Well it actually happened last week.  I've been sorta busy and will post this diary a day or so late but it is an "I told ya so" diary reflecting the very long winded, thick, and ponderous dairy I produced during the heat of some recent Obama/Clinton wars.  Perhaps during this minor break I can reiterate my convictions concerning "It's the Congress, Stupid" and the realities of electoral district size regarding  the likely outcome of elections and policy/legislation.

The recent victory of "Our House" over the more plutocratic Senate (where the electoral district is the whole state) and the latter day Aristocratic (P)resident (where the electoral district is the whole #&#%^$& nation) is the trumpet I will blow in support of my cause.

In a recent thread concerning the telecommunications company immunities it was stated that the House of Representatives is "our firewall" against these transgressions of the oligarchy.  And this particular characterization is of great importance and substance in exemplifying the role of the House of Representatives and our own responsibilities. The Senate was originally conceived as a bulwark against the populism that would characterize the more representative and more democratic House of Representatives. But there is also a countervailing defensive mechanism at work in the House.  The House serves not only as the bastion of popular legislation in the positive sense but as our bulwark against the onslaught of oligarchy that ensues from the more plutocratic Senate and the more aristocratic latter day (P)residency. The House of Representatives is the "People's House".  And our bicameral legislature is part of the "checks and balances" sought in the design of our government.

I am amazed at the political ineptitude of lefties as they piss all over the 8 good years of Clinton.  The nation was not fully restored from the Republican disaster of the 80's but there was a reprieve from right winged stupidity.  All the moonbats are screeching and whining as usual that it wasn't sufficient. There wasn't a Constitutional amendment enforcing Roe V Wade for all eternity; no council of females directing the economic and moral development of the communities. We did not have legislation creating special tax treatmrnt for those attending a kumbaya sing-in.

I can hear the Right Wing Noise machine already: The economy was doing just fine until the Democrats took over the Congress.  They threatened to raise taxes and they refused to fix Social Security.  They were able to stop the Republican anti illegal immigration legislation that would have saved American jobs by insisting on enforcement of current immigration laws.  Then they produced no immigration bill to resolve the problems.  So here we are with a recession.  And if you want to look deeper you will find that Bill Clinton did NAFTA and that Bill Clinton signed the 1997 capital gains tax cuts and the repeal of Glass Steagall.  And both of these latter stupidities fed the Dot.Com bubble and are totally responsible for the current housing debacle.  George Bush was able to preside over a growing economy until the Democrats came to town.  Then everything went to hell in a hand basket.

The Democrats make much of the good years when Clinton "ran the country", and this is a good thing and not to be discouraged.  Yet few on the left or the right actually understand why things were "good" for the most of us and those on the right certainly do not want to discuss it.  The story was not really the "Clinton story" so much as it was the story of the Democratic Congress.  

I know that this diary will not get a lot of attention because of the (P)residential caucuses and the candidates and the election.  That is quite understandable and totally acceptable.  Yet the candidates on the Democratic side of the discussion seem to have a much more rational and (small 'd') democratic notion of the (P)residency, and one that appears to be more Constitutionally consistent.

I see the Kosacs roaring for the new president to take full advantage of the "presidential power" that seems to have been created by the Republicans so as to correct the deplorable state of the nation and its institutions.  In this I suppose I agree.

However....

All of the bitching and moaning and "I'm going to take my vote and run away and join the circus", gets old.  Aother version is "I'm going to take my support and run away and join the circus".  Every once in a while it would be nice to see some vision of what it would take to ameliorate some of the screeching; some suggestions about things that are politically achievable that can be done to "streamline" the bitching process if nothing else.

The real goal, I would think, is continuing long term results, or: How do we get them to do what we want, in a rational fair and systematic fashion?

Our nation has ever been engaged in an irrisolvable philosophical and economic tug of war.  Those involved in the creation of the nation were acutely aware of the conflict between what was at that time seen as "inalienable rights"/"land owners" and the concept of "majority rule"/"created equal".  And The United States of America was the great hope for a balance between these two poles.

In the last thirty years the ownership crowd has gained much ascendancy over the "created equal" people through the use of polarized economics, jingoism, and false appeals to patriotism.  And if these plutocrats and royalists are allowed to convert the economy of the United States to something similar to that of Mexico then they will have put the "created equal" people everywhere on earth into a very deep hole from which escape will be almost impossible.

The following is a quote from "A progressive plan for immigration reform" -- a diary from duke1676.  A larger excerpt and discussion appears in the body of this diary.

With these two basic premises accepted, it becomes clear what the goal of progressive immigration reform should be: Allow for a reasonable flow of new immigrants and figure out a way to allow them to enter the country legally.

While I absolutely agree with the concluding statement, I do not agree with the premises.  The details lurk in the body of this diary and the poll.