Positions have hardened over the past few decades. Take you for instance. You seem to be calling for a knock down, drag out. While that may be entertaining, and a boon for the paid and unpaid punditocracy, it's unrealistic.
You want him to name names ("Obama does not seem to recognize who they are. FDR did."
? I have a feeling your argument is much more about style as opposed to substance. There's been an amazing amount of legislation for this president's first two years. As I pointed out earlier, while we were bickering amongst ourselves about party purity, the right evangelicals went about taking over school boards, local governments, and state houses all across the country.
I realize that there's a part of the base who love the "in your face" style of a Dennis Kucinich or a Ralph Nader, but they've both been rejected more than once, by those of us who don't care for that "style". When you get a chance, I think this explains it much better than I ever could:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2009/06/no-obama-cant-govern-fdr-1933/135503
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read