"Let's Do Something, Even if it's Wrong!"

I have heard that presidents and vice presidents often don't like each other. The presidential candidate frequently picks a vice candidate for the votes he can bring in, not because he particularly likes the guy or agrees with him on the issues. As far as nobody liking Tricky Dickie his whole life, well then how did he get elected? Did all those people vote for him just because they disliked the other guy more? Why would a guy who believes that nobody likes him even go into politics in the first place?

During the Watergate scandal, a colleague of mine in the paper mill coined this phrase: "The trouble with majority rule is that the majority is stupid." I disagreed with him at first but, after he explained the logic behind his statement, I could see his point. Nixon was re-elected by a large majority and, six months later, that same majority was against him because of Watergate. Now Watergate was all over the news before the election, but it didn't seem to bother the majority at the time. Of course more shit came out after the election, but the main story was common knowledge before. About that same time, the majority of our union members voted to go on strike for higher wages. Six weeks later, they voted to go back to work for essentially the same deal that they had turned down before. If they were going to do that, why didn't they accept the offer in the first place ands save the six weeks of lost wages? Not only that, they voted to go back just before deer season so, after six weeks of unpaid vacation, we all ended up working on Opening Day!

When I was in the army, it was common for us to have to "hurry up and wait". This means that we were told to go somewhere and get ready for something that usually didn't happen when it was supposed to, if at all. At some point, somebody would shout out in frustration, "Let's do something even if it's wrong!" Of course nobody really wanted to do something wrong, it was just a sarcastic joke. While I like to get things done as much as the next guy, I would much rather do nothing than do something that I don't want to do. For instance, I don't mind getting my hands dirty cleaning fish or gutting out a deer, but I don't want to play baseball regardless of whether or not my hands get dirty in the process. So if a guy claims that I don't want to play baseball because I'm afraid of getting my hands dirty, he doesn't know what he's talking about. The point I'm trying to make is that, as far as I'm concerned, a lot of this political stuff doesn't need to be done at all, so why would I want to compromise on something like that? Half a loaf might be better than none but, if you don't like bread, why would you want even half a loaf?

I have read that there have been some mumblings and grumblings about Obama unilaterally changing the laws like he does but, as far as I know, nobody has made a serious attempt to stop him. I think you're right that, if there was a way to stop him, the Reps would have used it by now. There must be some kind of loophole that I don't know about that allows him to do that, and I was wondering if you knew what it was. I know that presidents and governors can temporarily suspend certain laws in times of great emergency, like war or natural disaster, but I don't think this qualifies. Som