Appearing on Friday's "Morning Joe," former CBS anchor Dan Rather chided President Bush for not doing enough during his lame duck period and argued for moving Inauguration Day up to December 1. And although Rather didn't explain specifically what Bush wasn't doing enough about (The financial crisis? The terrorist incident in India?), he did hyperbolically fret, "But, we're in possibly, possibly the biggest crisis we've been in since December 7, 1941 and maybe since the time of the Civil War." (As big a calamity as slavery and the dissolution of the Union?)
Addressing the past practice of inaugurating presidents in March, Rather lobbied "Thank heaven, we now swear them in, new presidents, in January. I'd be in favor of moving it up to December 1st." (The former network anchor didn't explain how he would then deal with situations like the protracted 2000 post-election battle.) [Audio available here.]
Clearly speaking of President Bush, he complained, "And this business of being a lame duck president and saying, you know, 'Adios. I'm going to the ranch. I'm just not going to do very much during this period.' We can't afford it." Of Barack Obama, Rather enthused, "Yes, President-elect Obama is doing the best he can by getting out and raising people's spirits without over-raising their expectations."
The ex-CBS News host's comments aren't as over-the-top as ones made by Gail Collins, the editorial page editor of the New York Times. In a November 22 op-ed, she suggested, "Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning."
A transcript of the December 5 comments by Rather and the exchange that prompted it, follow:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Gene, speaking of revisionism though, you said a lot people said that Iraq didn't have WMDs. My God, the U.N. Security Council voted 15-0 that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the burden was on him to prove that they didn't. The Russians, the Chinese, the British, you name it. The Germans, I mean, George Tenet, the CIA director waving his arms saying, 'Mr. President, it's a slam dunk.' So-
EUGENE ROBINSON (The Washington Post): Mmm. He said it was-
SCARBOROUGH: The overwhelming majority of intelligence operations across the globe, did they not say Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?
EUGENE ROBINSON: Well- Well- Yes, but to what extent and what degree, did, in fact, he have WMD to the extent that it justified a U.N. invasion of a sovereign country by the United States preemptively? Did- Did it justify that? Indeed, those other countries that did think he had some WMD didn't think it justified a U.S. invasion or certainly most of them didn't think that. But, you know, George Bush made a decision and most people think it didn't work out that well. So, why doesn't he just own up to it?
SCARBOROUGH: Of course, Dan, at the time it was a year after 9/11, CIA director's waving his arms in the Oval Office, saying, 'Mr. President, it's a slam dunk.'
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Slam dunk.
SCARBOROUGH: What does a president of the United States do? Point to the CIA director and 'Say, sit down. You're wrong, I don't trust you'?
DAN RATHER: Well, if that's what he believes. But, by problem with all of this- and I think that good points were raised on either side here- is that's behind us, that's yesterday. Frankly, rather than see the President apologize which I think you're more likely to see Fidel Castro come riding through this room on a giraffe than you are to see George Bush apologize-
SCARBOROUGH: Write that down.
BRZEZINSKI: [Laughing] Did you get that? This is why we invited Dan today.
RATHER: -is get busy- is get busy- What we need out of the President is focus on the job at hand. We can't afford to waste an hour, much less a day or a week or a month. And this business of being a lame duck president and saying, you know, 'Adios. I'm going to the ranch. I'm just not going to do very much during this period.' We can't afford it. It used to be, of course, we didn't swear in presidents until March. Thank heaven, we now swear them in, new presidents, in January. I'd be in favor of moving it up to December 1st. Get the election over. Get a new president in December 1st. But, we're in a very dangerous period. And particularly this early in the morning, I would rather talk about football.
BRZEZINSKI: Serious times. Serious times.RATHER: But, we're in possibly, possibly the biggest crisis we've been in since December 7, 1941 and maybe since the time of the Civil War. So, we can't afford to have this interregnum. The old order is gone. The new order is not yet in place. You need an active president right now. Yes, President-elect Obama is doing the best he can by getting out and raising people's spirits without over-raising their expectations. But, this business of, the having the interregnum in which the president says, 'Okay, the election is over and I'll leave it to the next guy.' We just can't afford that. So, rather, than arguing about whether we should or shouldn't have gone into Iraq, we did and we're now paying the consequences of it. But, I don't think you're going to see the President apologize, I would hope that in the coming days and weeks before the inauguration that the President takes charge. That's what ought to be expected of a strong executive.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Dan who?
