And so…it begins.
11:23: With wind chill, it’s 14 degrees. This is ridiculous. Enough with tradition. Move elections to March and have the inauguration to May. Everyone has to be freezing their áššëš off because 200 years ago George Washington didn’t feel the cold?
11:26: Shots of the outgoing First family, walking away while trucks load up their stuff. May I say on behalf of everyone: Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Rest of comments below the cut line.
11:28: Well, at least people aren’t booing Laura Bush or Lynn Cheney.
11:31: Michelle looks a bit underdressed for 14 degrees. I hope she doesn’t regret not wearing a heavier coat.
11:32: They’re running 16 minutes late, according to NBC. So since Bush’s term expires at noon, that could mean that for 16 minutes, from 12 to 12:16…what? Nancy Pelosi is in charge?
11:35: “Hail to the chief, he’s the one we all say hail to.”
11:36: Has Ðìçk Cheney ever looked more like an evil mastermind than when he’s being pushed in a wheelchair? He just needs to be stroking a white cat.
11:37: Kathleen says that if people are booing, he can be told that they’re actually just cheering, “Boooosh!”
11:41: Want to have an idea what the crowd looked like the last night of “The Adventurers Club?” Check out the crowd on TV. I don’t envy them.
11:39: I like the thumbs up from Biden. Maybe we can call him “Joe the Thumber.”
11:41: I like all the introductions. I keep waiting for him to say stuff like, “…and the Rockettes. The Muppets. The Nelson Riddle Orchestra.”
11:43: Barack H. Obama. I was wondering how they were going to finesse that.
11:46: I wonder how many people are actually there on the National Mall. Anyone have a count?
11:48: Oh definitely let us pray.
11:49: Separation of church and state. Don’t make me laugh.
11:53: The song’s name is “America.” Sheesh. Love the hat, though. Only Aretha could make that hat work. Well, her and Eddie Izzard.
11:56: Freedom’s ringing. Could somebody answer it, please? I’m watching this thing.
11:57: It’d be interesting if, out of reflex, the supreme court tried to put Bush in just out of habit.
11:58: So he used Biden’s middle name. Let’s see if he says “Barack Hussein Obama.”
11:59: It’d be cool if he kicked Cheney out of the wheelchair.
12:00: The Freedom Clock just started counting upwards. I wasn’t expecting that for some reason.
12:01: Of course Yo Yo Ma is playing. He played on “The West Wing.”
12:05: He said his middle name. Good.
12:06: I think Obama got distracted by the ambulance for a moment.
12:07: Woo hoo! Party at the Obamas tonight!
12:07: They’re shooting! Quick! Get him–oh It was planned. Never mind.
12:07: I wonder if he’s got a teleprompter or if he’s memorized it.
12:08: We’re at war with FX?
12:10: “Sapping of confidence.” That’s as apt a description I’ve heard of the last eight years.
12:11: I’d love to see them cut to Bush when Obama is talking about how out of whack our priorities have been.
12:13: We have to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and start all over again? There’s a song lyric to live by, from the film “Swing Time.” Perhaps we should also consider making our national anthem a silly old ant because we have High Hopes.
12:16: The country cannot prosper long when it only favors the prosperous. Good line.
12:17: even better, the line about not tossing aside our morals as a country in the interests of safety. I was waiting for him to quote Ben Franklin.
12:19: Which is an eloquent way of saying, “Osama bin Laden, you can suck it.”
12:20: “Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not on what you can destroy.” Well, they haven’t so far, but it would be a nice change of pace.
12:23: That’s the first TV angle I’ve seen where you can clearly see the bullet proof glass around him.
12:24: “The knowledge that God calls upon us to shape an uncertain destiny.” Nice.
12:24: “A man whose father, sixty years ago, might not have been served in local restaurants can now take this oath.” So true. And let us also remember that sixty years ago in many states his father would not have been allowed to marry his mother. Thank God such unreasoning restrictions against marriage don’t exist in…what? Two states? Three?
12:26: Good speech. Not too long. Hit some high points. Nothing that was “Ask not what your country can do for you,” but then JFK did set a pretty high bar.
12:33: This guy is…interesting.
12:35: I wonder if anyone on the dais–the politicians, poets, ministers, anyone–are tempted to say something to the effect of, “We live in dangerous, uncertain times, and it’s THAT GUY’S FAULT RIGHT THERE! BUSH! HE SCREWED IT UP!”
12:40: Play ball!
In the words of the greatest president ever: Okay, what’s next?
PAD
• 
“Jerry, I love ya, man, but give me the name of even 1 “conservative talker” who “started talking about how W. was the second coming of Reagan or even greater than Reagan.” before Bush had not even finished his first day. You can’t fight goofy exaggerations with goofy exaggerations.”
Rush.
“But you could be right, I’m not familiar with the way Mr Keillor thinks.”
