Have meetings most of the day, so just have a couple real quick comments.
In the bipartisan spirit, I'm going to say something nice about our soon to be former President Bush. In case you are ever hard pressed to name one good thing that the man ever did, I think this qualifies. By executive order, he is designating nearly 200,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean as conservation areas. This will make him the person that has protected more of the oceans than anyone else in the world. Now, overall I think that policies of sustainability are preferable to pure conservation (in much the way that I believe that drinking responsibly is preferable to prohibition), but given all the challenges and (often) years of time it takes to get such policies in place (especially since so much of it involves international waters) I think that this was a good idea.
As for our incoming President, I was reading the latest Economist this morning on the way in, and I think that this summed things up pretty well:
"The next four, or eight, years may be a disappointment, a triumphant renewal, or something in between. Mr Obama is inexperienced, and right now the world looks especially forbidding. But he is a respectful and thoughtful man, and that is a good start.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I just turned on Fox News to see what the other side had to say about the event/speech, and I have to say, I was not disappointed.
I flipped to Fox News, and they were replaying the Oath of Office.
Immediately after the clip, Chris Wallace said something like, "And we are checking to see if Obama is truly president after faltering and stuttering through the oath of office. His inauguration may have to go to the courts, but if it gets to the Supreme Court he will surely be president."
Honestly, I couldn't tell if it was tongue in cheek or not (I think he was serious.) And either way, it was John Roberts' fault for getting the oath totally wrong.
Just a little hilarity.
Well, it was either tongue in cheek or he doesn't know the constitution.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
So Obama became President at noon, even though he didn't take the oath until a few minutes later.
Does he have to take the oath ever? I think the point was that they screwed it up so bad that he still hasn't taken it.
Is the oath simply ceremony with nothing behind it?
Anyways, I thought you guys would like this:
The Obama Meter
It is keeping track of all of his campaign promises and if he has upheld them or broken them.
Yes, I don't feel like looking it up but I know it says somewhere else that he has to take the oath. It's just that becoming president isn't dependent on taking the oath. Bottom line is that it's something that Fox news can make snide comments about but nothing more. In looking up the constitution, I also came across a story about some lawyer that made a big deal of George HW adding the words "so help me God" to the end of the oath when he said it, and he argued that since it's the only place where the constitution used quotes that he wasn't permitted to add anything and thus wasn't really president. So, again, good to see that we are bipartisan when it comes to this type of nonsense.
Anyway, back to the Rush thing for a second. I love the argument that "liberals didn't give Bush a chance when he came in so why should I give Obama a chance?" It's good to see that he doesn't really even try to hide the 4-year old mentality that represents. I would be interested in seeing if this extends to his parenting style. When one of his kids hits the other one, do you try to make them see why you shouldn't hit other people or do you just say to the other kid "well, hit him back"?
Of course, the bottom line is that I now view Rush much like I viewed Jay Mariotti before he mercifully was run out of town. He has run out of rational ideas and just wants to yell the most inflammatory thing through a megaphone so that he can keep attracting attention. It's too bad, too, because I thought that in the early 90s he was one of the driving forces in the renewal of the Republican party. Maybe I just remember poorly, but it seemed like he used to have a need to make sense. He seems to have shed that restriction.
LOL!
I can't wait for the crazies to come out and claim that there was a coup or shadow government for a day until he took the oath again. Or that anything he did during that first day isn't legally binding.
I can't remember which two, but the news last night said that two other Presidents had to take the oath over.
Good stuff.
Also, when I posted the Rush thing I mistakenly thought you were a big Rush fan. I was mixing him up with Newt. So my bad. 2 Republicans with stupid 4 letter names. My mistake.
Yeah, I do still like Newt. Although I tend to only really like him when he's either making a speech or as part of a roundtable that has liberals on it too. In general, he is more of an old-school conservative in the George Will and William Buckley mold who can strongly disagree without resorting to attacks and is content to logically make his point and then move on. Even Clinton (Bill) has said that for all the public mud-slinging during his presidency they actually had a good working relationship behind closed doors.
Now, when he gets on Fox news with someone like Hannity, they tend to wind each other up and can say some pretty obnoxious things (in much the same way that Keith Olberman does with a normally moderate liberal).
And just to further highlight the stark difference between Rush and Newt, From Newt's site
"As for us, our way forward is -- or should be -- simple: Where our new president lives up to his new conservative rhetoric, we should support him. Where he doesn’t, we should respectfully -- and energetically -- oppose him."
Of course, he then goes on to talk about how vital it is that Tim Geithner's nomination needs to be withdrawn . . .
And why shouldn't it be withdrawn???
Don't tell me you're in favor of this guy being in charge of the treasury when he failed to pay taxes. He claims it was a mistake.
I'm really not a fan of someone whom (as Glenn Beck says) can't figure out turbotax being in charge of a very important component of the US economy.
I don't see what the big deal with Geithner is. I mean, he got audited, it was found he owed money, and he paid it. Is there more to that story that I am missing? This happens all the time. Is it just that someone who made a money mistake will be in charge of money?
And how about holding up the AG confirmation (for a week) because he refuses to say if he will prosecute torturers?
(btw, Chris Wallace got 'Worst Person in the World' on Countdown on Wednesday for questioning Obama's presidency as described above. So, it turns out, he was being serious and not funny.)
(Oh, and I hate Glen Beck. People with money have accountants do their taxes. The calculations get so complicated that they have entire degrees dedicated to it. I hate Glenn Beck the way I hate that stupid blonde who is still looking for Kaley. With the fiery passion of.... damn. It is the weekend now and all of the anger just left my body. I love everyone.)
Weir, do some more research on that and come back to me when you're informed better. No offense meant, but you won't believe me anyway, so I'll trust you to find both sides of the story instead of just accepting the democrat side. To paraphrase an unknown quote from someone, he's either stupid or lying, and either way I don't want him for the job.
And I feel about Olberman the way you seem to feel about any other conservative pudit out there, so I'm not buying that. I was listening when it happend, and it sounded to me like he was kidding. Olberman says everyone is the worst person in the world who dare speak ill of his beloved.
I do agree though about that pain in the ass blonde. I can't remember her name, but she should thank God every night for the Kaley thing because she seems to have built an entire show over it. What ever will she do when it's resolved?
Alright, just did a little research here, and out of all the articles I could have read on this, I ended up picking one written as an op-ed by a McCain advisor.
the article i read from bloomberg
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
I like the sarcastic way the article starts out:
"There is one way to be sure that you are complying precisely with U.S. tax law: read the entire code. Problem is, it currently contains about 3.4 million words. That’s like reading “War and Peace” six times."
(Especially since John just read it. Try doing it 6 times.)
What I got from the article was this:
1. It is a common mistake.
2. The IRS called him on it.
3. He paid for everything for which he was legally responsible.
4. He was in line for the job.
5. He went back and paid for things for which he was not legally responsible, simply to erase any appearance of wrongdoing (which inevitably led to people looking at it and saying "You did something wrong!")
I believe for it to be fraud there has to be intent, which I guess you could say there is proof as he signed a letter saying he understood.
Furthermore, this Kevin Hassett goes on to introduce some issues that, for me, carry more legitimacy.
Although it looks like next week the full Senate will be voting on him after the finance committee voted 18-5. So, for better or worse, this will all probably be behind us by this time next week.
It is only a quick snippet in amongst the montage, but I guess that some people STILL don't believe that Obama is president because the second time he took the oath he didn't do it on a bible.
(and the rest of the clip is worth watching as well.)
gotta love fox news
Post a Comment