Ours is a system of checks and balances, by design, so that no single branch can govern autonomously. As much as we like to give presidents credit for progress and shame them for a lack thereof, they ultimately don't accomplish anything significant without buy-in from the Legislative (and occasionally Judicial) branches. We're that not the case, our fair republic would be a dictatorship. I like that system in principle, but in practice, it creates gridlock and convenient excuses for maintaining the status quo.

True, Obama had a party majority in Congress for his first two years. Trouble is, Legislators don't always vote the party line, especially when there are votes to be won and money to be made by voting to the contrary. Getting a 2/3 majority for Legislation that doesn't benefit big business can be a real bitch, no matter the party to whom those accepting the bribes subscribe.

To be clear, I have been disappointed in this administration; I just feel that the President should only be accountable for somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the failures. I grant his predecessor the same measurement and therefore hold him less accountable than most for the crimes against society enacted during his tenure.

As regards golf, basketball, etc.: who gives a damn? At least those activities take away some of the time he might otherwise spend conspiring with the other branches to squeeze more blood from the lowly, withered turnip that once was our middle class. Besides, I think one could argue that by exercising, he is setting a good example for an increasingly sedentary and overweight population. Might be his best contribution to the general welfare during his term.

I stand by my regretful assertion that only the people will be able to right the wrongs, and most likely, if it does happen, it will be by sheer strength in numbers.