December 5, 2008 - 11:27 ET by SQL_SamI love this, if it was a republican they'd be saying abuse of power, when it's a Lib - they can't get them in fast enough - power hungry to the very end. Why follow the laws when it comes to liberals! I'm just glad they're not filibuster proof, as that was turning my stomach to think what they would try to pull off with unrestricted power.
Pushing up Inauguration Day
December 5, 2008 - 13:06 ET by merlin61Dan, what miracle is The One going to
perform if he gets in office now, or in
January. It is was it is. The economy is
going to take a long time to get back up again.
Did you know that Obama is not the Messiah
and has not yet been given the miraculous
powers of the real Messiah to just stop this
recession immediately? Dan, go back in
your hole and this time, stay there. We do have
a Constitution and we still intend to live by it.
dan, dan, the trutherman
December 5, 2008 - 13:37 ET by nathanbforresttoo bad dan's grandpappy weren't in the front rank of pickett's charge at gettysburg ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail
Liberals Don't understand economics
December 5, 2008 - 14:55 ET by PopularTechThey believe that government can control the economy. They still don't even understand what caused the current problem:
Understanding the financial crisis (Video) (8min)
Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
"What is the governmental role in the cure of depression? In the first place, government must cease inflating as soon as possible. It is true that this will, inevitably, bring the inflationary boom abruptly to an end,
and commence the inevitable recession or depression. But the longer the government waits for this, the worse the necessary readjustments will have to be. The sooner the depression-readjustment is gotten over with, the better. This means, also, that the government must never try to
prop up unsound business situations; it must never bail out or lend money to business firms in trouble. Doing this will simply prolong the agony and convert a sharp and quick depression phase into a lingering and chronic disease. The government must never try to prop up wage rates or prices of producers' goods; doing so will prolong and delay indefinitely the completion of the depression-adjustment process; it will cause indefinite and prolonged depression and mass unemployment in the vital capital goods industries. The government must not try to inflate again, in order to get out of the depression. For even if this reinflation succeeds, it will only sow greater trouble later on. The government must do nothing to encourage consumption, and it must not increase its own expenditures, for this will further increase the social consumption/investment ratio. In fact, cutting the government budget will improve the ratio. What the economy needs is not more consumption spending but more saving, in order to validate some of the excessive investments of the boom. Thus, what the government should do, according to the Misesian analysis of the depression, is absolutely nothing. It should, from the point of view of economic health and ending the depression as quickly as possible, maintain a strict hands off, "laissez-faire" policy. Anything it does will delay and obstruct the adjustment process of the market; the less it does, the more rapidly will the market adjustment process do its work, and sound
economic recovery ensue." - Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics
Censored Global Warming Videos
Dan's not alone; and if
December 5, 2008 - 13:48 ET by motherbeltDan's not alone; and if they can't get him in officially, they still want him to start throwing his weight around.
In spite of the fact that Obama has maintained one of the most public images of any president-elect,
Democrats aren't happy.
Democrats are growing impatient with
President-elect Barack Obama's refusal to inject himself in the major
economic crises confronting the country.
The always-classy Barney Frank says:
"At a time of great crisis with mortgage
foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time,"
Frank said. "I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we
have. He's got to remedy that situation."
They are having hearings on the Hill, Barney! What do you expect President Bush to do, override them and make an executive decision?
And I'd like to know what Frank expects Obama to do!
Jeez, this is why I'm trying to stay away from news. I really think my head might explode.
Who's Dan Rather? ...
December 5, 2008 - 11:38 ET by AJWho's Dan Rather?
... just kidding. :P
surprise, surprise
December 5, 2008 - 11:40 ET by pmohbuckthe disgraced "journalist" crawls out of his hole an makes an utterly idiot statement like that ... proves two things:
1. he still mistakenly believes he matters
2. he needs to crawl back into his hole ... for good
goodbye dan ... you won't be missed
Isn't it sad...
December 5, 2008 - 13:53 ET by AJBEvery time I see him trying to gain back a smidgen of credibility, he just looks more and more pathetic. Time to ride off into the Sunset, Dan. Adios and don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.
3.
December 5, 2008 - 15:51 ET by ahusserHe is still an idiot.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
What else doesn't Dan know?
