In his first news conference since the campaign, on which he said he looks “back with pride and honor,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had admiring words Tuesday for President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet choices so far, especially Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s reported nod as secretary of homeland security. Then again, notes MSNBC’s First Read blog, that appointment would eliminate McCain’s top rival for a 2010 re-election bid to the Senate. Plus, Obama just engineered Senate Democrats’ forgiveness of McCain’s friend Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
42 Comments
What else can he do? He knows the best man won.
Some of Obama cabinet picks are a nothing but a bunch of Clinton retreads. Where is the change from Obi One? Hang in there Kathy maybe you to will find a cabinet job.
HA! I think I know what is at the heart of the fear and loathing most of the cons here are weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth over.
They know gwb phcuked things up ALMOST beyond recovery the last eight years. That almost everything they believed he would do was a lie. It was all much, MUCH worse than they ever imagined. Oh, they wont admit it, but it’s true, and even THEY know it.
And…
Change is here. Someone else will be sitting in what they think is THEIR white house. THEY and their ideology have been soundly kicked to the curb. And not for any reason other than, it didnt work. It failed. GWB failed. The whole republicon ideology failed.
I read this on another blog. It’s by someone called the Plaid Adder. And it sums up what both libs and cons know, but only one will admit.
“After January 20, 2009, George W. Bush will be gone. Someone else will be president–someone who, no matter what you may believe, is much more fit for the job and much more likely to do some good with it than W. ever was. If, after that transition takes place, we persist in acting and feeling as if nothing has changed, we are only hurting ourselves.
During these past eight years it felt, to me anyway, as if I had crossed through the looking glass into a new and horrifying world from which there would never be an escape. But in fact, the Bush years are not going to last forever–unless we refuse to leave him behind.
To prepare myself for this day, I sometimes practice saying goodbye to him. I imagine him skulking out of the White House with his bag of golf clubs and loading them into the back of his non-union moving van and driving away in silence while Obama’s inaugural parade marches joyfully and boisterously down the street. History has left you behind, George. We are all stuck grappling with your dark, vile, catastrophic legacy. But don’t you stick around; you’ll be no help at all. We’re all headed out to do what has to be done to clean up your mess, and hopefully to build something new, something that can measure up to the joy and hope everyone felt that night they discovered that another world was possible. Go on back to your darkness, you little, little man, and leave the world to those of us who know how to love it.”
And for me, all I can say is “buh-bye”. I hope we never again see a time as dark as the eight years of bushco, the sequel.
And in case you wonder how badly he did phcuk things up…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081126/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
Thank you supply side voodoo economics!
The Pubs nominated the most ‘Democratic” candidate they had. :D
So, what is surprising about his agreement with the choices.
Thank you native Wichitan, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, graduate of East High School in 1961, for agreeing to continue on in the same position for at least the first year of the Obama administration.
According to one media report, Gates re-appointment meets Obama’s wish to have at least one Republican in his Cabinet. That might not be quite accurate. I believe Mr. Gates has said he is an independent voter, that is, not registered as either a Republican or Democrat. I presume the news media will clarify this.
Mr. Gates is the consumate non-political high level government administrator. Every step in his life has been of the highest quality. Reportedly straight “A’s” at East High School, Eagle Scout with honors, Lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, PhD in Russian History from George Washington University just down the street from the White House. And a long career with the U.S. State Department/CIA.
So congratulations Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Looks like Volker is going to head up a pres. advisory panel. That Obama is on the ball. Article today said Obama had to step up and fill the leadership vacuum.
Just as I’d thought.
Not too fond of Gates, firstly, because he seemed to be a puppet for Mccain, secondly, because he was involved with the Iran/contra deal.
But think I’ve heard he’ll stay for at least a yr., maybe he’ll go back to seattle after that.
The noble experiment of electing the village idiot to run the village is coming to an end, with disasterous consequences. Never Forget! Never Again!
(Sorry Palin, you’ll never get a chance)
Regular
Posted November 26, 2008 at 8:15 am | Permalink
The Pubs nominated the most ‘Democratic” candidate they had. :D
So, what is surprising about his agreement with the choices.
–
Regular -
I’ve heard this before as to the reason Republicans lost so big this election but I am still curious as to how did McCain get in if no one in the party wanted him? It wasn’t because of his massive amount of money – because his campaign was just about broke.
So, either alot of Republicans are now lying about their choice in McCain or alot of Republicans are just plain stupid to let someone they didn’t want to win the nomination.
