Life as I Know It; Family; Lifestyle; and Healthy Living!
Just a silly bump in an otherwise smooth process!
Published on January 21, 2009 By foreverserenity In US Domestic

I've been told not to get 'testy', what a hoot!   Charles, take a breath! 

I read Charles article http://charles.joeuser.com/article/337088/A_letter_to_the_New_President_of_the_United_States_of_America_01202009

It's all good, and well-intentioned, I guess.  But I just don't understand all the blogs written saying 'congratulations' and I guess, trying to be concilatory, while in the same breath, cutting into President Obama.  It's either you're going to say congratulations and be done with it, or you just don't say anything because you're contradicting yourself.

I also pointed out on a comment Whip made that President Obama messed up and he's probably not president because of it (which some people probably thought too), it was a flub because of how the words were said by the Chief Justice giving the oath.  And let's face it, who wouldn't be nervous, both of them were, because it's a first time for them both! 

I knew it was a mistake because of Brian Williams comments during the ceremony being shown live on MSNBC today.  I just read an article about it as well.  See the link above - below title line.

Two parts to note:

"The encounter was briefly awkward after Obama stepped on Roberts' opening lines from the 35-word constitutionally prescribed oath of office. The chief justice then wandered into a verbal detour of his own."

 

and

"On Tuesday, the stumble over the presidential oath was the only bump in an otherwise smooth ceremony.

Initially, Obama interrupted Roberts midway through the opening line, in which the president repeats his name and solemnly swears.

Next in the oath is the phrase "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States." But Roberts rearranged the order of the words, not saying "faithfully" until after "president of the United States."

That appeared to throw Obama off. He stopped abruptly at the word "execute."

Recognizing something was off, Roberts then repeated the phrase, putting "faithfully" in the right place but without repeating "execute."

Obama then repeated Roberts' original, incorrect version: "... the office of president of the United States faithfully."

After that, they were back on track."

 

It was a 'bump' as the article said.


Comments
on Jan 21, 2009

It's all good, and well-intentioned, I guess.  But I just don't understand all the blogs written saying 'congratulations' and I guess, trying to be concilatory, while in the same breath, cutting into President Obama.  It's either you're going to say congratulations and be done with it, or you just don't say anything because you're contradicting yourself.

Testy didn't seem enough I guess that you felt you had to write an article about it. I congratulate him because he "did" win the office, but again, that doesnt' mean I have to like him. Funny how it was OK to bash Bush for 8 years, go as far as making a cartoon and a movie to mock him and ignore the lower than Bush's approval ratings (record breaking BTW) of a Democratic controlled Congress yet we can not touch Obama for he is the Messiah and should be respected and bowed to.

Grow a thinker skin girl. As an American citizen, it's my right and responsibility to point out that which I think is not in the best interest of the American people and right now Obama is not it, regardless if the majority says otherwise. Time will tell and believe me it will. And JU will be here to record it all.

on Jan 21, 2009

It's funny how the same people that always complained that Bush-bashing was unpatriotic or anti-American are already laying into President Obama and he hasn't even done anything.

on Jan 21, 2009

It's funny how the same people that always complained that Bush-bashing was unpatriotic or anti-American are already laying into President Obama and he hasn't even done anything.

For the record, I was very pro-Bush during the 2000 election and was elated when he got into office. I thought he was the man! (I also considered myself a conservative at the time)

I kept this opinion of him until right around the time of the Iraq invasion- why? Aside from the arguments for or against the validity of the invasion, it made absolutely no sense.

It made no sense that the U.S would essentially give up it's hunt for Bin Laden and AQ to focus on Iraq. And the proof is in the results- they never did get Bin Laden and AQ is still a functional organization today.

It made no sense for Bush put on a big show about how he was going to get 'em dead or alive, then launches an extremely tiny military campaign in Afghanistan mostly fought by paid locals, they never got the guy responsible for the worst terror attack on American soil (isn't this the war on terror?)  and only succeeded in temporarily reducing some of AQ's headcount (and actually this had the undesirable side effect of causing AQ to spread to many more countries than they were in before, making it much more difficult than when they were mostly concentrated in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area)

Then, suddenly, Iraq was the biggest threat in the world and we had to invade RIGHT NOW!!!!

