Finally, a MSM corrospondant gets it in an excellent meltdown!

OK. Now what?
It is very hard to change DC politics. It has it's own inertia and it's own logic.
That 'logic' does not involve the welfare of the governed, but basically the pocketbooks of those in power. The inertia involves political power and individual legacy. All of these are a constant of almost any political system, yet in large doses, kills a representative republic.

Yet it is the paradoxical nature of all representative republics to 'drift' into this type of government. The only true cure in our current situation, is to disband the current government and start over, which will only happen either by force, ie, civil war, or by the long process of voting the politicians out of office and starting over.

The replacing the politicians, by voting them out and replacing them with people more conducive to correctly running representative republic, takes a large amount of time and also demands something most Americans are not willing to commit time to; constant 'public oversight' of our elected officials from the voters to keep them 'honest'.
So no matter what we the people say and think during the important election cycles, the pols understand the short attention span of their constituency, and they publicly tell people what they know people want to hear to get re-elected or elected, so we keep getting the same thing over and over. Then one day, if not already, the republic becomes a oligarchy or an autocratic system.

As the 2012 election approaches, the American voter can chose to either keep the DC political inertia and keep getting the same thing over and over, or to radically and fundamentally change America and American politics by replacing our current sitting government with people truly in tune with what the Republic represents, and what the voters want, and to constantly apply the pressure of the Law with oversight to 'get our nation' back on track.

It is a choice. If we make the wrong choice, the American experiment is over.

Toward the end of the rant, it does seem like he asking for action on Congress, but it's to be done through the power of the President. It says he's telling them that the Congress is bought and he wants a President to stand up and say he is not working with them ... but he's going to 'fix' it.

~" So, I'm the President of the United States and I won't have a country that is run by a bought Congress, so I'm not going to work with a bought Congress ........ I'm gonna abandon the bought Congress .... and I'm gonna go to the people of the United States and I'm gonna say, "You got a bought Congress, and until we get rid of the bought Congress (the expressed point being to get the $$ out of Congress). And until the President says that's the problem and says he's gonna fix it, there is no policy that I can possibly see, ..... no matter good (all of ) our ideas are .... that idea will not happen as long as there is a capacity to basically fire a politician(President) who disagrees with me (Congress) by taking funding away from him.

I can hardly believe this commentator didn't once point anywhere but at Congress. As though Obama himself had nothing to do with anything, but is heroically attempting to govern responsibly under the thumb of a morally corrupt Congress. While I agree fully with a sentiment that says ~" Get the money out of politics"~, I will NEVER agree with any sentiment that advocates a President's taking power to remove congressional responsibility for funding.

That power to defund is one of the checks and balances we have. Just look at how Obama already circumvents Congress and Senate as it is, with his decrees.