Obama Admits To Univision He Can't Change DC From Within.

archer wrote: The only way Washington well ever be changed is by the voters....not by anyone who is part of Washington. Once in office all politicians become part of the establishment. If you think replacing Obama with Romney will change that dynamic you might be interested on some ocean front property I have for sale in Arizona. As a country we need to effect change with our senate and house selections.

I disagree with that. Some statesman have stood up to Washington insiders but Obama has not shown the ability nor desire to try. He just whines and blames others. Who is he going to blame for the last four years? In 2008 he told the Republicans elections have consequences and for them to get out of the way. Now he just whines. "They are in the way."

Translation: Obama admits he can't completely change America the way he wants to without a majority Dem control of power. Plenty of other presidents like Clinton and Reagan accomplished things by leading and working with a mixed DC Beltway congress.

He has no intention of changing the "Dem side" of DC

Obama always sounds like a whiner and blamer.

I just saw they found a video of Romney saying something about not being able to to change from within, taken out of context of course. Obama is good. I bet he did that on purpose to bait Romney.

One other point to make about the Univision pander tour. Obama also said he hasn't completed comprehensive immigration reform. 1.2 million immigrants entered the US legally last year, more people than we created jobs for. So maybe our immigration system is working to carrying capacity.

Personally, I don't think any single candidate can change Washington from within.

To me, the answer lies not with going to the extreme right, a la Tea Party, and voting in candidates who won't work with the opposition. It lies in getting more moderate, middle-of-the-road candidates into office who will work to solve America's problems.

Another good step would be to eliminate all the special perks that Congressmen get, so they are more attuned to what the average American has to deal with.

Raees wrote: Personally, I don't think any single candidate can change Washington from within.

To me, the answer lies not with going to the extreme right, a la Tea Party, and voting in candidates who won't work with the opposition. It lies in getting more moderate, middle-of-the-road candidates into office who will work to solve America's problems.

Who are these "moderate" candidates you speak of?

Someone like John McCain or the Blue Dog coalition, who are willing to work with the entire Congress to move this country forward.

Raees wrote: Personally, I don't think any single candidate can change Washington from within.

That was a major anti-Perot talking point. My response was that if Ross had won he would have had the power to stand Washington on its head. Not insider power. Every dem and repub feared him and hated his guts.

Had he won he could have said to the political class, I am the change that people believe in, work with me or we will sent you out with the trash". I believe that most politicians being self serving turds would broken their legs falling in line as fast as possible.

(H/T Obama 2008)

I don't think the president can tell elected lawmakers he can send them "out with the trash." They are elected only by the people in their district. Only those voters can get rid of their representatives.

The other part of the equation is getting rid of special interests that show elected officials with money. Until that happens, they will NEVER listen to voters. It was a mistake to allow them to sway elected officials with gobs of cash and perks.

Raees wrote: The other part of the equation is getting rid of special interests that show elected officials with money. Until that happens, they will NEVER listen to voters. It was a mistake to allow them to sway elected officials with gobs of cash and perks.

I'm with you....and that includes all Union contributions.