to be an argument against those complaining about Obama anyway? This was supposed to be about "change" right?

Next you'll be giving speeches on the virtues of war against evil.

[andi*pandi]

It was the only example I could think of where tax credit/free money = popularity rise. I'm sure other presidents have done it too.

My main point being that people are grumpy when they can't pay the rent.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ort888 

That's what every campaign implies. People act like this is all something new.

And, that's the point. Pledging "change" promises that we shouldn't have to expect the same-old-same-old, such as empty campaign promises.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You mean how Bush's popularity spiked after tax rebate time? Were those Americans stupid?

No, they were not. Many realized it was a gimmick.

However, it was a gimmick that was more "fair", since everybody got in on the action.

That's not the case with stimulus, $4clunkers and all the other bailouts. They give preferential treatment to a small group, funded by everyone.

-t

[torsoboy]

My single biggest gripe about his lack of promised "change" is that he promised to no longer allow earmarks to be put into any bills. yet has done nothing to stop it or slow it down. When the first bill of the year came up he said "this was in the works before my time, so I am letting it go", but since that time there have been so many earmarks added to bills (the health insurance reform bill is the big one right now) that it is ridiculous. I was very excited for this "change", and have been very disappointed in not seeing it come about.

In this week's issue of Time magazine, they showed poll results saying that 44% of the American people would rather have Bush as the acting president right now instead of Obama. Considering how much people supposedly disliked Bush, that's saying a lot! (I'd post a link, but I read it in the magazine and not online)

[Person Man]

I will say that I have always thought that the political system worked best when the Executive Branch (President) and the Legislative Branch (Congress) were controlled by opposite parties. It seems that the worst damage is *always* done when the same party controls both branches. We had six years of Republican Congress/Republican President so basically the Congress just becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the President wants to do. Now we have a Democratic Congress/Democratic President and the same thing is happening, only in the opposite direction.

I will say now that my political views lean left of center (My fiscal views align with the Republicans with respect to no big government but my social views align with the Democrats with respect to gay rights, abortion rights and anything else most religious people are trying to block). I think I wouldn't have hated Bush as much as I did if he'd been paired with a Congress that was Democratic. I like Obama but I'd like him a lot more if he'd been paired with a Republican Congress.

The mess our country finds itself in now is not solely Obama's fault, and it's not solely Bush's fault. The blame is shared equally among Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior, and Obama AND their respective Congresses.

I hope to God that in 2010 the Republicans get control of Congress. And then in 2012 if Obama stays President that the Republicans retain control of Congress or if the Republicans take the White House the Democrats get control of Congress. Until then we will continue to see the divisiveness we have had for the last seven years (and will continue to have for at least one more year).

The Democrats refused to compromise or offer anything themselves during the Bush years because it didn't matter what they said or did. The Republicans would do what they wanted to do anyway. The Republicans are doing the exact same thing now. You see much more bipartisanship in Congress when it is controlled by the party opposite to the President, because the majority in Congress has to tone themselves down if they expect the President to go along with what they want to do. The ideal would be a Congress that doesn't have a huge majority in either direction, like a 51-49 split or close to it. Then the Democrats wouldn't be able to do something unless they can get at least 10% of the Republicans to go along with it and the Republicans wouldn't be able to do something unless they can get at least 10% of the Democrats to go along with it.