Meanwhile, Back At Congress

[billroper]

Various Congressional Democrats are suggesting that Obama become more involved with the current economic crisis.

Comments

[capplor.livejournal.com]

I've seen that, & there was also frustration at the level of input from the Bush administration. Can't win for losing it seems.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

They're wrong. He's right. One step over that line and the Republicans are going to be baying for his ass, and rightly so. At least that's how it looks to me.

If, as Barney Frank says, you have less than one president at the moment, that's not the fault of the one who will take office in January. And if, as the other one says, in the minds of the people, this is the Obama administration, then the people are misinformed, and it's down to your cockeyed system which needs to be dragged out of the age of the mail coach.

This, right here, is Obama exercising leadership over his impatient and panicky party. If he is as sensible and wise at leading the nation when he has that opportunity, I think America will make a good start to the healing process.

And if he does, in the intervening months, allow himself to be spooked into premature action, I will be disappointed, and the Republican Party will be jubilant, because they will have something new to attack him with.

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

'S about right.

Frank and Dodd also seem to forget that the reins of power are still in Bush's hands, whether or not he chooses to use them, and that Obama has no power over the GOP (especially in the Senate) or Bush to do anything. He's not even a Senator at this point.

"Frank predicted that regulatory legislation aimed at preventing abuses related to subprime mortgages and credit cards stood a much better chance next year, when Democrats have greater majorities in the House and Senate."

Yeah, dude. That's the point.

[madfilkentist]

Whether it's Bush or Obama driving the federal government to unprecedented levels of debt and handing out money to businesses like candy seems to make very little difference at this point. Meet the new boss...

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

Everyone - and I mean *everyone* - wants the period from November 4 to January 20 to be Someone Else's Problem. The thing is, only Barack Obama can really say that it *is* someone else's problem - he is, technically, currently unemployed. He's planning to start a new job in a few weeks, but he's not there yet.

Congress has gotten used to being sheep. The Republicans did what they were told; the Democrats didn't have any power and got lazy. Now neither side knows what to do, since the Republican leadership has abdicated, and the Democratic leadership has yet to emerge from hibernation.

You don't normally see this many fingers pointing at other people anywhere outside of a nursery school.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

There seem to be complaints on both sides: "He's not involved enough" vs. "Who the ... does he think he is?".

When there's screaming on both ends, you're probably in the correct middle location.

[archiver-tim.livejournal.com]

Who is the replacement senator from Illinois? Where is 'e, and what is 'e saying?

[madfilkentist]

According to this article, the governor of Illinois gets to name his replacement and hasn't done so yet.

I thought the Constitution required the state governor to call a special election for a Senate vacancy. Was I wrong? I don't have time to check it just now.

It might have to do with the amount of time

[capplor.livejournal.com]

or it might vary by state. The first women senators were widows of the "real" senator. They were not elected.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

17th ammendment, part 2:
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

[madfilkentist]

Thanks. My memory was right as far as it went, but I forgot the "provided" clause. If that article's accurate, many states have stretched the meaning of "temporary appointments" beyond any reasonable interpretation.