Which is it – are you lying or stupid?
Another either or proposition, can’t he be both stupid and a liar?
mom,
It’s called ‘tongue-in-cheek humor…
…I wasn’t expecting tighty whities like yourself to get it.
REgular – you are not really in the position to think you are superior but if that floats your boat, go for it.
And how can a liberal be a tighty-whitie? I thought that expression was reserved for the Right-Wing uptight, too good for this Earth, people? – You know, the people that God only loves?
Besides, you never did address my question.
Phantom – on second thought, I think you’re right.
I surely don’t like the idea of Lieberman continuing to chair homeland security. The buzz is that Obama told Reid “Do what you must to keep him from going to the Republicans.” Oh well.
Maybe Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano can bitch-slap some sense into him, but i don’t particularly want to lose our governor either. :(
Gates does have scary baggage, as does Larry Summers. But I respect Paul Volcker, and, other than some Wall Street whispers, I haven’t heard anything bad about Geithner.
I heard the idea with Gates was to keep him on for a few months to smooth the Pentagon transition over or something.
At least under Gates the Pentagon has adult supervision. The horror stories of Rumsfeld’s Reign of Error are scary.
At least under Gates the Pentagon has adult supervision. The horror stories of Rumsfeld’s Reign of Error are scary.
True. And he’s been behaving like an adult since he took over.
Some are afraid this move will support the myth that only Republicans can do national security, but that’s so 1980.
Meanwhile, is Paul Volker the tallest old man on the planet?
He looked like Andre the Giant standing next to President Obama this morning. And Barack towered over McCain.
McCain would look like Mini-Me next to Volker.
McCain would look like Mini-Me next to Volker.
Heh, how about Robert Reich? :)
President Elect Obama
“That if you’re placed in a position of power, then you’ve got responsibilities to your workers. You’ve got a responsibility to your community. Your share holders. That if — there’s got to be a point where you say, ‘You know what, I have enough, and now I’m in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I’m doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.’ And that’s true, by the way, for members of Congress, that’s true for the president, that’s true for Cabinet members, that’s true for parents. I want all of us to start thinking a little bit more, not just about what’s good for me, but let’s start thinking about what’s good for our children, what’s good for our country. The more we do that, the better off we’re going to be. ”
Does that mean one of his first acts a President is to make sure that Government official, including the Congress, are subject to all the same laws as everyone else? ANd I mean by introducing policies within the admin, and legislation within the Congress? Hope so.
I really love this Internet source .. http://www.hischannel.com/vodtv.php .. (you might have to do a quick download) . . . . You all have a very blessed Thanksgiving and may God watch over all on the roads and highways .. drive careful . . .
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLIC THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:” . . . . . George Washington 1789
What does “your comment is awaiting moderation” mean?
You must have written something naughty, “GMC70.”
I sent a copy of one of my “awaiting moderation” posts to Brownlee and asked him wtf. He said he sent it on to the moderators and they’d get back to me. They never did.
So, MH, does the post I see on my screen not get on other screens? Do I “secretly” see only my own post?
It’s probably the citation to other sites, BTW, rather than anything “naughty.” Though naughty is not always a bad thing . . . .
I’ll take out the additional cites and see if it goes through.
Is Hillary eligible to be Sec. of State? It appears not:
—–
It turns out that the biggest obstacle to Hillary Clinton’s march to Foggy Bottom might be grammatical in nature. Adam Bonin and Eugene Volokh weigh in on the debate over the application of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2), which provides:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
As it happens, the secretary of state’s salary was increased by executive order this past January, which would seem to clearly disqualify her from the job. The relevant debate here is whether the so-called “Saxbe fix” (named after Richard Nixon’s last attorney general, former Sen. William Saxbe of Ohio, who ran into the same difficulty Clinton is facing now) would rectify the problem: couldn’t the salary just be lowered to where it was prior to the beginning of Senator Clinton’s current term?
The answer hinges on whether the phrase “have been increased during such time” refers to a net increase over the period of time in question, or to any individual instance of an increase. If it’s the latter–which, according to the two Emoluments Clause experts (isn’t legal academia wonderful?) quoted at length by Professor Volokh, is the more reasonable reading of the clause–then Clinton would be ineligible to serve as secretary of state until 2012 and nothing could be done about it.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/11/24/hillary-clinton-s-emoluments-problem.aspx
—
There’s more. Check around Google if you like.
