We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
...it might be better anyway for Obama to have a hostile “them” Congress that he can perpetually run against. That can take the place of a now stale “Bush did it.” As it is, the Democrats give Obama what he wants, and what he wants is not what we the people want, at least if polls are any indication.
But with an obdurate opposition in power, Obama can speechify and do what he does best: demagogue, soaring with we should and must do without much worry about the icky details of actual implementation that never will come due to all those right-wing Beck and Hannity types.
Saudi Arabia has displayed criminals' bodies on crosses after their executions in recent years. The executions are usually by decapitation. I'm no fan of the Saudi legal system, but let's be fair. This is the equivalent of the old custom of leaving a hanged criminal on a gibbet for display and example. The executions weren't by crucifixion.
Just out of interest, when does a new president generally become an acceptable blame-target?
I realize there will be institutionalized Bush-blaming for quite some time to come (the Crucifixion, the Black Death, the Crusades, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, the Hindenberg disaster, Pearl Harbor and so forth).
But at what point can we officially shift some of our fires from Target Dubya and start thumping Target Incumbent?