>
>Yes, there was enough time to get health care done, but nowhere near enough time with that kind of control to implement a full agenda, which was the original assertion.
>

I actually agree - and that is all the more reason to take a phased approach

I've said this before and I'll say it again. This administration takes far too big a bite when they go to implement something. The stimulus was a prime example - instead of giving grants to 1 or 2 of the best green companies and marking future funding based on results, they gave a much larger amount to over 2 dozen places with very questionable records (many are now either bankrupt or in financial distress) and didn't tie the money to results the way they should have. Result? Money down the drain.

In the case of the ACA, it's an even bigger example. Instead of architecting a phased approach, they took an approach much riskier.

This all comes down to basic business management competence. And even though I don't care much for Mitt Romney, he would have been superior to Obama in this area.

This is basic project management 101.