Isn’t constitutional law fun?
If the SoS salary was raised by Executive Order and not by the Congress where’s the conflict?
If she agrees to work for the old salary is it okay since, technically, that salary hasn’t been raised?
If one executive order can raise the SoS salary can’t the new President issue another one lowering it? Can’t the new Congress adjust the salary law before Inauguration Day, ready to be signed on January 20th, before Obama’s cabinet nominees are officially presented for congressional review?
Seems like a tempest in a teapot, “GMC70.”
Seems like Hillary-haters grasping at straws. Again.
MH –
I don’t expect the text of the Constitution to be a practical barrier to Hillary’s taking the position. It has been ignored before (see “Saxbe fix”).
Frankly, if Hillary wants to be president at some point, I don’t know why she would take the job. Neither does she have any particular experience that suits her for State. But that’s a call for her and Obama, of course. I just find it an interesting Constitutional question.
Your response tells me, when it comes down to it, what you think of the Constitution, however: an an obstacle to be overcome, not an actual limitation on gov’t action. The words are what they are. Note the Emoluments Clause does not limit the pay raise to one actually voted on by Congress; and even if the raise was by executive order, that order came under Congressional authorization, and the raise occurred during Hillary’s term in office. The plain language of the Constitution thus bars Hillary taking the job.
Either the words of the Constitution have meaning, or they don’t. Which is it?
“Either the words of the Constitution have meaning, or they don’t. Which is it?”
——
Seems there is always a backlog of cases whereby Constitutional law needs an interpretation handed down by the Court. And often split decisions indicating differing interpretations. Maybe it isn’t as cut and dried as you would like it to be.
“GMC70″ –
Someone — a lawyer I think — said the definition of Hell is “strict adherence to to the letter of the law.”
You bring up a sophist law-school Socratic “what-if” that isn’t likely to make it even to this particular right-leaning SCOTUS because it’s straining at gnats.
By your reckoning, “GMC70,” Joe Biden is ineligible to become Vice-President and John McCain would have been ineligible to take the presidency had he been elected.
C’mon.
MH – Agreed; this little “tempest” isn’t likely to matter, in a practical sense. But it’s interesting, isn’t it?
Your answer does raise an interesting question, however. If “strict adherance” to the law is “hell” and thus to be avoided, just when is adherance required? If we are not bound by “strict adherance,” what are we bound by? Each man cannot be sovereign, answerable only to himself; no society can long endure in such a state. So when ARE we bound? Apparantly, only when it suits us?
BTW – I know of no constitutional concerns, gnat-like or otherwise, regarding either Biden’s installation as VP nor McCain’s eligibility to be president, however. To what do you refer?
GMC – I think the McCain eligibility question has to do with the definition od ‘native-born’ since he was born (I think) in the Canal Zone.
There had also been a question about the elder Romney having been born overseas – don’t recall what the determinayion was there – moot anyway.
“Frankly, if Hillary wants to be president at some point, I don’t know why she would take the job”
I think she has come to realize that she will never be president. 2016 she will be too old – both in years and in ‘exposure’
ben –
Yea, I know of that argument. He was born in the Canal Zone. The argument doesn’t even pass the tin-hat test.
First, the Canal Zone was, at the time, US territory, and thus his birth there made him a US citizen, by US law. Second and more important, he was born to parents who were themselves US citizens, thus he was a US citizen by birth, had he been born in the Canal Zone, France, or Timbuktu.
I still got no idea re: any argument Biden cannot be VP, however. Anyone know where that one came from?
gmc – agreed. But I had read that based on a “strict” interpretation. I tend to go with your reasoning.
A related one might have to do with a child born in a hospital in Paris (not on US soil) but to US parents. I go with calling him/her “native-born” for this purpose.
Re: territory – was Hawaii a state yet when Obama was born? (I think that question came up with another candidate I worked for some time ago – Goldwater)
“Any Presidential scholars out there?”
GMC – over on the Gates thread. You might find it interesting.
“GMC70″ –
Both Biden and McCain were Senators when we last bumped the President’s and Veep’s salaries. I think it might have been before Obama was elected.
McCain may have been born in Panama instead of the Canal Zone, but yes, he’s a natural-born citizen.
And Hawaii became a state in 1959 and Barack Obama was born in 1961 or so.
As to your question, though –
“If we are not bound by “strict adherance,” what are we bound by?”
Justice.
