Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:48 am, Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:





On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:09:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...tays-out-of-ca...

A. We only have one head of state at a time here.
B. The Moonie paper? snerk
Maybe, but Bush has pushed to redirect the $25B already authorized
for green
car development to a temporary cash flow assistance to the auto
industry to
tide them over until Obama takes office and decides what he wants
to do.
Seems reasonable to me.
Meanwhile, up until yesterday, the Dems in Congress wanted to slice
off some
of the $700B TARP funding to bail out Detroit, particularly GM.
That is,
until Pelosi and Reid realized that the political wind wasn't in their
favor, so they changed their tune.
This crisis is not a typical, POTUS to POTUS transitional issue.
Decisions
need to be made now, not on January 20th, if one believes GM needs
to be
saved. Obama should be exercising his influence on the matter, not
voting
"present" because unless something is done in the next 3 weeks or
so, GM may
no longer exist as a going concern.
That doesn't mean that my personal opinion is for a bailout. I still
believe a planned, Chapter 11 filing and reorganization is
necessary, under
which a bridge loan from the government (taxpayers) would be
exercised to
help finance operations during the reorganization period.
It's all about signals and Obama hasn't sent the right signals.
I agree - he needs to put a transitional Treasury Secretary in place
to calm things down and send the right signal.
You would think a "community organizer" would understand the need.
Once again, we only have one president at a time. What you are
advocating is a variance of the parliamentary system, sort of, in which
the opposition party has some standing, and in which there are "shadow"
officials of the opposition party, ready to move in and take over on
practically a moment's notice.

At the moment, Barack Obama has absolutely no standing constitutionally.
Hell, he even resigned his seat in the U.S. Senate. How can he "put a
transitional Treasury Secretary in place"? If he attempted that, under
our system, it would be usurpation of power and, in fact, pretty much a
coup.

What could be done is this: Bush, as president, could call upon Obama,
as president-elect, to meet with him and his advisers on a daily basis,
come up with plans both entities endorse 100% and jointly announce and
implement those plans on an interim basis with the help of Congressional
leaders. Or something like that.

Part of the problem here is that the current president has skirted the
intent and sometimes the letter of the Constitution when it suited his
purposes because he had no understanding or respect for it. I doubt he
has even read it. The incoming president is a professor of
constitutional law, understands he has to follow the document, and sure
as hell does not want his administration to start with him in violation
of it.

George W. Bush baked our cake. We have to eat it until he is no longer
in office. The mess we are in rightfully belongs on Bush's desk, and
Obama will inherit it. But it isn't Obama's mess...yet.

Sorry, boys...and once again, we only have one president at a time.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, if Obama's afraid to step up, maybe he shoudn't have run...


You missed the point. Under our form of government, Obama has no
standing to do what has been suggested here. It's not fear that keeps
him from acting. It is respect for our Constitution, our laws, our
traditions. The President cannot do whatever the hell he/she wants,
although obviously Bush bent those rules whenever it pleased him. Obama
is a lawyer and versed in the Constitution. He is not going to ignore
the Constitution while President-elect.

The Obama could, as others have said, disclose his Treas. Sec. nominee
and use that press conference to provide guidance as to what he expects
of his Treas. Sec.