|
Lets face it - Obama said first and foremost he was going to change the tone in Washington. This is exactly what he's doing. The vast majority of the American people long ago became increasingly disgusted with the gridlock idiocy we get out of Washington when real problems arise.
As a solution to this, Obama's actions have signaled both practicality and dialogue between the Executive and Legislative branch as the way to move forward to solve our very real problems. This is exactly what we need, and so far, he's appointed a group of folks who can get us there.
For those concerned that progressive ideas are going to get the shaft, let me ask you something - aren't progressive ideas practical? Said another way, does anyone in America think the current health care system makes sense or is sustainable? If Obama forces a real dialogue on issues surrounding health care, aren't we confident that our approach actually makes the most practical sense? If an administration seen by everyone as practically oriented tackles health care and comes up with a plan very similar to what Obama wanted, don't you think its chances of passing will be far higher than had Obama appointed more progressive folks, but who could be painted as being ideological first, and thus more adversarial?
Regarding Iraq, if Obama has already had a meeting of the minds with Gates and has his agreement that a drawdown is necessary, won't it be that much more credible having Gates deliver this message to Congress?
Again, its clear to me that Obama is going for the creation of a 70%+ majority in getting his mandate through congress. I think this is a terrific approach, one which will lead to reasonably good laws and real benefit to the American people. If a side benefit of nominating practically oriented folk is we get less gridlock, I'm all for it.
That said, I still want prosecutions of illegal conduct from the last administration, and I'm still holding out for this...
|