Obama's Honeymoon

[Praetor]

So I figured we could discuss Obama's first 100 days in here and keep it out of the general thread. Thoughts?

EDIT: And Joe, too, of course.

[OldJersey]

I like his move with the Gitmo situation, just felt good seeing pictures of him in office and seeing him actually make a move.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

I just read this on Daily Kos and all I can say is Hallelujah!

Taking the first steps today in what will be a long journey to undo the damage done during eight years of the Bush administration, today President Obama issued two Executive Orders and three Presidential Memoranda, designed to usher in "a new era of transparent and open government."

Speaking to reporters, President Obama said that while the orders don't go far enough in "restoring accountability and fiscal restraint in Washington," they are a good start to regaining the trust of the American people. Describing it as a "committment to openness," Obama added that solving the problems that face our country will mean involving ordinary Americans, and announced that he will tap into the knowledge of "scientists and civic leaders, educators and entrepreneurs," to help shape policy in his administration.
The Orders and Memoranda state that:

... he will freeze his White House senior staff pay at current levels to the full extent allowed by law ... The President and his staff recognize that in these austere times, everyone must do more with less, and the White House is no exception.
In the Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel, the President, first, prohibits executive branch employees from accepting gifts from lobbyists. Second, he closes the revolving door that allows government officials to move to and from private sector jobs in ways that give that sector undue influence over government. Third, he requires that government hiring be based upon qualifications, competence and experience, not political connections.
... the President instructs all members of his administration to operate under principles of openness, transparency and of engaging citizens with their government. To implement these principles and make them concrete, the Memorandum on Transparency instructs three senior officials to produce an Open Government Directive within 120 days directing specific actions to implement the principles in the Memorandum. And the Memorandum on FOIA instructs the Attorney General to in that same time period issue new guidelines to the government implementing those same principles of openness and transparency in the FOIA context.
... This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends. Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse. And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution.

reposting this. pretty important.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-01-21-21obama5600.jpg

[The Personist]

He's certainly starting out with the right message in mind.

[Machu505]

Word on the street is that the executive order that will shut down Gitmo is coming tomorrow.

[r_r_repeat]

Word on the street is that the executive order that will shut down Gitmo is coming tomorrow.

Where are you hearing this?

[Machu505]

Where are you hearing this?

CNN

[r_r_repeat]

CNN

FUCKING amazing. Best news I've heard all day.

:dance:

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Word on the street is that the executive order that will shut down Gitmo is coming tomorrow.

its a order to shutdown Gitmo within this year. (by the end of 2009)

[r_r_repeat]

He's also offering negotiations with Iran. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_guantanamo)

It almost seems unreal, after what we've put up with over the past 8 years, to be having all this happening.

its a order to shutdown Gitmo within this year. (by the end of 2009)

And your tagline is awesome.

[Machu505]

its a order to shutdown Gitmo within this year. (by the end of 2009)

Yep.

[J.C.]

I expect him to hit the ground running on a lot of things. Following through on his promises to break from Bush buys him time to do more things down the road as well.

[Machu505]

The CNN report about the Gitmo closing. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html)

and

Fidel Castro watched the inauguration. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/22/fidel.castro.inauguration/index.html?iref=newssearch)

[saysmydoctor]

I want Cuba's reaction. Ultimately.

[saysmydoctor]

Obama is saying a few fuck yous today, I like this one the most:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Fired_US_Attorney_will_be_terror_pr osecutor.html?showall

[Skadrist]

I want Cuba's reaction. Ultimately.

One of my professors thinks that it is possible Obama might lift the embargo against Cuba perhaps using the ailing economy as a pretext to do so.

[1Roth4]

One of my professors thinks that it is possible Obama might lift the embargo against Cuba perhaps using the ailing economy as a pretext to do so.

America's foreign policy has done a complete 180.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

So i guess W. left this for Obama:
http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/44_01_21/4448_17686655.jpg


I wonder what is in it?

[lew_1987]

That took guts to do the move with Guantanamo Bay so soon... I hope it carries on. I wasn't sure if Obama was going to make real change, but it seems like he might.