December 5, 2008 - 11:41 ET by SouthernRootsDan, The One (tm) can't be the co-president until after the electoral college meets December 13th. After that, I guess it would be easy for The One (tm) to issue an executive order to amend the Constitution to move up the electoral college vote and the inaguration date. Maybe in the same EO, he should also cancel the amendment restricting the president to two terms.
Of course, maybe we've just been reading the Constitution too literally and it really doesn't mean the restrictions it says. Now, with The One (tm) on board, I'm sure we will have weekly "fireside chats" to reinstruct us on what the unwritten meanings of the Constitution really are.
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. - J.B. Books (John Wayne)
Not saying that we shouldn't follow the Constitution.
December 5, 2008 - 15:56 ET by ahusserBut if I was the prez I would have had signed over the title got a receipt and given Obama the keys and told him to have at it.
:)
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
No election scholar
December 5, 2008 - 11:42 ET by dmntd1But, if I remember correctly, Sen Obama is not yet President Elect Obama, and won't be until December 15th, when the Electoral College meets. So addled Rather is advocating the emplacement of an as-yet-to-be-elected man in the highest position of government?
Further, if I recall from previous posts here in NB-Land, it's still possible for the electors to vote for someone other than Sen Obama, even though it might mean jail-time for them. I think that sounds like fun!
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill
Scott - did Clinton do enough in 2000?
December 5, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Gary HallScott - did Clinton do enough in 2000? Well, did he do anything? Was Dan Rather, and the MSM, asking? Where they feeling the pain of the millions who would loose their jobs; the fact that the country would loose hundreds of billions of $'s in projected tax renenues - so called "projected surpluses as far as the eye could see." Did they ask of Clinton, why he was doing nothing about the unraveling collapse?
It's difficult to compare one economic collapse to another. This event is certainly much larger and will be more painful than the 2000-2002 downturn - but then again, according to many economists, the late 1990's events are still a large part of this crisis.
The issue here is media bias. Our national MSM did not experience any curiosity regarding the problems facing our country during the last transistion.
Take leftie economist Dean Baker, who has spent the last 8 years blaming Clinton for the last bubble crash, while maintaining that Bush's only thread for pulling us out as far as we did was yet another dangerous housing bubble. According to Baker, this is what Rather could have been talking about in the Bush - elect period of 2000 - The high priests of the bubble economy, Nov 10, 2008:
The MSM likes Baker, by the way - but they'll only quote his attacks on Bush - not on Clinton or the bubble disaster of the 90's.
(:~/ gary
whatever meds he is on
December 5, 2008 - 11:49 ET by katainkentthey need to up it.
rules? we don't need no stinkin rules...
"If you think you're finished shopping for Christmas, why not start on next year"
Constitution?
December 5, 2008 - 16:00 ET by ahusserWe don't need no steenkin' Constitution. We got the One.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
whatever meds he is on
December 7, 2008 - 15:05 ET by DoktorFrankenYeah. My first thought when I read what Danny said was, ''Dan is off his meds again''.
The 'entitlement' the Left has felt for years has now been bolstered by the election of Hussein. They have gone beyond arrogance and we will need to find another word to describe these self-bloated mini-intellectuals.
Dan Rather in panic mode
December 5, 2008 - 11:57 ET by bobdogPersonally, I'd be in favor of Dan Rather being forced into quiet retirement as of December 1.
Is he going to start waving those National Guard documents he got from Ramon again?
Everytime Rather opens his mouth he shows how stupid he is
December 5, 2008 - 12:00 ET by c5thenThe Constitution sets the innaugural date. It also sets the date for the meeting of the electoral college and the casting of their votes to actually elect a President. Until that time, there is no "President-elect".
Hey Dan, why not spend some of those brain cells you have left on investigating Obama's birth place and tell us if you think the forged image on the web site is real or not. Why have all the hospitals in Hawaii denied that Obama was born in them? Was he born on the beach? How did Obama enter Packistan with his father when he was a boy, when US citizens were not being allowed in and his father was traveling on an Indonesian passport? These are all very interesting questions that have, as of yet, no answer.
Have we elected the Karachi Candidate?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
Hold the phone... just hang on a minute!
December 5, 2008 - 13:02 ET by i was just thinking"The Constitution sets the innaugural date."
Maybe Dan has "found" a new Constitution?
Earth to Dan - you could ask
December 5, 2008 - 12:07 ET by mattmEarth to Dan - you could ask what Congress is doing, couldn't you? After all, the president is not a dictator - not yet anyway....