Bush and Colin Powell make several speeches arguing that Iraq is developing WMD's to wipe us all out (this was a lie) and we can't wait for definitive proof from UN weapons inspectors (I believed Powell's speech to the UN in which he shows satellite photography of the supposed chemical weapon bunkers and missile launchers) 300,000 soldiers are sent overseas with several aircraft carrier groups and they invade and occupy a nation of 26 million, never letting up in their hunt to get Saddam.

About 9 months later after exhaustive searches conducted with resources multiple times larger than what was dedicated to Afghanistan they finally capture Saddam.

If such a large number of resources were expended to get Saddam, who had never carried out an attack against America even remotely comparable to 9/11, then why couldn't the same resources be expended to get Bin Laden, who is a much bigger threat?

Anywho. It was at this point that I started looking at Bush with a much more critical eye and his following actions onward revealed that he was utterly incompetent and that he was definitely not a president for the people, but a president for special interests.

  • He put an incompetent buffon named Paul Bremer in charge of Iraq, who succeeded in creating the conditions for a MASSIVE insurgency that could have been easily avoided entirely, which cost the lives of thousands of Iraqis and U.S troops
  • He was utterly incompetent in his handling of hurricane Katrina
  • He succeeded in alienating Russia (who was willing to play ball as an ally) and broke promises made by previous administrations at the end of the cold war
  • He was completely clueless about the economic sh** storm that developed on his watch and his only answer to everything was to lower taxes and sit back and let the free market work itself out (a hardcore Milton Friedman position that he only reversed when he was told to by the likes of Paulson and Bernanke after Bear Stearns fell apart in late summer of 2007)

So, blah blah blah, lots of words.

My point to this whole thing is never count your chickens until your eggs have hatched.

I am neither pro or anti- Obama, and am waiting to see what he does in office. Day 2 of his presidency is just a little too early to form any opinions if you ask me!

 

on Jan 21, 2009

It's funny how the same people that always complained that Bush-bashing was unpatriotic or anti-American are already laying into President Obama and he hasn't even done anything.

I don't recall ever caling it unpatriotic or Anti-American (I do believe in freedom of speech), I did however believe it was disrespctful when doing it just because he was a Republican. It's even funnier to see people complain about Obama being bashed after Bush had to take it for 8 years. This argument is kinda pointless if you think about it. We both have as much right to bitch about a President as we do to bitch about those who criticize him.

on Jan 21, 2009

Hey Charles, it is your right to "bitch" (though I would rather use another term since I dislike that word) any time, any way, any how you want.  I wrote this article not to point out that you told me not to get "testy" but rather to show that it wasn't a flub on Mr. Obama's part when I found that article, because Whip wasn't the only one who felt that way.  And neither was this article a rip on you or her for that matter.  It's unbelievable when a article that is presented for discussion cannot be counter-pointed when all that is stated in it, is not what you agree with. I suggest you stop writing articles such as the ones you do Charles.  Me getting a thicker skin won't matter.

 

on Jan 21, 2009

I am curious, many here first said he fouled up then said it was the Cheif Justice who screwed up. And if you listen to the recording, he actually did. But did you hear the part where Obama messed up as well? I say listen to the Oath again and pay attention to the first few words. When the Chief Justice said "I Barack Obama do solemly swear", Obama was already saying "I, Barack" just after the Chief Justice said "I, Barack Obama" before he even finished.

Listen to it here.

Sorry to ruin it for you FS, I just thought I would point this out.

on Jan 21, 2009

Thx, but I did hear it, Obama did jump the gun, many chalk it to nervousness, he started off before the Chief Justice completed his sentence.  then the error happened with the second part of it.  It's a simple mistake really, no harm done on both part.  We are taking it too seriously, they have admitted their mistakes, shook hands and move on.

on Jan 21, 2009
on Jan 22, 2009

We are taking it too seriously, they have admitted their mistakes, shook hands and move on.

There I have to agree. I honestly don't see the point in the argument but had to have my say though.

on Jan 22, 2009

Understood Charles. And yes I know Whip, we wouldn't be in a free country if not!

Meta
Views
» 520
Comments
» 10
Category
Sponsored Links