I’m very familiar with his show and Mike is, as per usual, not right.I have no real idea what he was saying unless he just wasn’t thinking. But, no, he wasn’t saying what Mike says he was saying.
And furthering the “conservative talker” thing from above…
Rush might have been more the first week rather than the first day. He did say it though. He and Hannity both kept talking about how Palin was Reagan-like as well before she really did much more than talk at the convention.
Funny, but true.
Seriously? Wow. Oxycontin’s a hëll of a drug.
His skits of English majors intervening in peoples’ lives, saving the day, and riding off with the girl are as common as his Ruth Harrison, Reference Librarian skits, his Ketchup Advisory Board skits, and more common than his Be-Bop-a-Re-Bop skits. He hosts the Writers Almanac, for Christ’s sake. Whatever, Jerry.
Keillor takes every opportunity to lovingly say if you want to break your parents’ hearts — and don’t have the courage to be gay — go into the arts. Jerry, all you’re missing to prove “as per usual, [I’m] not right” is your standard 18-month-old post of something awkward I said that isn’t even particularly wrong.
Hëll, Bill, he doesn’t even wait for people to run these days. At least Bush was in office. All Palin did was get the VP nod and Gov. Bobby Jindal has only been the Governor of Louisiana and the 37 year old is all ready being held up by Rush as “Reaganesque” and the next Ronald Reagan.
Whether or not a lot of the talkers on the Right meant to do it or not; “Reagan-like” and “Reaganesque” has become a watered down bumper sticker that they stick on anyone who comes down the block.
Jerry, the saying about not being able to have your cake and eat it at the same time means that keeping score (for lack of a better term) is antithetical to authentic experience. Are you getting all that much from keeping score between us?
Like I said before: you don’t live with me. When am I going to stop living with you?
Jerry, I don’t consider calling someone Reagan-like or even Reaganesque to be quite as egregious as calling them “the second coming of Reagan or even greater than Reagan.” I’d feel the same way if anyone called Obama “the second coming of Lincoln” or “the second coming of FDR” which, for all I know, means they think he’s going to suspend the writ of habeas corpus or suspend the civil rights of Asian Americans.
So Jason…what about “in the tank”? Don’t leave a brother hanging.
PAD wrote:
“And Jim Jones’ people didn’t even drink Kool-Aid.”
Saying “drinking the Right Aid” just doesn’t have the same ring to it as “drinking the Kool-Aid.”
Susan O wrote:
“?And name calling isn’t?
Call me petty if you want, in a world where the biggest tabloid headline of the last month has been worry about what Michelle Obama would wear. I live in sweats or jeans, so it makes no difference to me. I maintain my opinion that for the lofty pedestal people raise the first lady to – wings of museums dedicated to their clothing at your expense, Laura Bush always looks like she’s wearing the same suit, just a different color. Even Barbara Bush had more style – sometimes dowdy, but classy nonetheless. In a country where what the first lady wears can inspire entire lines of clothing that millions of people want to wear, creating increased jobs and sales revenue, Laura Bush has been distinctly … uninspiring.”
Not calling you names. I was just providing an accurate description of your usual petty and catty-like comments directed toward women in the public eye. And really, who cares about tabloid headlines… tabloids pray on the gullible who lap up their sensationalist headlines (and tend to repeat them to friends and on the internet). I have to say, you really have some odd expectations of the First Lady – you really expect her to create jobs and sales revenue all because of her fashion sense? Really?
Except, Bill, that Rush did say that it was his opinion that Bush would go on to become greater than Reagan as well. But, again, it’s Rush. I don’t know if he even believes what he says on the radio anymore. He may genuinely admire Reagan, but when he’s grasping for complements to put someone he’s carrying the water for over the top I have little doubt that he whips out whatever complement that he thinks would mean the most to him. He worships Reagan so saying someone is the next coming of Reagan or even better than Reagan is the biggest complement that he thinks someone can get.
Like I said, I doubt that he even believes most of what he says on the radio. And, also as I said above, most sane people don’t try to use Rush’s moments of drug induced praise or the fringe Right’s outbursts to claim that the majority of the people who vote Republican believe certain things.
The same holds true here. Yeah, you can find and point to a lot of Obama supporters who are just dumb as dirt, but they in no way represent the majority of Obama voters any more than the rabid scumbags who declare that torture is a great and wonderful thing represent the majority of the people who voted Republican in 2004, 2006 and 2008.
– you really expect her to create jobs and sales revenue all because of her fashion sense? Really?
No, I don’t expect her to do anything. It’s what the public does *to* her. I do not begin to understand fashionistas; they lost my support completely when I could not buy clothing in a 2T or above that didn’t look like I was renting the child by the hour. But the fact remains, there is a huge, money-dropping segment of the population (sit in a mall and count the number of $300+ Coach handbags)that think by dressing like people of power and wealth, other people will assume they, too, are wealthy or powerful.
