I had an interesting discussion yesterday evening ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

Mrs. 1SBM and I went to the local Gastro-Pub for dinner last night ... the place was packed (since the food is great and they have 150 micro-brews on tap), so we had to wait for a table on the patio. As we were looking for a seat, we saw four 60-something men sitting around one of the fire-pits. One of the men could see we were looking for a seat and signaled that we could take a couple of seats in their area.

Mrs. 1SBM and I, thanked them and took a seat. Me, being me, I started a conversation with the men. They looked as though they had been playing golf and were enjoying their "19th Hole", so I began talking a little about golf. Then, the conversation turned to politics, as President Obama's face flashed across the TV screen and a segment on President Obama's decision to send military aid back into Iraq played. One of the men rolled his eyes and said, "Can you believe that guy?"

Now, I'm pretty adept at judging the political leanings of people from their conversation ... but it struck me, this was a curious spot ... these men were clearly Conservatives, so why was this guy opposed to any escalation in Iraq? So I just listened. His complaints/comments were all over the map ... "We need to do something to help those poor bastards up on the mountain", "We've got to stop ISIS", "We should've never left Iraq", (and strangely) "Why are we even over there? Those savages have been fighting with each other since day 1 ... what busy is it of ours?" ... then, it became clear; he wasn't against the escalation to facilitate the humanitarian mission, or to stop ISIS, but at the same time, he did not support U.S. involvement in the region.

Then, he said: " What doesn't he think he can do? ... just make every decision on his own? I mean we still do have a Congress!"

So, I asked: "So what's the man to do? As you said, there are people trapped and dying on a mountain by ISIS and ISIS is moving to take over the region ... we don't want either to happen and withdrawing pretty much assures that both will happen ... and the body constitutionally charged with influencing, if not determining, the U.S. response is on vacation!"

One of the other guys offered, "It's not just this ... (President) Obama is issuing all these executive orders and usurping the power of Congress. That's not how a democracy is supposed to work."

(Just then a waitress came by and I ordered a round of drinks for everyone ... Mrs. 1SBM recognized this as my "Lace up your boots, boys! You're about to get schooled" move.)

I said: "You know ... You're right; a democracy isn't supposed to work this way; but you'll have to admit, nothing about these times reflects how the Framers envisioned governance." I, then, asked: "What do you think about Ted Cruz?"

All the men nodded, and one said: "He's a breath of fresh air. He's a true conservative, who is unwilling to go along to get along!"

I said, "Okay, what do you think of Congress?"

The same guy said: "They're a bunch of worthless F@#ks that are only concerned with getting re-elected. We need more people like Cruz who will stand up for what's right."

So I said: "I know you will disagree with this; but this recent rise of Cruz-type politicians is exactly what is wrong these days. Congress is in complete grid-lock because too many politicians' approach to governance is 'My way or I'll burn down the house' and too many Americans see that as okay because those politicians are 'standing up for what's right, governance be damned.

Well, the Framers of the Constitution did everything in their power to discourage this mentality and to encourage politicians to work together, in order that this nation be ruled through reasoned debate and a respect for minority opinions. They, in their wisdom, anticipated the likelihood of a divided government, shared by members of differing political parties, so they split up the Federal Government into 3 co-equal parts, and they split up the legislature into two co-equal bodies of Congress, each serving as a check on the other. As such, the only way to get anything done was through cooperation and compromise ... whatever, comes out of any one body, has to be at least tolerable to the two other bodies; and I suspect, they hoped this negotiation between bodies would reflect the will of the people.

But that's not what's happening ... we have one half of government, across the two bodies of Congress, that decided before President Obama's first day in office, that they would not cooperate with anything that he, or Democrats, put forward. And, we have politicians like Cruz who are being celebrated for their unwillingness to produce anything that the other side can live with ... and as crazy as this may sound, at times, 'the other side' is not only Democrats, but also, other republicans.

So here we find ourselves ... a crisis in Iraq and Congress is unable to act; a crisis on the Border and Congress is unable to act; the middleclass is disappearing and Congress is unable to act. Well, these are all pressing matters of state and decisions must be made; but Congress is on vacation ... and when President Obama does what he thinks necessary to actually govern this nation, whether we agree with the decision or not; people freak out about his exercise of his executive authority, as if anyone else was doing something to address any of these crises, other than talk ... and as if this is the first time in history it has been done.

If you want to stop President Obama from governing by executive order ... elect representative that understand and accept what the Framers said was their job ... to govern, and that requires compromise.

Now ... Who is ready for another round?