Occupy Underground

For a couple of different reasons.

1) When Obama had a democratic controlled congress he tried to do the work of the people (health care reform, banking regulations, alternative energy agenda).

2) There was a lot of inertia going in the secret government direction, and the president had to focus on keeping the economy afloat. As a result there are a lot of secret government buildings still under construction (which represents a lot of spending on the secret government), but it would not be prudent to leave a bunch of buildings unconstructed, and structures can always be repurposed.

3) This government was designed to limit the amount of change that one individual can make and especially when that individual does not have 'friends' in both houses of congress.

So, I think a lot of the 'beating up on the president' is unwarranted and a little unfair.

Could he do a better job? Absolutely. Would he do a better job if he had a democratic controlled congress? I think he proved that right out of the gate. Should we be critical of him? Of course, but there's a line between being critical of the president and bashing the president on matters that he has no control over.

It isn't the same to say that someone 'supports the president no matter what' and to say that 'he's doing the best he can under the circumstances.'

That isn't even taking into account that the main stream media is owned by the military industrial complex at a time when he's basically ending two wars and trying to stay out of any other wars. Anyone who gets their news from television gets an anti-Obama slant.

I think the president is doing the best he can under the circumstances.