Why does anybody give a crap what designer Michelle Obama wore? Because what she chose will propel that designer to the forefront, make them in demand and increase the price of their designs, no matter what the item looks like (even Bjorking it could spur a surge in feathers or feather-patterns). The fashion industry is exactly that – an industry, fueled by demand, and its reaches go from Hollywood to the Salvation Army clearance rack. This look will eventually work its way out of Nordstroms to JC Penney, and filter down into the cheapest knockoffs at Walmart. This IS the American economy. Look how fast the “Sarah Palin Look” hit the market – in little more than a week, women were dressing like her, changing their eyeglasses, cutting their hair. Someone made money off that, which leads to tax money (in theory), which improves the US economy. What width and length and colors of Obama’s ties, what brand of underwear he wears, whether he’s boxers or briefs will drive men’s fashion. You don’t have to agree with the styles, but you will be affected by them, like it or not.
I will return to my tuna now. Meow.
you really expect her to create jobs and sales revenue all because of her fashion sense? Really?
If it didn’t, do you really think people would spend this much time talking about it?
Case in point: There was an AP article yesterday talking about the fact that the shop where Aretha Franklin’s hat came from has been inundated with calls from people who want it. Hundreds of people are willing to pay $180 for the ‘next best thing’, a factory version similar to the hand-molded original Franklin wore.
Fashion, whether you like it or not, has a lot of economic power in this country.
“Fashion, whether you like it or not, has a lot of economic power in this country.”
Style over substance. Why does this fail to surprise me?
If you think the Americans have gone nuts over Obama, check out the Japanese.
http://www.comicmix.com/news/2009/01/22/the-barack-obama-action-figure-made-in-japan/
Even before Obama won the presidency, or took the oath of office, people (in the millions) were practically making him to be the Second Coming — someone who could cure the country of all its ills overnight and literally save the world single handily (and no, I do not think this is an exaggeration one bit).
******************
OK, here’s the problem as I see it with many conservatives who take issue with what they view as lofty expectations for Obama: They don’t truly understand how awful Bush was.
Since this is a comics board, allow me to try this example: Suppose the country was being run by Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom (this is not a fair analogy since both of those guys — while evil — are fairly intelligent and competent), you wouldn’t necessarily need to replace them with Superman or Reed Richards to improve things drastically. Jimmy Olsen and Rick Jones would be a good start.
Do you know why I was excited that Obama won? I just thought of the lowest hanging fruit, the easiest things he could accomplish — forget health care but a sensible plan on Iraq, actually enforcing the Constitution (no more torturing people), and Supreme Court nominees who don’t make Scalia look moderate. Oh, and a Justice Department that actually believes in Justice — no more Gonzales.
Do conservatives think liberals are hoping that Obama deliver some sort of Star Trek future where there’s a replicator and holodeck in every home? Guys, we’d be happy if Obama performed at the same level as Clinton. Let me repeat that: We’d be fine with the Clinton-level of success. That is not the highest bar in the world.
So, I understand the “kool aid drinker” slams. It’s not easy accepting what Bush and his cronies did to this country. Nor is it easy to accept just how simple it would be to *not* run the country in the ground. I think there’s a sense of clinging to a “Well, you do better!” approach with Bush. “You handle Katrina better!” “You handle Iraq better!” “You not torture people less bad.. and stuff!”
Now, since many Bush supporters detested Clinton, I’m sure they wouldn’t be thrilled if we wound up with a similar administration. But as one Obama supporter, I’m just letting you know that although I’m elated by the administration change, my standards aren’t at an impossible to reach level.
Now, since many Bush supporters detested Clinton, I’m sure they wouldn’t be thrilled if we wound up with a similar administration.
Actually, I think they would be. After all, as I already pointed out, they’re still getting a lot of mileage out of Clinton 8 years later.
The StarWolf: Style over substance. Why does this fail to surprise me?
Why is that a problem? We’re talking about clothes. Style over substance may be a problem when talking about foreign policy, but it’s not really a bad thing in the area of clothes.
Some people talk about clothes and then get interested in the clothes that Michelle Obama wears. I don’t, but my ears perk up whenever I hear President Obama mention comic books. If Marvel manages to sell a few extra copies of Spider-Man because of Barack Obama, that’s no big deal. If a dress shop sells some extra dresses because people noticed what Michelle was wearing, that’s fine too.
I don’t really understand what the contention in this conversation is.
SER wrote:
“forget health care but a sensible plan on Iraq, actually enforcing the Constitution (no more torturing people), and Supreme Court nominees who don’t make Scalia look moderate. Oh, and a Justice Department that actually believes in Justice — no more Gonzales.”
Sorry, but Iraq has been winding down for a while now. I know most on the far left loves to believe that Bush wanted us to stay there forever, but that simply wasn’t the case. And don’t you remember Obama’s previous plan? High tail it out because he thought it was a lost cause. Well, he’s been proven wrong on that “brilliant” decision. And at this point, Obama is going to listen to the generals (like Bush did)–so can we say the words “stay the course?”
