Points well taken and your comments are always insightful. But allow me to comment on your rather satirical question pertaining to our government being more effective. Mr Obama's time in office has shown itself to be potentially more effective than any president in recent memory. I say this at risk of taking ire from those who continue to worship the mystique of Reagan conservatism.

Factually, the major issues facing both the economy and foreign policy for America have been allowed to fester by an unwilling Congress to do their collective jobs. Whether they be Ds or Rs, it has made no difference as they continue to wallow in their own self importance. Scandal after scandal they just continue to be reelected, can you honestly say that you are truly comfortable with Nancy Pelosi being two heartbeats from the Presidency?

There was serious debate in 1994-5 about term limits led by none other than Georgia's own Newt Gingrich, but by a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court it was tossed. We limit local and state elected officials so why not Members of Congress. Today's high court might just well allow Congress to limit themselves and since they will not restrict themselves we are stuck trying to do the near impossible of tossing out incumbents.

I would like to see substantially more effective government that I believe would be enhanced by a competent President and an equally effective Legislative Branch. Maybe with an infusion of ample new blood in Congress we could see this in our lifetimes.

After all, I can hope, can't I?

And I would and do support term limits.

In retrospect, the Amendment to elect Senators was probably a mistake also. It fundamentally changed the structure of the government. I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing by having one body represent the people and the other represent the states. Had this arrangement remained, I have no doubt that we would now have a much, much wider diversity of "experiments" (I can't think of a better word, but you know what I mean) in legislation among the states; a competition if you will among ideas in governance which we have lost.

I am only partisan up to a point. The Republicans need to be strong enough to mount a credible challenge as do the Ds when the Rs are in power. Its possible that 2010 will be the turn around point. I think they'll either lose more or make very low gains compared to historic off year elections and the 2010 candidates will be the ultra conservatives, disproving the current trend in the Party thus setting the stage for a more centrist candidate in 2012. (I'm not using "ultra conservative" disparagingly, I'm trying to describe the current trend in the Party. Some of their positions don't seem conservative at all to me).

IMO, if y'all pick a Palin or a Huckabee yer gonna be wandering in the wilderness.

'Course Obama might save you by really screwing up. Lots of people around here think he already is but I don't see it. So far he seems pretty strong.

After observing the effect of term limits in California - it has been noted that the 'experts' in government are the staffers, not the legislators. Anyone with a different observation?

if not the power to choose who we want to hold office. Granted, we have not done such a hot job of that lately, but, you put term limits in place, and you remove the very LAST source of input by the voters in the system. Are we all that willing to give up our last vestige of power? I certainly am not. Keep the faith.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport

That's what voting in a democracy is, and we already have the systems in place. Let's quit the bitching and "git er done".

It's not easy being the carbonunit

Just an observation, but , I think our politicians are expert only in getting elected, no matter how long they've been in Washington. When your first concern is re-election, I think the voters will always get the dirty end of the stick.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

You touched the issue of illegal immigration. I think that we can safely define both extremes to this position - the elimination of all immigration legal and illegal and the elimination of national borders-let people roam where they may. Since neither party has core principles around this issue, it has become political football. Can you outline the Democratic plan for this issue? I am having trouble determining how close to the extreme they are going to go. What do you think? The democractic plan is the one that passes since they have the majority everywhere.

I'm waiting to find that out myself. Last I heard anything about it they were going to make some proposal within 180 days and that had to be 6 week ago. I suspect that its going to be some kind of amnesty for those here, pay some back taxes, blah , blah, blah. A lot of pledges to tighten up the border. Nothing exciting. A centrist plan. Personally I'd probably do more than whatever they're going to come up with.

My point above though is that its just not a big issue for the vast majority. Its really not. I saw a poll a couple of weeks ago that it was the top issue for something like 4% of the people. Granted the economy overshadows everything now. There is a xenophobic wing in the Rep Party which caters to the most extreme and inflammatory language that transcends illegal immigration and frightens or angers legitimate Hispanic families. I used to listen to Glenn Beck on the radio and cheer him on. Drive all of them into the Dems Party. Go Glenn, go! Then you have the Tancredos making it a litmus test in the R Party with such force that the Presidential candidates in the debates were forced to try to out bash each other vis a vis the Hispanics, even that Gov. guy from Mass. who implemented a free zone in Boston groveled like he didn't know who it was that had done that.

It is just a teeny tiny issue of almost zero real importance. Certainly not something that a Pres. candidate should rise or fall on. The Rs should hope that the Ds push something through that they can denounce and then, right-wing political correctness having been served, drop the issue and move on.

You understand that I'm just commenting on the politics of it, right?

and those sympathetic to that cause will only be happy when there is an open border. I hope this President can stand up to them and say no.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

When did you start caring what the world thinks of the United States anyway? You've always been a follower of the "Freedom Fries" doctrine regarding international relations.

Where was your indignation when Dubya was making a complete global arse of himself for 8 years?

"......but, but, but what about Bush!"

That's their answer to everything.

Hey Main Stream, remember what Omumbles the bumbling teleprompter reader said - "we won"

AAAAAAAAhahahahahahaha

The United States of America
July 4, 1776 - Jan 20, 2009
Rest in Peace

to embarrass the country. What was the last cheap gift he gave in return for a historic artifact? I think it was some cheap DVD's or something....

The media has been having fun with this one.

"The media has been having fun with this one."

...but, but, but we all thought the media was liberal!?

You Repub's can't have it both ways now. Which is it then? The media IS liberal...or...the media is NOT liberal because it is criticizing Obama?

Main: "You Repub's can't have it both ways now." Awww, poor main got his feelings hurt.

It was a foreign publication, Main - pay attention and stop yer catterwallin' everytime someone criticizes your dear leader Obumbles.

The United States of America
July 4, 1776 - Jan 20, 2009
Rest in Peace