How the heck did we lose to these idiots?
I can't figure it out
December 5, 2008 - 13:53 ET by motherbeltI can't figure it out either matt.
I sometimes think that what some people actually want is someone with ultimate power to make decisions and have them carried out immediately. Like Pharoah in "The Ten Commandments"....So let it be written; so let it be done!
That pesky Constitution thingie just wastes a lot of time!
To Dems/journalists, power is everything, law is zippo
December 5, 2008 - 12:10 ET by Mary Louise TurnerIt's obvious the law means nothing to Democrats and "journalists" alike. Look at the way "reporters" cover up for every single Democrat whenever one of them is lawbreaking. And now, we have morons such as Dan Rather saying that the Inauguration should be bumped up to early December.
Would they be saying that had John McCain or (insert Republican here) won? Nope!
The law is flexible, and so
December 5, 2008 - 12:34 ET by AJThe law is flexible, and so is history if you're a liberal.
Could this be related to the citizenship issue??
December 5, 2008 - 12:27 ET by Calypso JonesSo many democrats encouraging the unconstitutional placement of the new president in office before the end of the current president's term...i wonder if they (democrats) aren't worried about the outcome of the obama birthplace issue and want to see this done before we could turn back....this is assuming there is something to this birth country issue. Wonder if they know something the rest of us are not privy to....YET.
birth cert on SCOTUS docket
December 5, 2008 - 12:32 ET by katainkenttoday
"If you think you're finished shopping for Christmas, why not start on next year"
It's rather convenient that
December 5, 2008 - 12:39 ET by AJIt's rather convenient that Hawaii has a law prohibiting the release of birth records. This is all fine and dandy for regular folks, but public officials? Excuse me but I have every right to know everything about everyone in my government.
The liberals are already using this law to twist the truth.
That law is common. It's
December 5, 2008 - 12:41 ET by dmntd1That law is common. It's similar in Illinois. I imagine it's similar in most states.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill
But it's questionable whether the Court will decide to hear it.
December 5, 2008 - 12:43 ET by BlondePersonally, I think they can't shove it aside, but one never knows.
There are legitimate questions about Obama's other records...medical and school records, which may have a place of birth in them that is somewhere OTHER than Hawaii. Which would naturally be an impediment to his claim to the throne.
And what of Obama's Kenyan relatives, who claim he was born in Kenya? How many white women give birth to mixed race children in Kenya? I think a bunch of villagers would tend to remember that rather clearly.
Imagine the outrage of the Obama worshippers if The Court does decide to hear the case. And constitutionally, if he's found to be ineligible, who is then the next President....Biden or McCain? Any constitutional lawyers about?
And constitutionally, if
December 5, 2008 - 13:13 ET by NewsbusterbrownAnd constitutionally, if he's found to be ineligible, who is then the next President....Biden or McCain? Any constitutional lawyers about?
Boy, talk about a constitutional crisis, Blonde.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
There's already a precedent set.
December 5, 2008 - 15:04 ET by Calypso JonesIt would be biden. And he would knock himself off before he served 18 months.
oh wait...you mean BEFORE Jan. 20th. Still Biden I say simply because the dems already have lawyers in place to argue just such an issue, whether it's constitutional or not. These democrats are always lowering the standards and ideals of this country. Not that their constituents don't like THAT for they have none (standards) either.
The Electoral College picks the President
December 5, 2008 - 13:26 ET by Prester John...and electors can vote for anyone they want. If BHO were declared ineligible it seems hard to believe that Hillary wouldn't get at least 270 of the Dem elector votes.
Blonde
December 5, 2008 - 16:12 ET by ahusserIf the SC decides to hear the suit the twisted pretzel legal logic allowing Obama to become president will be a wonder to behold no matter how compelling the evidence. I don't think any court anywhere at anytime in this country would ever declare him ineligible. If by the minutest chance they did declare him ineligible there would be real blood in the streets and I am wondering how fast the Dems could pass an amendment to the Constitution to grandfather him in.
I don't really know who vets these candidates to see if they are indeed eligible by law but the process should be tightened to say the least with qualifications proven before the candidate can have his name on any official ballot.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
Dan Rather
December 5, 2008 - 13:07 ET by A Typical PatriotCongress is the lame duck. Congress doesn't know how to do anything but investigate Republicans. This shows in their approval ratings which last I saw was 14%, less than half that of the President. Oh, there is one other thing they do well. They are adept at blocking anything the President tries to get done.