You mean the supposed tortue? Remember, it’s all in how you define the term. And need I remind you that going back to 2002 that top Dems were briefed on the techniques (like waterboarding–which has been only used 3 times) being used and they did not seem to have a problem. But now, Obama wants us to use the Army Field Manual? What a joke. So, with a pen stroke Obama has effectively ended the “war on terror” and has made us less effective in the battle to protect this country. I hope you’re happy. Maybe you can adopt a Gitmo detinee? We need somewhere to put them.
Bush picked two excellent Supreme Court judges–this is going to be one of the high points to his legacy (boy, I can hear the steam coming out of many of a liberal’s ears right now! Calm down.).
As for Gonzales? Probably wasn’t the best choice.
Richard: “You mean the supposed tortue? Remember, it’s all in how you define the term. And need I remind you that going back to 2002 that top Dems were briefed on the techniques (like waterboarding–which has been only used 3 times) being used and they did not seem to have a problem. But now, Obama wants us to use the Army Field Manual? What a joke. So, with a pen stroke Obama has effectively ended the “war on terror” and has made us less effective in the battle to protect this country. I hope you’re happy. Maybe you can adopt a Gitmo detinee? We need somewhere to put them.”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is comedy.
I hear there is a new set of quarters coming out starting next year in honor of the Obama Presidency.
(like Bush did
Would that be before or after he royally fûçkëd things up to begin with?
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is comedy.
I only wish it were that funny, Jerry.
I’ve seen the “supposed torture” argument before; after all, we can’t prove that people were tortured, so it obviously didn’t happen, QED.
But then, I’ve never believed in torture as a viable method by which to get information, so I simply find Richard’s argument just another unfunny joke in a litany of them.
,i>I don’t really understand what the contention in this conversation is.
I think the problem was the implication that Laura Bush had done something wrong by not paying sufficient attention to the role of the first lady as some kind of driving force in the fashion industry. Me, I think the first lady should be able to take that role or decline it as she sees fit, without anyone feeling justified in calling her out on it.
But now, Obama wants us to use the Army Field Manual? What a joke. So, with a pen stroke Obama has effectively ended the “war on terror” and has made us less effective in the battle to protect this country.
I think you’re making way too much out of little. We just killed 7 people in pakistan from a drone so it isn’t as though Obama is shy about collateral damage in the War on Terror (you might complain about any hypocrisy from people who would have clucked their tongues had this happened on Bush’s watch but ask yourself–is it more important to expose their reversals or to be happy that they are on board). And there is a lot of wiggle room in Obama’s announcement, to the point that a human rights group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, is unhappy: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/human-rights-group-obama-left-wiggle-room-on-torture/
Obama strongly repudiated torture as he signed today’s executive order, which mandates that the Army Field Manual be strictly adhered to during interrogations. But Ratner pointed to the following lines in the executive order that, he said, provided a possible loophole by creating a Task Force to study the issue:
The mission of the Special Task Force shall be:
(1) to study and evaluate whether the interrogation practices and techniques in Army Field Manual 2-22.3, when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies …
The key there, Ratner says, is that the exec order appears to allow for an evaluation as to “whether” — a key word — the Army Field Manual techniques are sufficent to “protect the nation.” That, he says, allows for the Task Force to find after studying the issue that there may be cases where it’s acceptable to go beyond the Army Field Manual.
“It would allow the Task Force to go beyond the Army Field Manual,” Ratner told me. He added that this allowed for at least the possibility that the administration could conclude that “based on the recommendations of this commission, we will allow certain techniques to be used in certain circumstances.”
And the New York Time reports that The new White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, briefed lawmakers about some elements of the orders on Wednesday evening. A Congressional official who attended the session said Mr. Craig acknowledged concerns from intelligence officials that new restrictions on C.I.A. methods might be unwise and indicated that the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other the 19 techniques allowed for the military.
So torture buffs may have no reason to mourn.
Bush’s own chief of military trials called waterboarding torture. And said it took place. And Cheney is on record admitting to signing off on waterboarding.
Who are you waiting to hear from?
“I hear there is a new set of quarters coming out starting next year in honor of the Obama Presidency.”
Yes and no, Alan. There are quarters coming out, but from what I’ve seen they’re from one of the little collectables companies and not usable currency that’s recognized as legal tender.
“I only wish it were that funny, Jerry.”
But, Craig, it is that funny. These are Republicans and Conservatives saying this silly crap. These are the guys that bill themselves as the law and order crowd and love to talk about how we’re a nation of laws who are saying this silly crap.
