Taking a lot off the table there, aren’t you Rick?

Besides, with Obama, we might actually have a chance to do what has to be done with immigrations. Put up a physical border on our south, then work out a path to legality for the illegals already here. The Republican party just doesn’t want to take the hit on putting up a fence.

Also, Social Security would be back on the table, and reform could take place. This is an area that Bush was more than happy to get involved with, unfortunetly the public doesn’t trust the Republicans to reform social security. (Just like the military draw down had to begin with a Republican president in 1990).

Anyway, your analysis is a little off. In 1992, the public sent Bill Clinton, an agent of change, the man from Hope, to replace the stodgy Bush. The congressional Republicans fought him at every turn and took the congress two years later. I am not so sure why it can’t happen with Obama. Right now, he is all shinny and new and has avoided offending anyone. As soon as he took office, he would have to actually start making decisions, and as soon as he starts making decisions he will start pi$$ing people off. He would immediately become “just another politician” because a lot of people will feel duped.

Do you honestly believe that the Republicans weren’t acting the same way the last six years they held the majority? They did everything they could to slap the Dems around and deny them any participation in much of the legislative process.

Someone needs to break the logjam. Obama for the Dems could do it or McCain for the Repubs could do it, with Rudy a close second.

Any of those three could begin to get some serious compromise legislation done. Compromise is the nature of politics - a fact that the most rabid partisans on both sides of the aisle seem to ignore … to the detriment of the country.

We hear how we need another Reagan. I don’t think Reagan would be saying “we just all need to get along”. Sorry, we need to work our butts off to make sure that the Demcorats don’t take possession of the Oval Office. Just ask your liberal friends if they are happy that the split-to-the-left SCOTUS made them happy when they decided that companies could end a retiree’s health benefits when they reach the age to be on Medicare. Those are benefits that unions worked for and the SCOTUS just said “doesn’t matter” and ruled in favor of corporations.

Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.

Exactly! Rick has lost his mind if he’s serious with his B.O. love-fest. The guy is an empty suit, to the nth degree. He will be destroyed in the Clinton machine or at the latest, republicans, who will showcase his looney views and his shady muslim past.

You’re the one talking about a mystical “door to the future,” hanging on the “hinge of history” and leading to an unknowable but presumably harmonious destiny in Washington. Talk about loony. You make it sound almost desirable.

What I desire is a future of hard-line partisanship, where both parties fight for the extremes of their platforms. Where any agreements reached will be decidedly less moonbatty when our side carries the day, yet all the more horrifying and motivating when theirs does. Settling for permanent centrist mediocrity is a cop-out; it dooms our heirs to a bleak, languid future.

Call me loony, but a one-party system doesn’t appeal to me. That’s exactly where all this brotherly love, this idealized political landscape you wistfully pine for, will lead us. And you know it. If my “magical door” comment was loony, then I’ve succeeded in painting yours as such.

Thanks for the stimulating article.

After reading that sentence, I couldn’t help but think of the Bush administration’s warrantless spying efforts.