I'm anxious to end the Bush era too...
...and I'm pretty sure that Bush himself is anxious to end the Bush era. But why is Tom Friedman on my television saying that we should move up the transition date and basically swear Obama in right now and why is CNN treating that idea like it makes any sense at all?
One problem with it is that Obama actually thinks before he acts, so he'd probably not be for it. Obama is working on a transition plan that has him taking over the reigns on January 20th. Moving that date up by more than a month will needlessly complicate his transition, one that looks like it's going to be the smoothest in history if Obama is allowed to follow his plan.
Another problem is that it's illegal and congress is unlikely to act to change the laws on such short notice so it's a silly thing to be talking about.
A third problem is that all of this talk is unfair to Obama. This "get in there and save us" rhetoric puts enormous pressure on him as a president. But he is not going to wave his hand and fix the economy. He is going to start us on a process that will likely lead us to a better future. But he needs time to do that. At the very least we can wait until January 20th for him to take over.
One problem with it is that Obama actually thinks before he acts, so he'd probably not be for it. Obama is working on a transition plan that has him taking over the reigns on January 20th. Moving that date up by more than a month will needlessly complicate his transition, one that looks like it's going to be the smoothest in history if Obama is allowed to follow his plan.
Another problem is that it's illegal and congress is unlikely to act to change the laws on such short notice so it's a silly thing to be talking about.
A third problem is that all of this talk is unfair to Obama. This "get in there and save us" rhetoric puts enormous pressure on him as a president. But he is not going to wave his hand and fix the economy. He is going to start us on a process that will likely lead us to a better future. But he needs time to do that. At the very least we can wait until January 20th for him to take over.
Advertisement
Cosign. I've been thinking it a good thing, and am glad, that Obama has every bit of this interim transition to develop his plan of attack on our economic woes. The possibility of bringing him to power sooner is ludicrous. As bad as Bush has been I don't see him abdicating power in the last days of his presidency, which would only cement his historical legacy as our most inept president in stone.
November 24, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree that I would love to see Bush head back to Texas, sorry Texas, I also want to see Obama use this time to get the administration together, wisely. So far so good, on that front.
However,as to the constitutionality, the date has been moved up before. All presidents until 1937 were inaugurated in March in an effort to avoid bad weather. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution (passed in 1933) changed the inaugural date to January 20. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Second Inauguration was the first to have been held on that date.
November 24, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh sure, it can be changed. I just doubt it's likely. Heck, even if you could get enough steam for a constitutional ammendment it'd probably take so long that he'd only move in a week or two early.
November 24, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No disagreement
November 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, as you point out, it technically would be unconstitutional to move up the date from January 20th, since that specific date is included in the 20th Amendment. Thus, in order to move up the date (or to provide flexibility on it), it'd require another Constitutional Amendment.
November 24, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using Gail Collins' silly column to set policy? You have a problem with that?
It's as if people decided to discuss the potential shoe sizes of the inhabitants of Mars: you just don't know how to respond politely to such sheer silliness.
What if this morphs into "If only Obama had agreed to take office on November 28, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in, so it's his fault because he refused to take office early...."
Sure, this line of reasoning isn't based on reality, but so?
November 24, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, a waste of time by Friedman. The trade-off, IF he could do it, would be a less smooth transition... but more ability to stop some negative stuff from happening that will hurt Obama later, plus an ability to start some good things sooner. And when dealing with economic crises, timing timing timing is essential.
So for real world purposes, it'd be better if he was there now, even if a meant a rockier transition. But is it gonna happen? Yeah. Cheney and co. aren't gonna want a couple more months in those offices. Right. Those boys will be shredding, and pardoning, and rolling grenades under doors, and burying political hacks right up til the movers arrive.
Come on clock, move faster.....
November 24, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
Totally same reaction. Of course, Tom Friedman is an idiot. His "the world is flat" thesis is predicated on cheap energy. His thesis will soon find the same dumpster that houses the "end of history" arguments so popular in the late 1990s.
Here's a very big counterargument to these pundits: in 2000, the election had to be decided under a time pressure as a result of the Jan 20 inauguration. And the Bush side played to that pressure masterfully.
Friedman would make a very poor engineer: he is constantly designing for the one-shot or the best case.
A very big rec for your post.
November 24, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two separate answers to two separate questions.
1) Because Friedman is still losing too much money tied into the stock market and he believes the market will stabilize (and, consequently, he'll stop bleeding money) once the new administration is in place.
2) Because CNN is brain-dead. Has been for quite some time now.
November 24, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I just heard a suggestion that Paulson should resign and Bush should appoint Obama's Secretary of Treasury in the interim.
That would be smart...
because everyone talking about Paulson believes he is incompetent and that does not help build confidence in the economy and he could stop making things worse.
If the economic team could go ahead and start changing hands that might help move things along.
However GW, as we know, is not very smart. Sigh...
November 24, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good idea but if I was Geithner I'd rather spend the next two months building my team and planning my strategy... not explaining to George Bush what needs to be done.
November 24, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think that the problems we're facing are serious enough that we should put Obama in charge now? Why suffer through this lame duck period?
I don't understand why moving up the date would "needlessly complicate his transition"??
This country is in one messed up state and it would be great if Obama & team get in there right away
November 24, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, call a Constitutional Convention and get the ball rolling!
November 25, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's unfortunately nothing that can realistically be done to get Obama into office sooner than 1/20/2009. However, what all of us can be doing is getting after our own Senators and Reps demanding full transparency and accountability on this bail-out, freezing compensation on those executives and directors for companies that are getting this "TARP" money, and setting aside more money for investigations, grand juries, and possible indictments. Would it be such a bad idea to revoke the passports of these people, such as Vikram Pandit (CEO of CITI), as well?
This is just the beginning. Cities and states are going to be asking for bail-outs as well.
November 25, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at how much the economy is continuing to collapse. At this rate there might not be any ink left (to print money) or businesses left to save by January 20th.
We probably should move it up to January 2 but I can't imagine moving it closer than that.
November 25, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink