Things like "moral hazard" and " your own bootstraps"" keep us in bad financial times.

His little joke about the Obama Stimulus Bill, that if was messy, or some other derisive term, because it came out of Washington -- yuck, wink, snigger -- really bothered me. It was such a Republican thing to say.  Where does he expect legislation on a national level to come from? What government does he think he's the chief executive of?

And he's going to need those Dems he's denigrating that way.

When he said last night that he would  propose new regulations for the financial markets to replace "outmoded and overworn" regulations, I said, whoa, there, Mr. Prez! We have many good and workable regulations on the books, but under BushCo they were simply ignored, people were put in charge who didn't believe government ought to regulate the magic hand of the market--or even, say in food safety, the production of food.

The first step is to actually follow and enforce the existing regulations, while evaluating what needs to be changed.

There are so many examples of what Repubs did NOT do that lead to tragedies that it is alarming that Obama will not name names. Of course, he says he will call out mayors, other local and state officials, if they don't spend the stimulus monies "wisely." He will name their names, but he seldom names Republicans' names who got us into much of the mess we're in.

Of course, the key to using Bill Clinton is that when he was Pres., the government was NOT failing.  We had Medicare & SS and we also had a surplus.  Unfortunately due to the prosperity of the time, people were encouraged to hack away at SS - why shouldn't I invest that money for my retirement?  Fortunately we can say now that investing that money is not a good idea.  We do indeed need a lockbox.  Funny how with Social Security things have to be just right - too much prosperity and people want to invest that money in the market, too little prosperity and people think we can't afford SS.

Today's NYT/CBS poll has made news by suggesting bipartisanship may take a back seat to policies.  At least, if those policies are those of President Obama.  A majority (56%) want to see Obama work on "the policies he promised he would during the campaign."  Fewer said he should work in a bipartisan way with Congressional Republicans.

Most individuals aren't strongly ideological.  They base their political decisions mainly on a "what have you done for me lately" approach.

So there isn't an ideological shift as such, there are just conditions where one party's policies have failed, so the public is willing to take a chance on the other party.

Election are referendums on the party in power.

... elections reflect non-ideological shifts from economic and other conditions that are beyond the control of political leadership. Just because swing voters slosh one way or the other does not mean the country has changed its mind about Social Security or school vouchers.

And even when elections are statements on leadership, say Bush's foreign policy incompetence, that does not mean the voters would embrace Amy Goodwin in the next national security emergency.

Most importantly, we need to take apart the GOPs dishonest tactics, from their false claims of supporting veterans to their use of foreign policy to make war profiteers and the super rich wealthier.  Then we need to deliver these concepts to the part of the electorate that runs from liberal idiocy right into the arms of the GOP.  That might mean giving up some of our cherished socialist and/or welfare-based policies, because there's no greater failure than seeing people work hard their whole lives in jobs or business while their taxes are used to pay for housing and medical insurance for people who deliberately choose not to work and have baby after baby on the public's dime.  We'll never convince people to support our progressive policies while that dynamic is so prevalent.

Case in point - Robert Byrd is not completely happy with Obama:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama's appointment of White House "czars" to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama's decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials."

While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don't have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

"As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president," Byrd wrote. "They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."