Calling governmental scholars ...

[veronica_rich]

OK - I'm a news editor and I can't even decide precisely what this means. Maybe I'm just dense and don't quite get the specifics that are in there for me to see (I've pasted it for your ease):

Bush takes steps to ease new president's transition to Oval Office

By Terence Hunt
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Friday, Oct. 10 2008

WASHINGTON — A piece of paper that President George W. Bush signed Thursday helps ease his way out of the White House when his term ends and clears the way for his successor.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush's order was designed to help coordinate efforts already under way to ensure a seamless transition. She said Bush wants to make sure the next president's team has everything it needs to hit the ground running.

"This is especially important as our nation is fighting a war, dealing with a financial crisis and working to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks," Perino said.

For seven years and nearly nine months, Bush has signed virtually every memo or order or piece of legislation imaginable. He even vetoed a few bills, but the directive he put his name on Thursday was one that few talk very much about. Basically, it's the executive order that turns over the keys to the White House to the person who is elected president on Nov. 4.

A little-publicized truth is that Washington can't afford to wait until inauguration day Jan. 20 to figure out the details of a transition to a new presidency. Both Barack Obama and John McCain already have designated officials to oversee such a transition once the outcome of the election is known. The transition team of the winning candidate will set up procedures for selecting key personnel and making policy decisions in the 11 weeks before the new president takes office.

Congress has appropriated $8 million to finance transition operations.

Bush's order established a presidential transitional coordinating council whose members include top officials from the intelligence and national security community, as well as the White House budget office, the Justice Department, Homeland Security and other agencies. Even before the election, they will work with the Obama and McCain campaigns "on an equal basis."

Color me a bit confused - does this mean he's vacating well in advance of Jan. 20? If so, how far in advance? And is this just a gambit designed to prevent less arguing or lawsuits over election tampering after the fact (which was a rather glaring issue in the 2000 and 2004 elections) by handing the keys over early to McCain? Yes, I'm that cynical.

What I really want to know is, why isn't this bigger news? I haven't seen it anywhere except *inside* the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

Comments

[immortal-jedi.livejournal.com]

I'm not a politician, lawyer, newsperson or anything close to any of those...

Anyway, this was on the radio around here yesterday, and they mostly just said it was to make things easier.

I think that Bush will remain in office- at least officially- until Jan 20. I think this means that his staff will be working very closely, perhaps more closely then before, with his successor's staff.

But like I said, I'm not certain, and I'm not an expert.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I have to say, as an editor, once in a while something hazy gets by me, but this is a pretty big thing to get by without specifics - either it should've given something more concrete, or it should've stated "further details were not available at press time." If this is just how the guy writes, I'd have to sit down and have a discussion with him, I think ...

Anyway, I'm glad you heard more than I did about it. Thanks for sharing!

[immortal-jedi.livejournal.com]

Actually, most of that was what I got out of the 15-20 second report on the radio, and some things that I just extrapolated from there.

But you're right, it's not a very good article...

[gryphons-lair.livejournal.com]

I agree with immortal_jedi. Sounds like Bush is going to have his staff go out of their way to smooth the transition so there isn't the usual several-weeks' "down time" while the new folks get up to speed.

I read an article suggesting this months ago--on Salon, I think, but it could've been the WaPo or the NYTimes--and frankly I'm amazed Bush is actually doing it. I'd have expected him to wait to see who won, then make it as difficult as possible for Obama's people to get a running start.

[justawench.livejournal.com]

This sounds like it could be to Obama's benefit. I was already picturing the Bush administration leaving a time bomb. By "time bomb," I mean the type of project that should have been handled but is left by a disgruntled employee for the new person to discover long after it is overdue. So, at least they probably won't be able to mess up anything else in the interim.

[compassrose7577.livejournal.com]

Let's face it, this clown checked out 8 years ago.

