I wonder if the next president will find themselves under pressure from newly mined congressmen and senators to act on conservative issues and approve initiatives we hold dear lest they find themselves in opposition to their own party?
Bush was rarely in the news when he had a majority and I would prefer a president who isn’t a glory/camera whore/hog.
If Clinton can be forced by voter consensus and political opportunism, what then of a President who again has clear majorities which mitigate challenges from a certain party?
We must support a strategy that focuses on super majorities of both houses. New reps will be of the tea party or more closely represent our ideals, hopefully forcing a new president to pick a side and it ought to be for his team.
Example:
Romney is just as inconvenient a choice as a general McClellan was for Abraham Lincoln and since we can’t very well fire him, perhaps we can force the ludditte into action by voter pressure and house pluralities.
I hate to think of Romney in the White House and will oppose him even in the general(my thing) and my visceral disgust that he might even be considered but wanted to pose the thought.
Sorry the post isn’t as cogent as it should be. I’m posting from one of these stoopid smart phones and need to learn how to use it.
History from Nixon to Ford to both Bushes shows that "progressive" Republican Presidents pull Republican Congresses to the left, rather than Congress pulling the President to the right. ("Well, we have to support our President," don't you know?)