It’s ”all in how you define the term” as to whether it’s torture or not. Wow. Try saying that about anything else and see how funny it sounds. Sure, he stabbed the guy in the back 37 times with an ice pick and took all the money off of his lifeless body, but it’s all in how you define the term as to whether or not it was murder. Gee, he walked into that bank with a gun, pointed it at the teller’s head, demanded that they fill his backpack with cash and then ran away with the cash as fast as his little legs could carry him, but it’s all in how you define the term as to whether or not it was bank robbery.
Of course, since we (as a nation of laws) define waterboarding as torture and a crime, the international treaties we’ve signed define waterboarding as torture and as a crime and past war crimes trials have defined waterboarding as torture and a war crime… Where’s this alternate definition coming from? Oh, I get it. He meant to say that it’s all in who you get to define the term. If it’s done to an American by a foreign government; it’s the victim that gets to define it as torture. When it’s Bush, Cheney and crew deciding that we’re a nation of laws that don’t apply to them; it’s Bush, Cheney and crew that get to massage the definition and call it tough interrogation tactics.
And it should be noted that waterboarding ” has been only used 3 times” (that they’ve been forced to admit to) and that’s all. Well then, no harm no foul, guys. See that guy on trial for grand theft? Well, he only did it twice. We should let him go. And that guy over there who is serving time for rape; he only did it once. And Richard wouldn’t hold it against anyone here if they stole his ID, jacked his credit cards to the max and cleaned out his bank account because, hey, you only did it the one time. And we all know that in Richard’s world you have to do something at least four times for it to mean enough to matter.
And apparently the whole idea of the “War on Terror” was just getting people in back rooms and torturing them. That was the be all and end all of the concept for guys like Richard. After all, the idea of doing away with torturing people who might not even be terrorists (like Murat Kurnaz or Maher Arar) means that Obama ”has effectively ended the “war on terror” and has made us less effective in the battle to protect this country” and made evil libs everywhere happy in the process. The fact that we actually tortured people who gave us nothing useful, the fact that we tortured innocent people into confessing to crimes they had no part in just to make the torture stop and the fact that we got some of our most useful intelligence in the last few years through conventional means rather than torture be dámņëd. We can’t torture any more so the War on Terror is over because torture was what it was all about for Richard and his friends.
Jeez, Craig, it is still comedy. It may be black comedy, but it’s certainly comedy. It’s almost become as funny as the answers you get from guys like Richard about the Iraq war.
Q: How do we “win” in Iraq?
A: By achieving victory.
Q: What’s victory in Iraq?
A: Winning the war in Iraq.
Q: Okay… Can you define the terms of winning the Iraq war?
A: Getting the job done.
Q: (Sighs)… What’s the job that has to be done in Iraq?
A: Achieving victory in Iraq.
Wash, rinse and repeat.
Comedy, Craig, pure comedy.
Richard, seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too. Either torture (or “harsh interrogation techniques”) is a big ideal or it isn’t, make up your mind.
First you say it isn’t a big deal (“waterboarding only used 3 times in 8 years”), that go well with other conservative soundbytes, such as waterboarding and stuff like that being no worse than the hazing that goes on in American universities.
But if it’s seldom used and it’s not a big deal since only sissies should be afraid of something as harmless as hazing, then why it’s a big deal that Obama is forbidding it?
Seems like doublethink to me. Some Conservatives believe that it’s harsh, inhuman, and effective, but at the same time they don’t want to appear inhuman and culpable. It would be a lot more honest to admit that it IS torture, and that it’s used often, but that national security trumps humanitarian concepts, in your line of thought.
Comedy, Craig, pure comedy.
If you say so. 😉
As for executive orders and loopholes, I will say this:
1) There better be no loopholes that are later exploited; to counterpoint, I can see the “whether” as a chance to give a final Once and For All report on the situation.
2) There better be no abusing of executive orders like there was under Bush. That was a constant and disgusting abuse of power that needs to be reined in under Obama.
“Comedy, Craig, pure comedy.”
Nothing compared to this –
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/two-days-after.html
So far, the Obama Administration has potential to drift right into sitcom territory. A few days into the job and he’s already waiving his own ethics rules, snapping at reporters (his biggest supporters), and working hard to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in the war on terror.
But he’ll probably get better. After all, he’s only been in the Oval Office since Tuesday.
And this is the first time he’s ever been in charge of anything.
I’m sure it’ll be fine.
Jason – There were newscasts where the anchors were spouting such nonsense as “and the question on everyone’s mind: what is the First Lady wearing for the event?” Which is an interesting statement, as I don’t know anyone who gave a tinker’s dámņ. But the media sure worked to pretend otherwise.
Nothing compared to this –
Ahh, good to see you jumping right back on the bandwagon when the media dares to criticize Obama, something that oh so many on the Right argued would never happen in a million years.
Although I’m sure you’ll be right there to criticize the ‘liberal media’ once they dare to give him praise.
I’m sure it’ll be fine.
Can’t be any worse than the last 8 years.
