Theory and Practice

Before I forget, I called up that guy I told you about, and he said that he was interested. He also has a web site of his own, which I plan to check out this weekend.

I'm not sure where you want to go with this theory and practice thing. You said that Kennedy had all the right theories but was unable to put them into practice. Johnson, on the other hand, was only interested in enhancing his own power, but it was he who ended up actually putting Kennedy's theories into practice. I suppose some of that had to do with Kennedy getting shot before he completed one term, while Johnson had a term and a half to work with. I also think that Johnson kind of rode the wave of public sympathy that was generated by Kennedy's assassination. Be that as it may, no president can accomplish much of his agenda without the support of congress.

I don't remember the numbers, but I recently read that, historically, most presidents start out with a majority of their own party in congress, and then lose it in the next mid-term election. I suppose this is a backlash kind of thing. Of course, many people consistently vote for the same party no matter what, but there are many others who switch back and forth. These "swing voters" are the ones who largely determine the outcome because neither party can muster a national majority of loyalists. If a new president does something to piss off the swingers, they will vote for the other party in the mid-terms. Two years later, they might have forgotten why they were pissed off, or the president does something to redeem himself, or the other party does something that pisses them off even more, and they swing back to re-elect the president. All this is probably for the best, if one party controlled the White House and both houses of congress for more than two years who knows what they might ram through.

Speaking of ramming things through, have you noticed how Obama keeps changing the provisions of his health care law without bothering to consult with congress at all? How is he getting away with that? Speaking of getting away with things, several states have already legalized pot for medical purposes, and now Colorado has legalized it for "recreational" use. When Bush was in office, he said that the feds would keep enforcing the federal drug laws and the states didn't have anything to say about it. I seem to remember that Obama reversed this policy when he took over. Okay, so what's going to happen when, after more states legalize pot, a new president comes in and decides that he's going to enforce those federal laws again? Call me "old fashioned" but it seems to me that the law is the law no matter who's in the White House. If the president can change the law any time he wants, why do we even have a congress?