If we take past history as a guideline, whatever the Barbie-doll at the White House Pressroom says, the opposite is so, which makes my predictions (yes, it's true! More 'Kerry predicts'!)that if it's not McCain moving into the White House, that place is going to be an absolute shambles. They are going to crash every computer, empty every drawer, disconnect every light, do everything they can to make the next crowd suffer as much as they possibly can.

Why, at this late date, would we expect maturity from a bunch of children? After all, Carl Rove is still calling the shots, and I don't see Cheney suddenly going warm and fuzzy.

Does anyone what to imagine the meeting between Cheney and Biden (if God prevails), when the outgoing vice-president is supposed to brief the in-coming? I think Cheney's incoming meeting went something in the order of, "Go to Hell," when Gore tried to brief him.

We can only live in hope!

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

The only problem with your argument is that it's logical - and it involves a Bush. Two things which don't always go together. After all, when before has Bush put his ego aside for anything?

I'll have to read your below link in more depth later on. I will say this: There are larger 70-80 year economic cycles, and within those are smaller 10-12 year cycles. When I hear "experts" saying "oh, we had a downturn in the 70s," I sort of want to slap them because they're not realizing that THAT wasn't the end or beginning of a Big Cycle. (Plus, we no longer have the protective antitrust regulations that FDR saw to in the 1940s to prevent such as all this from happening.)

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Ah, but REAL conservatives DO see it. I know plenty of people who label themselves "conservative" who are terribly worried and have been for some time. Now this is going to be somewhat generalizing, but I get the distinct impression it's the neocons and extreme evangelicals who are so divorced from the real world that they're the ones who can't see it. (Unfortunately, they also happen to have the loudest megaphones, it seems.)

Some of those conservatives are voting Obama. Some are voting third party. I don't know hardly any who are voting for McCain, though. I'm hoping to see a 1992 Perot-style third-party takedown of the incumbent party on Nov. 4, myself.

[finding-neo.livejournal.com]

I think others have already answered your question. I am here for back-up. Please visit this friend's journal. I believe you know more about corporate organization than I do, still don't understand this whole S-corp thing she's on about although I have Googled and tried to find a source for her claims about Obama's plan to rape these S-corp business owners.

http://wyrdwriter.livejournal.com/148068.html?nc=35&style=mine

Its probably not a great idea to go flooding someone's journal with disagreement, but after being extremely yelled at I feel it necessary to try to bring some sense to the discussion. You are always very sensible even when you argue ;-)

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Well, it's f-locked ...

[finding-neo.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I forgot that. She just disabled comments anyway. Good thing too 'cause it started getting stupid. Someone actually said that corporations tax their customers. WTF?

She told me that the recent crisis is all the fault of the democrats, as far back as Clinton.

All I asked for was links and I got told I needed to understand recent history.

I defriended her. She claims that if Obama gets in office, she will loose her business and home etc. I got news, that's already happening and it's not really going to matter who gets in office at this point because a boulder picks up speed as it rolls downhill.

I just learned that not all cat people are intelligent, thoughtful people.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

The one thing Clinton can definitely be blamed for economically is signing NAFTA. Which was authored by Bush Sr., but Clinton campaigned on NOT supporting NAFTA and a lot of people voted for him on that. And then he went back on his word. As for other legislation, I don't keep up with every piece. I do remember, however, how prosperous things were 12 years ago - just as I can look back over the past century and see that every time the country was under Democratic administration, almost *always* things were better for the populace than under Republicans.

She's probably following the party line about "tax and spend" Democrats with regard to social programs. Which ... my answer to that is that when you hand out welfare here at home, those people spend that money back into OUR economy. When you hand it out to Halliburton, it only gets spent in Dubai.

[finding-neo.livejournal.com]

You really must watch the videos, which are graphs and words on the screen while the guy explains, which I posted about in my journal.

It all boils down to compounded spending and the fact that we are waging the most expensive war in history. A war this administration started, so absolutely no one can claim Rove, Cheney, Bush are any kind of innocent in our current problems.

I even blame Bush Sr. because he set the ball in motion back in '91.