Sure there were news anchors talking about that. Even if you and I aren’t interested in it, many people are.
It’s not like a normal news cast is 100% hard hitting news. Most nights the news is a mixture of breaking news, continuing stories, and lighter stuff. It’s no surprise that the inauguration is the same.
In fact, it’s extremely understandable that the inauguration has some lighter topics in it. Despite being hours long, there actually isn’t any news in an inauguration. Everyone knows exactly what’s going to happen and when it’s going to happen. Since we’ve been listening to Obama’s speeches for years now, we even have a pretty good idea of what he’s going to say ahead of time. So yeah, they fill a little time by talking about a subject that many people are interested in because it will have an impact on fashion, which *is* an industry.
Nothing wrong with that.
Well, nothing wrong with it unless the things they’re saying are stupid. I read an article yesterday complaining about how Obama’s tux had a white tie even though it was a black tie event. Even worse, white ties are *always* to be worn with tails, which he did not wear! The person writing that article needed to shut the hëll up.
Here’s my thought on the subject of the waiver for the Executive Order on lobbyist restrictions.
I have heard one interesting defense of that. The idea was that this particular guy was extremely qualified and had a lot support for the job. So that left them with several bad options:
1) Make really tough rules, but make an exception to the rule for a few very qualified people. (what they did)
2) Make really tough rules and pass up the best people for the jobs in a handful of cases.
3) Make the rules lax enough for this guy to get in, which means they would be lax enough to allow for a lot of other lobbyists as well.
The argument is that number 2 deprives us some of the best people for these positions and number 3 is essentially no improvement on the rules at all.
Personally, I think that the more exceptions you make, the closer you come to just pretending to have a rule. I’m really hoping that there are very few exceptions. At least Obama is being honest about what he’s doing. They’re certainly not trying to hide it, they issued the order knowing they were nominating this guy and people would notice.
So I’m a little iffy on this, but I’m going to start off with some benefit of the doubt. It’s definitely worth watching to call Obama out if these waivers start becoming the norm instead of the exceptions.
Personally, I think that the more exceptions you make, the closer you come to just pretending to have a rule.
yeah, it’s really not much of a rule when you can just waive it at will. It also raises the question of whether or not the rule is needed; obviously they don’t think it has any effect on this guy’s qualifications so why should it affect anyone else?
If this is the only exception, well, ok, but any more and it’s no rule at all, just window dressing for the rubes.
Tim Butler: “Nothing compared to this -“
No, that was a completely bone headed move on Obama’s part, but not comedy yet. Comedy would be when Obama says that it’s just this one time that he’ll bend his rules other than this one, and this one, and this one, and that one over there and etc. This was just an amazing stupid move to make.
And, amazingly, it’s the main stream media that’s reporting this about face by Obama. Huh, who would have thunk it? I could swear that I’ve been getting told by Fox News, the leading Conservative voices in the media and their many fans that the MSM would never ever allow criticism of Obama over anything. Guess they were wrong.
Jerry, they almost HAVE to report it–facts are facts and if they tried to ignore it they would be embarrassed when the bloggers and talk radio and talking heads on TV that aren’t in the tank kept bringing it up.
I don’t think the conservative argument is that the mainstream media will ignore anything that reflects negatively on Obama, only that they will be far more even handed or friendly in their coverage over these inevitable stumbles than they ever would have been for, say, McCain.
Me, I think there’s a very good chance that at some point a lot of the journalists who made assclowns out of themselves in their favoritism for Obama will begin to try to regain their journalism bona fides by going to the opposite extreme and being unnecessarily antagonistic.
Dude, even Ivory is 0.56% impure.
Bill Mulligan: “Jerry, they almost HAVE to report it–facts are facts and if they tried to ignore it they would be embarrassed when the bloggers and talk radio and talking heads on TV that aren’t in the tank kept bringing it up.
I don’t think the conservative argument is that the mainstream media will ignore anything that reflects negatively on Obama, only that they will be far more even handed or friendly in their coverage over these inevitable stumbles than they ever would have been for, say, McCain. “
Bill, I was being a bit sarcastic, but, yeah, the less sane voices on the Right have been grumbling about how the Mainstream Media won’t report things our that they’ll spin things to be anyone’s fault other than Obama’s. You, me and most the saner people know that the MSM will at least report these things, but the mantra that some of the conservative talkers and their callers have right now is that Obama is too big to fail and that the MSM that helped put him in power (because the election was all about them retaking their ability to sway elections) will play down, spin or not report things when they can get away with it.
I’m feeling too lazy to Google for hours on end tonight and Fangoria Radio is starting, so I’ll just go two nights back and cite the Fox News site.
Rush Limbaugh on Fox News this week:
“So I think they’ve done a great job, the media has, of covering up his deficiencies. They — he’s too big to fail, and so whatever goes wrong, blame it on Bush, blame it on — I mean MSNBC’s new life will be criticizing you and me because they can’t criticize him.”
