White House Watchers: Keeping an Eye on the White House With Dan Froomkin

Is 11 Weeks Just Too Darn Long?

Forums » White House Watchers » Is 11 Weeks Just Too Darn Long?

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register

1 2 3 4 5 6 >> Last

Forums » washingtonpost.com forums » White House Watchers » Is 11 Weeks Just Too Darn Long?

Is 11 Weeks Just Too Darn Long?

posted at 11/21/2008 12:43 PM EST

*Moderator*

DanFroomkin

First post: 11/10/2008
Last post: 4/27/2009
Total posts: 22

At the height of a major economic crisis, we're suffering from what Paul Krugman correctly describes as a "power vacuum". Is there anything to be done about it? Either short term or long term? Should we once again amend the Constitution to move up Inauguration Day? (It used to be March 4.) What's the optimal amount of time to pass between Election Day and Inauguration Day? And in the meantime, should Bush volunteer to turn over any of his powers to Obama? See today's column for more background.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Early Inauguration

posted at 11/21/2008 1:39 PM EST

netnuevo

First post: 10/31/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 2

What, and cut short Congress' extended holiday?!

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

yes, but...

posted at 11/21/2008 1:52 PM EST

lhaller

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 10/16/2009
Total posts: 6

The 11 weeks does seem insufferable for outside observers, but I don't think it can be shortened very much. Any new administration needs some time to put together the Cabinet and make other appointments. And while they can vet potential nominees on their own before the election, they don't have access to the FBI's services until they win.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

BIG CHANGE

posted at 11/21/2008 1:53 PM EST

ath28

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 4/23/2009
Total posts: 4

I am cautiously positive about moving the Inauguration up, but we have to recognize what a massive change we are talking about. In this past election (as in earlier ones), there were accusations of "measuring the drapes" every time anyone began to prepare for being president. If we shorten the election-to-inauguration time then we are going to have to allow the candidates to start preparing before the election. How would that work?

Who would get access to state secrets and when? How would we prevent a candidate from using that information to help him get elected? Do we want the incoming president to be making her appointment choices under the harsh scrutiny and ideological pressure of election coverage? You can't effectively vet people in secret.

The other option is to have the new president step into power without full preparation. In effect, migrating some of the transition activities into the White House. That seems to invite early missteps that would be just as damaging in the current situation.

Lets face it, it is the current situation that creates the urge. Our current president is unusually incompetent and the timing is unusually dire.

The time could be shortened a bit, but I think we are stuck with 2 months at the least. Actually, it would be pleasantly apt to have the Inauguration in the week between Christmas and New Years Day such that we ring in the new year with a brand new president.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Early inauguration

posted at 11/21/2008 1:55 PM EST

Songbird1

First post: 5/30/2007
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 5

In theory, allowing a newly elected president to take charge earlier than 1/20 sounds good. Realistically, however, there are difficulties.

Obama - even with all the advance planning he did - is still not ready with all his cabinet selections. A new president has a lot of preparation to do and some space to do it seems reasonable.

One reason 1/20 seems so long is that we are in such bad shape and crying out for leadership. It would be quite a show of class and leadership if the current administration partnered with Obama's team to work on the extremely difficult crisis while allowing Obama the time to complete putting together an administration that can hit the ground running seamlessly in January. Alas - I don't see this happening.

In general, though, I think giving a new president a few months to make all the necessary changes in his/her private life while pullong together a new administration is not unreasonable. Yes, this is the era of the 24 hour news cycle, but it is also a time of great complexities where any action taken has major impact in the international community. It's more important than ever for a new administration to learn as much as it can before taking over.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

President Elect precedence?

posted at 11/21/2008 1:57 PM EST

ashfordfoster

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 2

Is their any precedence for a president elect to take some of the reins by leveraging their popularity over a sitting president held in low regard? Would Obama really suffer politically by saying, "We should do this and that now...". Granted, Bush is free to ignore such statements - but with some issues (economy) needing immediate and effective action - and a president unwilling or unable to address it - what's the real loss to Obama to at least try to press for some decisive action despite it being beyond his current role as a senator.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Is 11 Weeks Just Too Darn Long?

posted at 11/21/2008 2:04 PM EST

winoohno

First post: 8/29/2008
Last post: 1/24/2009
Total posts: 8

It sounds good because we are in crisis, but a January 20th Inauguration is probably about right. The time between November 4th and January 20th is very important because it gives the incoming President time to assemble his team; take care of his business so he can move into the White House; receive briefings about the current state of government; etc.

It also [theoretically] give the outgoing President time to wind up their affairs. Now, Bush is in a state of do-absolutely-nothing so right now it seems like he is just a duck out of water in the White House... but we cannot rush to amend the Constitution because there is a blithering idiot in the White House.

As for the second part of your post: Bush cannot cede his powers while he is in office, nor can Obama ascend to those powers without following the dictates of the Constitution. Again, I might be old school, but I don't like to engage in rash behavior because we are in crisis.

In a perfect world Bush would collaborate and consult with Obama and his staff for the benefit of our Country, but that won't happen. Bush is too small of a person -- one who has been [rightfully] battered senseless by his all-time low popularity numbers; incessant criticism; and string of disasters occuring on his watch.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

A slight matter of Constitutional law

posted at 11/21/2008 2:08 PM EST

oldguy2

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 4/14/2009
Total posts: 6

I'm curious as to what provision of the Constitution the President could use to "turn over [some] of his powers" to a private citizen. Because that's what Mr. Obama is, right now. He's not even a Senator any more; he resigned his seat a few days ago.