Did the President declare
December 5, 2008 - 13:21 ET by rimskyDid the President declare an interregnum? I didn't hear him declare an interregnum, did anyone hear him declare an interregnum? If he didn't declare an interregnum, do we really have an interregnum?
Dan ole boy.. interregnum this!
Rimsky, Dan is not using the word correctly
December 5, 2008 - 14:03 ET by Mica the MagnificentDan thought he learned a new word and has used it incorrectly ever since he heard Barney Frank use it last year:
"I ba-weave captwad tewowists should be interregnumed, but not tor-twed."
Interregnum: the time
December 5, 2008 - 14:04 ET by motherbeltInterregnum:
Don't think so, Dan. The President is still the President, and things are going along normally.
you keep using that
December 5, 2008 - 14:21 ET by botgyou keep using that word.............
----- Radical Liberal
One of my favorite lines
December 5, 2008 - 14:36 ET by motherbeltOne of my favorite lines from my all-time favorit movie!
Anyone want to start a pool...
December 5, 2008 - 13:27 ET by Prester John...on when the movement to abolish the 22d Amendment (which limits presidential terms) starts so that the Annointed One can keep being re-elected?
How can BHO be the second coming of FDR if he can be President for only, as he put it, "the next 8 to 10 years"?
Just like this whole citizenship thing is antiquated, how can we possibly restrict the "people's" wish to have BHO be President for Life?
I'm in the pool
December 5, 2008 - 14:48 ET by Meredith1966Prester John, I proposed this very same hypothesis a couple of weeks ago, so I'm all on board with you. I can easily see the Dem controlled Congress passing the Amendment and sending to the States for ratification sometime before the 2010 midterm elections, and they'll write into it that the provisions of the amendment will apply to the president in office at the time of ratification. And, to ensure that that president will be Obama, they'll use the usual Congressional trick of blackmailing the States into doing what they want by witholding highway funds or other Federal dollars from any State not acting to quickly vote on (and in favor of) ratification. The result will be that the repeal of the 22nd Amendment will go through well before 2012, because they won't want to risk having it go through after 2012 should Obama not be re-elected. Now, they're still screwed if it goes through and he loses his re-election bid to Palin or Romney or Jindal, but I'm sure they believe there's no way any voter with intelligence would not vote for Obama in any election in which he participates. I mean, obviously only the unenlightened would vote Republican, right?
Never Apologize???
December 5, 2008 - 13:46 ET by flyingmonkeyLook whose talking. The chances of Dan Rather apologizing about the bogus Texas National Guard story are about as slim as a photo op of Charo taking a bubble bath with Castro.
Somebody needs to send Rather a Barack Obama Affirmative Action Figure to keep him calm until the inauguration.
Charo??
December 5, 2008 - 14:13 ET by Mica the MagnificentWow, flying monkey, you are soooo showing your age!
Isn't she almost 80 by now?
(Unfortunately, I remember her too.)
She used to be HOT!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/34/68115020_fae6079b82.jpg
He's a Commie...
December 5, 2008 - 14:20 ET by flyingmonkeyIsn't Castro in his eighties??? The man's a communist, not a cradle robbing pervert.
Yes, I am showing my age.
Koochie, Koochie!!!
flyingmonkey
December 5, 2008 - 14:29 ET by Mica the Magnificentand a koochie koochie to you too.
...... . lol
Dan...just shut-up...go
December 5, 2008 - 14:39 ET by bigtimerDan...just shut-up...go away...leave us alone...you matter not.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Bt, I thought we were done with him and all of his cutesy...
December 5, 2008 - 15:20 ET by ThalpyBt, I thought we were done with him and all of his cutesy sayings. He makes me madder than a bear with a sore a-s.
Thalpy...me too. ....but
December 5, 2008 - 15:25 ET by bigtimerThalpy...me too.
....but no.......
Some things never change if you are a leftist...they hang around and expound, inflict and yest in some case enforce their BS forever.
Carter...the Clintons...Rather...on and on.
I'm quite sure others can add to the list...it is never-ending.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Great idea, Dan. Now all
December 5, 2008 - 15:04 ET by fitzfongGreat idea, Dan. Now all we have to do is forge the Inauguration Date. Oops, too soon?