**************************************
“They didn’t. They only cared — see, Sean, they’ve got an investment. He’s too big to fail. They wanted him elected because they wanted to reassert their power, the media here, in being able to sway public opinion to the result that they wanted, so they were going to cover up the Jeremiah Wright and all these things that give indication of radicalism of Obama, cover that up, portray him as he wants to be portrayed, somebody who’s not to be questioned, somebody who’s not to be doubted, we’re just supposed to accept and trust because most of these guys came alive and came of age in the civil rights battles of the 60’s.”
********************************
“He [Obama] is co-opting these people. He’s bringing them in. He wants the establishment media inside the beltway, punditry and so- called journalism, to be afraid to criticize him.”
Didn’t want to comment too much here. Obama is the President and if his Presidency does inspire people to truly do the right things, make tough choices, etc., then I will actually be happy. But I absolutely go nuts when I see crap like this from “close-minded, don’t bother-me-with-the-facts, I’ve already made up my mind” liberal posters like Craig J. Ries:
” I don’t see why people are having a fit about this, or trying to down play it. It sounds like some are just upset because it’s not the GOP that gets to take the credit for breaking such barriers, even though they’ve never been in much of a hurry to break down such barriers.”
Right. The “mean, racist, sexist” GOP has NEVER broken any barriers..Oh, wait!
1.) Richard Nixon started affirmative action
2.) Ronald Reagan signed Martin Luther King Day into law, which has had various ripples and was extremely unpopular in some circles at the time
3.) Reagan appointed the first woman, Sandra day O’Connor, to the Supreme Court
4.) Bush 41 named Colin Powell as the first black head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, despite many criticizing the move as affirmative action
5.) Bush 41 also named only the second black ever to the Supreme Court. 16 years since his presidency that number has not increased. Despite 8 of them and 2 slots belonging tio Democrat Bill Clinton.
6.) Bush 41 signed the Americans With Disabilities Act into law, which has “broken barriers” for millions
7.) Bush 43 named Powell to be the first black Secretary of State
8.) Bush 43 named Condi Rice to be the first black National Security Advisor
9.) Bush 43 named Rice to be the first black woman to be Secretary of State
10.) Bush 43 named Albero Gonzales to be the first Hispanic Attorney General and considerd him for the Supreme Court
11.) John McCain made Sarah Palin the first Republican and only second woman overall to be elected Vice-Presidency
12.) Both Powell and Rice were strongly urged to run for President on the Republican ticket,the thinking being they could WIN. Both declined.
13.) Oh, and let’s not forget most of the Governors/Mayors ordering minorities to be fire hosed and attacked with dogs were Democrats.
So while the Republicans certainly hold no monopoly on breaking barriers or, on the flip side, having racists in their ranks, it is equally true Democrats don’t either.
And don’t forget that Abraham Lincoln was instrumental in the founding the Republican party, which originally formed to oppose the expansion of slavery.
Thanks, Luigi. I would have included that, too, but I just wanted to emphasize that the supposedly “close-minded, bigoted” Republicans have helped break barriers very recently.
I just wish that someone like Rice got a fraction of the love from the media and the masses for being an intelligent, groundbreaking pioneer as Obama and Hillary have gotten.
If she did, maybe she would have accepted the reported offer to replace Cheney and run for Prez in ’08 and the race, and history, might have been quite different…..
Rice gets the same flack Bush got because she was a loyal one of his soldiers. Colin Powell jumped ship on principle because he felt that what the administration did was wrong, and that his own credibility suffered as a result, which is why I suspect he is not viewed as she is, as seen by Rush Limbaugh’s racist rant when Powell endorsed Obama.
Republicans got the closed-books accounting they asked for, and the result was the financial-institution gambling that’s resulted in those same institutions asking for a bail-out. The remaining virtue of republicans is theft.
If republicans want credit for civil rights, then let’s see the kind of progress that justifies a political party. Expecting O’Connor and Rice to carry a party is a joke.
But I absolutely go nuts when I see crap like this from “close-minded, don’t bother-me-with-the-facts, I’ve already made up my mind” liberal posters like Craig J. Ries:
How nice of you to single me out (again) amongst all the posters here.
Right. The “mean, racist, sexist” GOP has NEVER broken any barriers..Oh, wait!
I never said “never”, did I? I said they’ve never been in much of a hurry. Yes, there’s a difference in the meaning between what I said, and how you interpreted it. Not that I expect you to see it, given the way you’ve responded.
I’d go over all your points, but, frankly, I’m tired. But I’ll refute a couple that spring to mind:
Affirmative Action started before Nixon with JFK and LBJ.
Vice-presidency. As you yourself noted, Palin was the 2nd woman. Which means that the GOP didn’t break that barrier first. Not a great example on your part.