Technically, Mr. Obama is not even the President-elect--not yet. The Electoral College does not meet to cast ballots until December 15, and those votes are not counted until a joint session of Congress on January 6. So while we all "know" what the outcome will be, legally speaking it's not over till it's over.

If Mr. Bush resigns, Vice President Cheney takes over. If he resigns, the job goes to the Speaker of the House. And so on down the line. The President-elect (or presumptive President-elect) does not appear, as far as I know, in the line of succession. So I ask again, how does Mr. Bush turn over his presidential powers to a private citizen?

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Is 11 Weeks Just Too Darn Long?

posted at 11/21/2008 2:09 PM EST

ssteward1

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 2

Replying to:

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Is 11 Weeks Just Too Darn Long?

posted at 11/21/2008 2:13 PM EST

ssteward1

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 2

Replying to:

It is longer over due. We are living in different times. Why isn't the inauguration when the new Congress is seated? We are wasting precious time. This is a time of extreme urgency for the USA. Pres GWB needs to give it up now. His legacy will continue to dwindle. That is what's left of it.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

11 Weeks?

posted at 11/21/2008 2:21 PM EST

wcoffey20

First post: 11/3/2008
Last post: 9/23/2009
Total posts: 15

11 minutes is too long.The Congress should order the immediate arrest and Impeachment of Bush and Cheney.Obama should order the arrest of any one who aids Bush in illegal acts committed between now and Jan.20,2009 as soon as
he takes the Oath of Office.Perhaps the threat of prison will give those whom Bush will not pardon a chance to review the consequences of their actions.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

The Art of Declination

posted at 11/21/2008 2:23 PM EST

ashfordfoster

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 2

Viewing the Bush 8 year administration as a whole, it is almost artful in its seemingly intentional dismantling of a nation. This financial debacle's parabolic arc towards total economic meltdown would almost seem to have been purposefully designed with Jan 19th as the intended target date for utter ruination.

It's like being parked with your moving truck full of furniture outside the house you're about to take ownership of in a couple hours, and watching the existing occupants hammering the walls down with sledgehammers, plugging the sinks and turning the taps on.

But you're right, Bush will not relinquish his role as The Decider until he's good and ready.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Eight years...

posted at 11/21/2008 2:35 PM EST

LucyLou1

First post: 11/6/2007
Last post: 6/7/2009
Total posts: 15

Yeah, let's move up Obama's inauguration. I motion to move it up eight years.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

posted at 11/21/2008 2:40 PM EST

winoohno

First post: 8/29/2008
Last post: 1/24/2009
Total posts: 8

I have a question for my fellow Americans...

What do you think about the fact that the Iraqi Parliament must ratify the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) while Bush unilaterally negotiated for our side without any input or vote by Congress???

We are supposed to be spreading Democracy in the Middle East and this White House brags that Iraq is now a Democracy, but what does that make us? Why are we allowing Bush to negotiate the future of our military when he is leaving office in 2 months?

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Is 11 Weeks Just Too Darn Long?

posted at 11/21/2008 2:42 PM EST

ejzjr

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 1

2 weeks notice - that´s the American way.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

A shorter wait would have include a vetting of

posted at 11/21/2008 2:47 PM EST

TrulyIndy

First post: 8/25/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 2

A shorter wait would have include a vetting of the President-elect's cabinet. In order to expediate the transition, I believe that having the presidential candidates announces their intended cabinet before an election, can only be a good thing.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

More Bush mischief

posted at 11/21/2008 2:52 PM EST

jheath53

First post: 8/29/2007
Last post: 5/29/2009
Total posts: 4085

Not only is Bush's abdication of leadership on the economy a problem, the application of midnight rulemaking is creating a problem for the incoming Obama administration. There was much mewling and braying on the part of republicans when Clinton made some last minute regulatory changes. Bush is on a pace of doubling what Clinton did.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

LAST MINUTE REGULATIONS

posted at 11/21/2008 2:54 PM EST

agreywolf

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 1

I believe that we need to work out some sort of mechanism that would stop a bunch of rules and regulations be ordered by Presidential Fiat, as it were, as we are seeing happen with the dying gasp of the Dubya Administration. Maybe we should push Congress to enact a law that requires approval by Congress both houses by 2/3rd majority for any Presidential Rules/Regulations to take effect during the last 12 months of a Presidents last year in office. Or possibly a law that allows the incoming President to freeze all rules and regs a lame duck put in place during the last year for review.
I would like to include last minute Presidential Pardons here too. The President is not an elected Dictator, he is suppose to be the man that Administers the Laws that are enacted by the Legislature. Somehow that has gotten turned all around during the last 8 years. We need to do something about that and quickly.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Call them a cab.

posted at 11/21/2008 2:55 PM EST

jpphilippe23

First post: 11/21/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 1

Until now, I never realized there was a problem with the transition period, but let's face it. The Bush Administration has been so dreadfully inept that we should make it "Winner's option" to decide when to take over vital strategic functions. Perhaps we could make it a congressional option to evaluate the risk/benefit alternative of shortening the transition.In this case, we should just call the Bushies a cab and get the new Government in. The sooner, the better.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

New Years Day

posted at 11/21/2008 3:24 PM EST

MerrillFrank

First post: 11/12/2008
Last post: 3/18/2009
Total posts: 3

Jan 1st seems more reasonable.In most states and cities that is inaugration day for the governor/mayor and the legislature/council. Eight weeks vs. eleven is still enought time to select a cabinet.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

1 2 3 4 5 6 >> Last

Forums » White House Watchers » Is 11 Weeks Just Too Darn Long?

Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Classifieds

SEARCH:

Search Archives

The Washington Post Company: Information and Other Post Co. Websites

Help | Contact Us

washingtonpost.com

Groups