The answer is simple: yes. Why would it be any different. Even when the Democrats had a large majority in both House of Congress in 2009 very little got accomplished that we could consider beneficial to the country. As for the "change" we were promised. It doesn't seem like much has changed. The problem is Obama himself. We have a President who is clearly in over his head. He's also not motivated, like Clinton, in principals. It's all about ego and self promotion. His gift is in winning elections. That's it. He sold his soul to get elected in 2008. And his agenda, like his predecessors is pay back the wealthy donors that funded his election victories. That's the name of this corrupt game:
President Obama may have slightly boosted his reelection chances by outmaneuvering the Republicans on the payroll-tax-cut extension. But after a year of Beltway paralysis, that deal simply preserves the status quo for a mere two months—the latest sign of the capital’s utter dysfunction.Full article
So is there any reason to believe that Obama would fare better in a second term?
More of the same is not appealing. Yet for Obama to govern with any degree of success, he would need either a big electoral upset—with Democrats regaining the House and maintaining a nominal hold on the Senate—or a chastened Republican Party, newly open to cooperation and willing to set aside the all-or-nothing brinkmanship that has defined its strategy.
The prospect of four more years of gridlock while Obama looks on from the sidelines will hardly energize voters already disappointed by the president’s performance. For now, Obama is benefiting by standing apart from an institution whose approval rating is 11 percent, but mastering the legislative process is a big part of the job of being president, and while Obama squeezed major legislation through Congress in his first two years, this last year has been a disaster all around.
No comments:
Post a Comment