And don’t forget that Abraham Lincoln was instrumental in the founding the Republican party
The Republican party of 150 years ago is nothing like the party of today. The same goes for the Democratic party.
There’s a reason that ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have certain values attached to each of them, and why these labels are attached to each party. The Republican party that put Lincoln in the White House was not a conservative party.
Craig,
I “singled you out” because it was the comment that caught my eye, is one I have heard repeatedly and one that I feel is factually incorrect. Stop taking it personally.
And, again, if what you mean is the GOP has “never been in a hurry”, then obviously the Democrats were never “in a hurry” to have a black head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sign Martin Luther King Day into law, name a Hispanic Attorney General who was strongly considered for the Supreme Court, name a black Secretary of State, a female black Secretary of State, pass a bill that broke many barriers for the handicapped, etc. Because Republican Administrations did all these things.
As for your Palin example, my point was that the barrier was not completely broken because Ferraro was not elected. And, quite frankly, McCain had a far better chance of beating Obama – and making a female Vice-President a reality – than Mondale did of beating Reagan.
As I stated, Democrats have broken barriers as well – Reno, Albright – but they certainly have not exclusively done so and one could make the argument that Republican Administrations have actually broken more, despite portrayals by many of them as intolerant.
That’s all.
Mike,
“Republicans got the closed-books accounting they asked for, and the result was the financial-institution gambling that’s resulted in those same institutions asking for a bail-out. The remaining virtue of republicans is theft.”
Laughably untrue, but it’s too late for me to start debating this.
“If republicans want credit for civil rights, then let’s see the kind of progress that justifies a political party. Expecting O’Connor and Rice to carry a party is a joke.”
No, the joke is your obliviousness of the facts. Was the Americans With Disabilities Act not “progress” for millions of Americans? What about the other examples I raised? What about Palin, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Bobby Jindal? Hëll, what about the onetime GOP frontrunner being a Mormon? What about Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman who many feel is qualified for the Supreme Court but was was impeded by Democrats from being appointed to a Federal court solely based on ideology, not competence? I was reading a story the other day about how millions of minorities have raised heir social status in the past decade and in the past 25 years – and which party has held the White House during the majority of those time frames?
As for your Palin example, my point was that the barrier was not completely broken because Ferraro was not elected.
Um … Palin didn’t win either, Jerome. I don’t understand your point here — NEITHER party has seen a woman make it all the way to the President or VP role, and the Democrats were in fact the first to nominate one.
I could debate some of the rest of your statements, but time doesn’t really permit at the moment. The Palin one, though, is one that simply makes no sense to me.
TWL
Tim, I think the point is that the party that actually gets a woman in as president or VP will have broken a major barrier, right? Well, you can’t do that without at first nominating one. Both parties have done so, both,however, were desperation moves that didn’t have great chances of success. But this is one of those cases where you can’t break the barrier without taking a chance. So both parties deserve credit for at least TRYING to break this barrier and, if fact, making easier that the eventual barrier WILL be broken.
It’s not that republicans have any bragging rights over democrats on this one, but it is evidence of a desire to break barriers on their part, which is what Jerome was arguing. Though he should have said selected not elected.
Thank you, Bill. You said what I was trying to say better than I did!Want to be my press secretary?
Except I would argue that Palin’s move was less “desperation” than Mondale’s. She helped McCain to a tie/slight lead in some polls and closed the gap/caused leads in some battleground states and some that were never considered to be – within 2 in PA and within 5 points in Jersey!- right before the financial “meltdown” in mid-September.
So, yes, I meant SELECTED, which is the only way a woman would become Vice-President. In fact, Obama NOT picking a woman as a running mate truly shocked me, since it would have emphasized his “change” theme more and made the presseven more gaga about it’s historic nature.
He won, so I’m sure he felt he made the right decision. But me personally? I would rather someone like Feinstein or Napolitano than Biden a heartbeat away.
That argument makes sense, Bill (and then Jerome for the clarification) — thanks.
I think that Palin’s run does herald a major barrier breaking down, but not the same way Jerome does. As has been said a number of times, the color barrier in baseball was truly gone not when a Jackie Robinson could make it, but when a mediocre black player had the same shot as a mediocre white player. Same deal here — it’s now clear that a massively incompetent woman has just as strong a shot at the brass ring as a massively incompetent man. While I’m very relieved that she didn’t win, I do recognize that that’s a huge step forward.
I would rather someone like Feinstein or Napolitano than Biden a heartbeat away.
I can see Napolitano — but as someone who lived in CA and had Feinstein as a senator, I’d like to say “NO” to that choice. I liked her once upon a time, but she’s been a massive enabler of a lot of Bush’s worst choices, and I’d rather not see that rewarded.
On a similar line, though, I’m surprised that McCain went with Palin rather than somebody like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, or even Kay Bailey Hutchison — while I personally can’t stand KBH, she’d have been a very strong candidate.
TWL