http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-capitol-hill/

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-capitol-hill/


A. We only have one head of state at a time here.

B. The Moonie paper? snerk

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-capitol-hill/



A. We only have one head of state at a time here.

True. But, that hasn't stopped The Obama from selecting his cabinet and
making foreign policy statements and other national policy statements.

B. The Moonie paper? snerk

At least they didn't have the woman who faked the 8 year old heroin addict.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-capitol-hill/



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.

Eisboch

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:09:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-capitol-hill/



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.

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/...-capitol-hill/

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.

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...

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.

On Nov 21, 7:02*am, Boater wrote:
Obama
is a lawyer and versed in the Constitution. He is not going to ignore
the Constitution while President-elect.

LOL!

So, he WILL ignore it after Jan 20?

"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

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.



I don't think Tom suggested a working Treasury Secretary. Of course he
can't do that yet. I think he meant announcing his choice for one, which
might help generate some optimism for the economic climate that exists.
Instead, Hillary is doing her routine again, holding up much needed
announcements while she negotiates her level of power in the pecking order
of his proposed cabinet. It's just like the negotiations that took place
before she would agree to concede victory to Obama in the primaries and
drop
her threats of "taking it to the convention". You can bet that *that* is
exactly what is going on. Hillary first. Country second.

Traditionally, the incoming POTUS keeps his mouth shut about current issues
until he takes office.
The current economic situation is not typical or traditional. GM may be
gonzo by Jan 20th.
Obama needs to chime in and present his plan to be executed as soon as he
takes the reigns. Instead, he has quickly and conveniently resigned from
the Senate sooner than traditionally, so he won't have to go on record with
his vote for the possible bailout.

Creeps, every single one of them.

Eisboch
p.s. Harry, sorry about sending this email. Hit the wrong "reply" button.