Skip to main content

Friedman wants to move the inauguration up

Thomas Friedman, the not so progressive NYT columnist is concerned that Bush is going to screw things up and is suggesting here that the inauguration should be moved up.

Apparently it has happened in the past...

In 1933, the Great Depression deepened as the country drifted between the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his inauguration. In an attempt to prevent that from happening again, the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution moved presidential inaugurations from March up to January -- but now even January 20 may not come soon enough for the struggling American economy.

Friedman believes that the worst is yet to comefor the US economy.

There is a storm coming," Friedman continued, "and it hasn't hit yet.

And I believe the decisions made, possibly in these next two months, could determine the next four years.

This administration could be over before it starts -- over in the sense that it will spend the next four years digging out of a hole that has been created right now, that may be deeper and darker than anyone realizes.

Apparently some of the Senators on the hill want this to happen too or at least get Obamas team involved.

Can’t see Bush who has spent the last eight screwing up the US would want to stop doing so now.

He still has too many pet projects he wants to complete.

Reference: Raw Story here.


Can they move the inauguration to February 2004? No? Okeydoke, how about next Tuesday?
sassy said…
The rev just made me laugh, good one ;)

Popular posts from this blog

Election close call, Omar, Bob and move over Warren

Wow that was a close one:
With the NDP leading in the polls at the beginning of September, I started to prepare myself, for the very first time in my life, to vote for the NDP. Mulcair looked good enough for me, with some of the best lines about Harper's Government during most of his interviews, except that he would always add the phrase, "just like the liberals" to the end of it and I thought, if I'm one of those Harper hating, Liberal voters that you probably need to vote for you, why the hell are you insulting me with this partisan bullshit.


That is the number of Syrian refuges that the Harper government has brought into Canada.

From the Globe and Mail:
However, the government is facing criticism because 2,374 Syrian refugees have so far been settled. Of that number, only 622 - or 26 percent - were assisted by the government. The others were privately sponsored by individuals or non-government. The others were privately sponsored by individuals or non-government organizations. The NDP argues that in addition to private sponsors, the government should immediately accept 10,000 Syrian refugees. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said the target should be 25,000 government-sponsored refugees, which he estimates would cost Ottawa $100-million.In other words the Harper government that banters around the 10,000 plus refugee number has brought in 622 refugees or about 170 families.

The other 2,352 so called refugees that Harper has allowed to emigrate to Canada consist of wealthy Syrian Christians who paid their own way in, hightailing …

Surprising how some tunes are just timeless