Reply #28: Agree, the crux is the relationship of the Presidency and the Congress -

[pinto]

as well as entrenched Bush Administration appointees in the federal system.

Many of the reforms we advocate are, of necessity, a function of Congress, not Presidential fiat.

While President Obama may not be the progressive populist many thought, or hoped he would be, Congress most certainly is not. The Senate has always been maddeningly slow and deliberative in comparison to the House. The 110th is not so different than many earlier Congresses.

And the hold over neocon staffers in a bunch of federal departments are just that - neocons and obstructionists. Second that for most of the Republican representatives in Congress.

We're hearing renewed rumblings recently from the White House. Much of it with an eye on the mid-term elections and much, in my opinion, with an ear to Democratic (our) criticisms of both the Administration's first year - especially the lack of traditional "bully pulpit" access to the media - and the Congressional Democratic caucus' lack of cohesion around a clear, demonstrative, Democratic agenda. I hope the rumblings are echoed in the Congress and the public's perception.

We *are* at a crossroads, of sorts. One that has been in our sights since Reagan's Presidency.

What is the role of the federal government? Republican extremists literally want to dismantle it, piece by piece. We need to counter that, clearly. What makes for an effective federal government? Republican extremists propose that less is more. We need to counter that with a clear agenda that makes the case for a federal response, a federal role.

Thanks for your post.