A hallmark of our freedom is the peaceful transition of governing power every 4 or 8 years. So tomorrow we will wish our new President all the best. We know there are serious challenges to face.
I was amused by a letter to the Press last week, the author observing that for the past 2 years we’ve been told everything is terrible and getting worse by the day. His speculation is that, starting Wednesday morning, the message will change. Things will seem better rapidly. Instead of a glass half empty, it will instantly and miraculously be half full. What do you think? Any other comments or ideas?
I was told by someone,that Obama will try to raise the price of gas so we will not buy as much of it. Also,supposedly raising the price of other things,to force americans to spend and consume less.
This spreading the wealth around
and the eventual raising of taxes for everyone,to pay for all the programs Obama wants will sink this country into a deep depression IMO. Haven’t we been through this before in the 1930’s?
Also,I happened to be on the other blogsite last week,as the moderator frontpaged (4)anti-Mary blogs in two days.I think that was over-the-line and uncalled for and he has a personal vendetta against Mary for some reason.There is a perception among some that this website is a CAVERS hangout.I disagree.It’s all about accountability:To hold our local elected officials accountable for their actions,because they should have to answer to the people.
Am I wrong?
Comment by kageman — January 19, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
There is usually a tendency to overstate the effects a new President will have. In their zeal to want to believe the hyperbole of campaigns, people momentarily disregard that legislation must be passed by Congress, sometimes affirmed or struck down by the courts, and executed by employees whose careers transcend the terms of presidents.
Members of Congress usually want to survive politically. While some or even all of them may support initiatives by a new President, they can quietly and privately modify or derail those initiatives if they collectively believe them to pose a threat to their own political longevity.
Mid-level career federal employees often don’t really give a hoot who is President, because they know the practical limits of Presidential power sometimes better than the President or his staff. The President can fire agency heads who serve at his pleasure, but most of the federal employees are not subject to being hired or fired as a result of their personal political beliefs and affiliations (recent documented abuses in the Justice Department notwithstanding.)
In other words, the Washington Merry-Go-Round continues to turn. In four or eight years, Obama will get off the horse and another rider will pay for the ride.
Comment by Bill — January 19, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
This is a man who’s whole campain has bolstered “CHANGE” yet his inagural party will be the most expensive EVER! If this man REALLY wanted to start his term of “CHANGE”, he would set an example and keep this to a minimum.
Just like those that spend a fortune on a wedding and save nothing for the marriage, makes me wonder what he is saving for his idea of “CHANGE”.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 19, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Yeah, it’s one thing to say that Mary has no effect on the community and then another thing to generate blog traffic by writing about her out-front. What do they call someone who says one thing and does another?
Comment by Dan — January 19, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Kageman–you wrote that “…it’s all about accountability: To hold our local elected officials accountable for their actions,because they should have to answer to the people.” Absolutely!
Trying to stick a negative label on someone or any number of people who expect accountability from those they elect undermines our democracy.
Comment by mary — January 19, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
One good thing, Thom George is out of town. 😉
Comment by Wallypog — January 19, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
I don’t understand why Obama is taking on the Lincoln brand. Lincoln was the first REPUBLICAN president. The Democrats were pro-slavery, the Whigs didn’t want to choose, so many anti-slavery Whigs left and started the Republican party just so they could come out against slavery.
And Lincoln never planned on abolishing all slavery. He was willing to leave it alone in the states that already had it. He just didn’t want slavery to spread to the new territories.
Comment by mary — January 19, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
Obama is the third youngest president
ever to have been elected.Never in the nations history,have we had a president that has faced such daunting challenges and at such a young age,as the president elect.
For the sake of the US,I hope his policies work,because we have to be hopeful at this time.
Comment by kageman — January 20, 2009 @ 8:28 am
I wish him all the best!
Comment by mary — January 20, 2009 @ 11:08 am
mary when you associate lincoln with republicans and democrats with slavery you should put that into proper historical context. the republican party of today is comprised of many of the southern democrats of yesteryear, the reagan democrats, the nascar dads who make up the social conservative base of todays republican party. today’s republican base has more in common with the pro slavery democrats of yore, than todays more urban democratic party.
Comment by reagan — January 21, 2009 @ 8:20 am
The Democratic party had a history of being pro-segregation, just as the GOP had a history of once being in favor of the free market and small government. Things change.
Comment by Dan — January 21, 2009 @ 8:55 am
I DID put it in the proper historical perspective,”reagan”; my entire comment was about the history of Lincoln’s time. That said, your claims to know which people populate today’s Republican and Democrat parties is an obvious attempt to write your own version of history.
Comment by mary — January 21, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Dan, the direction of the Bush administration towards socialist solutions to our economic crisis has shocked the Republican Party. I don’t think it is accurate to present it as a new chapter in GOP history. Time will certainly tell. The whereabouts of the 300+ billions the Congress gave to the banks with no accountability is a scandal beyond comprehension. The Democrats and their new leader will be held accountable for this, not the GOP.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 21, 2009 @ 10:37 am
“mary” i’m not writing my own version of history, i am reporting demograpic swings.
Comment by reagan — January 21, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
“reagan”, you don’t have to put my name in quotes. I am using my real name, you are not.
Comment by mary — January 21, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
“mary” we had this childish discussion, here, before. you don’t put other’s pseudonyms in quotations, why mine?
Comment by reagan — January 21, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
“reagan”, I will continue to use quotes for you because you are taking the name of a popular Republican president, and you sir are no Reagan.
Comment by mary — January 21, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Gawd,I love drama.I enjoy these Mary
and Reagan conversations.I’m waiting for “reagans”,response! 😉
Comment by kageman — January 22, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Me too!
Comment by mary — January 22, 2009 @ 12:53 pm