The other difference is that Clinton was a politician FIRST and FOREMOST. When the Republicans took over in '94, he tacked his political sailboat back to a more moderate stance on most things, and was able to win reelection and coast by appearing to be more of a moderate.sjfcontrol wrote:The difference is that Clinton was bound by the Constitution and the Legislature. Obama, apparently, is not bound by either.woodsong wrote:I've started to think it might not be as bad as expected. It could be like Clinton's second term -- where he was re-elected, but did not control the House and didn't have 2/3 Senate control. It was basically stalemate -- which turned out okay ... because doing "nothing" is often best when the government's the one doing it.Rex B wrote:The question in the back of my mind is "What do we do if he does get re-elected?".
I mean, if that were to happen, this country would be forever ruined, perhaps beyond repair.
It could turn into a disaster, though, if Obama gets to appoint another Supreme and enough Republican Senators cave in and vote for approval. That would be the end of life as we know it -- a liberal controlled court would flush the Constitution away.
Obama is a Marxist revolutionary first and foremost. He will never change his views, his stance, his actions. Clinton would have moderated himself after the big swing to the right in 2010. Obama just pushed HARDER to the left.