Is bypassing Congress gridlock and appealing directly to the people the only hope Obama has?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

 

Some fiery shit right here. Shuts them other suits right up proper.


Questions for the group: Is he right regarding Obama's (and ours, collectively) only hope of turning this around? Is Congressional election system so money corrupt that we, the people, must literally fire them from their jobs? 

Does anyone know anything about his references to previous presidents bypassing Congress LIKE A BOSS and going to the people, even at the risk of alienating his own party (even more than he has)?


And what about this new bank idea of his, loaning business capital @ 2%? Which side claims that idea?

EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION: Folks, checks and balances are not the issue here. Not is the abolition of Congress and establishing  Executive dictatorships. That is silly talk.

The issue is the speaker in the video suggests the POTUS, who is free to speak directly to the people, should rally the people against the Congress incumbency.

Some think he has to have Congressional oversight to do so. Er, no. He is not passing laws here, folks.

What the gentleman in the video is suggesting is that Obama talk directly to the people as our LEADER, to point the blame at the entire congress, including his party (80% of the country agree). He has the bully pulpit.

The purpose of the bully pulpit being to rally the people to purge Congress of incumbents, replace them with 'clean' legislators (read clarifications in my comments to those below who misinterpreted the intent), who will pledge to work in a non-partisan manner to get the country back on track (whatever that is; another post for another time)

Comments

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

So, the only way to save the village is to destroy it, amirite?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

do me a favor and read the other comments, you will get the gist of my position.

:)

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The only way to save the village is to refer to the rules laid out in the constitution. The POTUS has duty to serve the nation. Congress has put duty to corporate lobbies before this.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Where in the rules laid out by the Constitution does it say that the POTUS can just ignore the other Branches of government if he deems them suddenly to be shills for whatever boogey man you choose to name? The POTUS has a duty, it is in his oath, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution. Not the ephemeral needs of a fickle public easily stirred by phony baloney rhetoric and cheap enthusiasms who seek pat answers and easy solutions to difficult problems.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

It doesn't. Nowhere in the OP and in my comment is the suggestion to ignore branches of government. A speech that wags a verbal finger at the instigators of economic ruin is taking minimal action necessary.