Unlike the Sixth Commandment, which is pretty clear and pretty strict, there’s a concept in common law that embraces “justifiable homicide.” There’s the concept of mitigating circumstances. There’s an unwritten understanding you don’t get a speeding ticket for going 36 in a 35-mph zone.
From the 1700s, I think — maybe it was in Blackwell’s essay on jury nullification — there was a case where a guy stole a loaf of bread from a baker’s garbage and was charged with theft. He had no money, the bread was to feed his starving family, the baker obviously had rendered the loaf value-less, but it was still the baker’s property and the starving guy did, in fact, steal the bread.
Strict adherence to the law would have meant jail. Justice, on the other hand, said something of no value cannot be “stolen.”
Black-letter law is a structure. It’s not intended to be un-just. And real-life circumstances interfere with black-letter law sometimes. That’s why there are juries and that’s why there are judges.
And it works both ways. Nothing in the world could convince me Dennis Rader shouldn’t be hauled out of his cell and shot in the middle of a street like the rabid dog he is. He just happened to do his thing when there was no death penalty. And, despite the injustice of it all, the State of Kansas still doesn’t take convicted murderers out in the street to be shot like the rabid dogs they are.
You, “GMC70,” as much as anybody should realize the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and justice are sometimes three very different things.
I tend to opt for justice, even if I can’t lynch Dennis Rader.
Your little Clinton-can’t-be-SoS case doesn’t stand up to the smell test.
And it reeks of right wing-nut flop sweat.
This reminds me of some listings of obsolete laws I have seen over the years – things like you have to have a horse tied to your car when it is parked etc.
It’s been a while, but . . .
Justice.
The problem with “justice,” MH, is that it is undefinable. It’s like “fair” in that whether a particular act is “just” depends entirely on one’s particular perspective.
The ‘letter’ of the law may seem harsh and inflexible. And it can be. That is why discretion is built into the law at several levels; from the officer’s discretion to arrest or not, to the prosecutor’s discretion in filing a case or not, to a judge’s discretion in sentencing. But that discretion is built into the ‘letter’ of the law.
No, MH, I’m afraid that the letter of the law is the only thing that is binding, because it is the only thing that is definable. “Justice,” in and of itself, has a thousand definitions.
And yes, it’s a tempest in a teapot, and one I don’t particularly care about (I don’t hate Hillary, I just disagree with her politics, but I know that the concept of disagreeing with someone without hating them is entirely foreign to you) aside from it’s an interesting constitutional question. In all likelihood, we’ll do the “Saxbe fix” and ignore the constitutional question. It’s an equally interesting question as to who, if anyone, has standing to challenge the appointment in court should it be made.
BTW – the provision doesn’t apply to Biden, just as it would not to McCain or Obama, because these are elected positions, not appointments to a civil office.
And you’ll have to smell your own nuts, thanks. I’d prefer you not be sniffing around mine, “right-wing” or otherwise.
“GMC70″ returns with –
“…the concept of disagreeing with someone without hating them is entirely foreign to you.”
Now c’mon, “GMC70.” What’s that if not an unprovoked attack? From you. Toward me.
It’s like Whomever’s Law of Spelling Flames: “The most insulting spelling flame will always include an egregious spelling error of its own.”
Or whichever CON on this forum strutted his intellectual inferiority with the “Tow the line” v. “Toe the line” idiom.
Arrogance and Ignorance. You got through law school, “GMC70,” so I sincerely doubt you’re ignorant. But you seem to have made up for it with arrogance. Three years of law school served you well, I guess.
But there’s nothing but you trying to play the Victim Card that substantiates any attack against me that I “hate” you CONs. Thing is, I’ve dealt with you types all my adult life and and the only that that surprises me about CONs is their seemingly infinite capacity for even more Ignorance and Arrogance.
I go back to one of the seminal moments in this forum when one of you CONs dismissed a link I’d posted with, “Everyone knows http://www.tinyurl is a LIBERAL website!”
So tell us, “GMC70.” Fill this forum with the wisdom and evidence and substance of your comment:
“…the concept of disagreeing with someone without hating them is entirely foreign to you.”
Come on, Counselor. Show us what you’ve got.
Well, MH, arrogance is certainly something you ought to be fully familiar with it; you fairly reek with it.
As to your unfamiliarity with the concept of disagreeing with someone without hating them; well, your history of writing here speaks for itself.
Physician, heal thyself.