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Smart Dan Rather
December 5, 2008 - 15:42 ET by needleDan provides us with yet another example of how liberal are “smart,” and conservatives are “morons” or “whack-jobs.”
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Choose Your Own Comment:
December 5, 2008 - 17:10 ET by HockeyKidWhat's the frequency, Dan?
or
Courage, Dan.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Dan "I have ZERO CREDIBILITY" Rather
December 5, 2008 - 17:47 ET by Lord ErondYou know, given the fact that Gunga Dan has NO CREDIBILITY as a serious journalist anymore, stemming from his participation in the 'nail President Bush on his National Guard service' story, you would think he would learn to keep his big, stupid leftist mouth shut at this point. Demonstrates what a fool this idiot is.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Pointless to move up Inauguration
December 5, 2008 - 18:02 ET by nkviking75Let's say we change the Constitution and start POTUS' 45's term on Dec. 1 of whatever year he/she is elected. In most years, you'd have the Inauguration, a brief session of Congress, and then a long holiday recess in which little or nothing would happen. It would accomplish nothing. Even if we could make it happen this year, Congress is going to botch their responses to the economic events unfolding. Putting more pressure on them to rush their decisions will only lead to bigger screw-ups.
Congress would also need to un-"reform" election laws so that recounts, challenges, etc. would be resolved within a week or two of the election. Since Dems benefit from the confusion (see "Franken, Al, would-be usurper of a Minnesota Senate seat"), don't look for that to happen.
Libs need to grow up and tolerate the remaining 46 days of the Bush Presidency. Unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush is putting an extraordinary amount of effort to help Obama hit the ground running on day one.
How do these people handle waiting for their Christmas presents?
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!
Dan needs his meds adjusted
December 5, 2008 - 19:35 ET by jackie3I think he should go back to his doctor and get his meds adjusted. He sounds a bit more flaky than normal...For him anyways.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Liberal dimentia
December 5, 2008 - 19:39 ET by Clear thinkerLiberal dimentia maybe?
The Left Still Hating Gov. Sarah Palin
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Liberals are so short-sighted.
December 5, 2008 - 21:32 ET by pbthinkerI wonder if these people, who want to change the law now, will be so anxious when Obama loses, in 2012, and Sarah is waiting to take over. Do you think Danny Boy will be screaming for Sarah to be taking the oath on December 1st.
If memory serves me, the Electoral College hasn't met yet so, in reality, Obama isn't even the "president-elect" yet.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
Dan "Bladder"
December 6, 2008 - 08:41 ET by GeneralAlFast forward to next year. Unemployment is at 11%, the price of fuel is on the rise, terrorist attacks have increased, banks are failing, the Dow is at 4000, and here comes Dan the Man. "We need to extend the term of President Obama indefinitely to give him more time to learn how to handle this problem. After all, George Bush dropped this in his lap before leaving for his ranch!" Yep, those words or something similiar can be expected! The following year, the Obamessiah will be begging to get more Democrats elected to Congress in order to stop the Eeeevil Republicans from hampering his work. The idiot uninformed American voters will willingly oblige and we'll go farther into the sewer. The next approach will be the call to suspend further elections until the angels on mercy in the form of the Democrats can heal us from our ailments. The liberal leaning Supreme Court will allow it and in twenty years we'll have elections because Reid and the boys will be experiencing the real Hell they so rightly deserve! I'll be able to vote one more time before going to be with the real Savior who was railroaded by the same kind of people who preferred a murderous thug over a Holy incarnation of God!
Using Dan's logic...
December 6, 2008 - 10:27 ET by AmericanEnergistIt would have been a hoot for him to say:
'If only we had the Innauguration on December 1st, the American hostages in Iran would have been home 51 days earlier...'
www.ArmchairEnergist...
Dan Rather Still Needs His Medication
December 6, 2008 - 15:43 ET by jcharlesI'll keep this short and sweet. Dan Rather, for years, has demonstrated that there are a couple of wires loose upstaires. He either needs medicated, or get back on his meds. He's starting to embarrass himself again.
rather not rant
December 8, 2008 - 14:03 ET by east tennessee johnWhere was Mr. Evidence Rather in2000 when we had an IMPEACHED lame duck in office. These assholes make me want to puke. We'll see how our first Marxist president does beginng 12:01 January 20th. Even that's too soon for me.
As the leftist said, He may be POTUS, but he ain't my President.