His first mistake will be failing to put his enemies against the wall.
</klingon>
Surely you jest. Klingons do not execute their enemies that way. Condemned prisoners must be given a blade and a chance to fight against their enemies. Anything else is cheating.
I think maybe something like NinjaChick’s undoing of Bush executive orders, but more specifically some obscure twist on this I heard on Matthews the other night.
Bush has signed a bunch of somethings (executive orders or signing statements or something like that) which commit the Obama administration to carry out various things they clearly would not want to, and he did it before November 1 so that a mechanism making it easy to undo is thwarted.
However there is some other mechanism for undoing these, that was created by Bill Clinton, and apparently not noticed by the Bush administration.
The difficulty is that there are hundreds of these damn things, and a very limited time during which Congress can act to turn them off. It’d be practically impossible to handle them one at a time and get it done before the window closes. So, maybe an omnibus bill can do it en masse, but it all sounded complicated and iffy and never-been-done. Obviously I have almost no idea now what exactly I heard, and certainly no understanding of it. But I got the impression that it would be almost impossible to do right, and very obnoxious and disappointing to not do at all, and rushed in any case.
I imagine turning over the tables of the money-changers could very well lead to his downfall.
He is not in office yet but I think that allowing Lieberman to stay as committee chair (Obama appears to have played a major role here) and offering Hillary the SOS post may be the first mistakes that Obama has made after the election. Not huge mistakes but mistakes nevertheless.
Leaving aside Senator Clinton for the moment: why do you think leaving Senator Lieberman in place–which is not President-elect Obama’s call anyway–is a mistake? Does not declining to punish him for an honest difference of opinion seem in tune with the spirit of bipartisanship?
Lieberman went beyond expressing difference. He was in effect attacking Obama as being unfit to be commander in chief and someone who unlike McCain didn’t put “country first”. Why would you want someone like that in a position of oversight on a sensitive department like Homeland Security? Plus Lieberman hasn’t done a very good job as chair in the last couple of years.
Except that Senator Lieberman’s committee chairmanship & caucus membership aren’t properly PE Obama’s call; they are the Senate Democratic Party’s call. Admittedly, PE Obama likely has enough juice to get Lieberman tossed out, but that could easily be seen as vengeful and could easily be spun as anti-semitic. As long as he continues to vote with the party on domestic issues, why borrow trouble?
Spun as anti-semetic? By who? That’s such a crazy idea it’s hardly worth bothering about. And from the reports coming out it’s very clear that Obama took the initiative in supporting Lieberman. That IMO was a mistake. He should have just stayed clear of the issue.
I didn’t say I thought it was anti-Semitic, nor that I thought PE Obama is. But if I worked for Rupert Murdoch or Rush Limbaugh I could easily spin such Obama intervening in such a way as to get Senator Lieberman tossed out of the Democratic cacaus as indicating hatred of Jews & presaging abandomment of Israel. Why borrow trouble?
They’ll spin everything he does as bad for the country anyway, so what does it matter?
Because ditching Lieberman is mostly punitive. It removes one vote in the Democratic caucus. Had the Democrats a 70-seat majority I might say go for it, but they don’t even have 60, and there will be filibusters.
Kind of a shame the Republicans didn’t listento Trent Lott & drop the bombback in '05, tain’t it?