[1Roth4]

So i guess W. left this for Obama:
http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/44_01_21/4448_17686655.jpg


I wonder what is in it?

Its just a letter wishing him well. Its a Presidential tradition.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

ha ha cool. its a pretty cool picture tho

[1Roth4]

ha ha cool. its a pretty cool picture tho

very cool. it is always left in the drawer of the desk, but obviously he took it out for a photo-op. I'm not sure if the content of the letter will ever be known.

The Bush daughters also wrote the Obama girls a note and left it for them in the White House.

[unwritten]

One of my professors thinks that it is possible Obama might lift the embargo against Cuba perhaps using the ailing economy as a pretext to do so.

cuban cigars ftw.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Today, President Obama is expected to issue an executive order banning torture (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/) by requiring that the Army Field Manual be used as the guide for interrogations.

[saysmydoctor]

So i guess W. left this for Obama:
http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/44_01_21/4448_17686655.jpg


I wonder what is in it?
Probably left him the secret location of Karl Rove's legendary farting machine (I wish I could say I was making this up).

[J.C.]

So i guess W. left this for Obama:
http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/44_01_21/4448_17686655.jpg


I wonder what is in it?

http://sarasotadetail.com/gallery2/d/9529-1/Drop_the_Soap-Its_a_trap.jpg

[envi]

The CNN report about the Gitmo closing. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html)

and

Fidel Castro watched the inauguration. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html)


Both links are to the Gitmo article. =( ... At least for me, they are .

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Full text of order to close Gitmo:


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:


Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.
(b) "Geneva Conventions" means:
(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);
(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and
(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).
(c) "Individuals currently detained at Guantánamo" and "individuals covered by this order" mean individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants.
Sec. 2. Findings.
(a) Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at Guantánamo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantánamo, either by returning them to their home country
more
(OVER)

2
or by releasing or transferring them to a third country. The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo are eligible for such transfer or release.
(b) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have been there for more than 6 years, and most have been detained for at least 4 years. In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facilities without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantánamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo.
(c) The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.
(d) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all individuals currently held at Guantánamo, and of whether their continued detention is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated with detentions at Guantánamo require a comprehensive interagency review.
(e) New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo.
(f) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo may have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted. It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted.
(g) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the circumstances of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo who have been charged with offenses before military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military commission process more generally.
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities,
more

3
they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another
United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantánamo Detentions.
(a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of each individual currently detained at Guantánamo (Review) shall commence immediately.
(b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials:
(1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;
(2) the Secretary of Defense;
(3) the Secretary of State;
(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(5) the Director of National Intelligence;
(6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and
(7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.
(c) Operation of Review. The duties of the Review participants shall include the following:
(1) Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all information in the possession of the Federal Government that pertains to any individual currently detained at Guantánamo
and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of any such individual. All executive branch departments and agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the Attorney General to provide information in their possession or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney General may seek further information relevant to the Review from any source.
(2) Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine, on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect to the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo, whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests
more
(OVER)

4
of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals for whom release or transfer is possible.
(3) Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantánamo not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such determinations.
(4) Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any individuals currently detained at Guantánamo whose disposition is not achieved under paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection, the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.
(5) Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo to facilities within the United States, and the Review participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation that may be appropriate.
Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary and appropriate to implement this order.
Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at Guantánamo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantánamo to ensure full compliance with this directive. Such review shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall be implemented immediately thereafter.
Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military
more

5
commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.
Sec. 8. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 22, 2009.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17811.html

[Machu505]

Both links are to the Gitmo article. =( ... At least for me, they are .

Oh damn. Here's the Cuba link:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/22/fidel.castro.inauguration/index.html?iref=newssearch

[CrenshawPunch]

Too much "left" in this thread. To be fair, here's some things to think about.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.html

I'm gonna keep a checklist and see what actually happens.

[HashHolly]

Too much "left" in this thread. To be fair, here's some things to think about.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.html

I'm gonna keep a checklist and see what actually happens.

Really, still this he's a socialist, ready to damn America with socialism rhetoric?

[Machu505]

We're gonna be like Sweden? Sounds good to me.

[J.C.]

In Dick Morris's defense, he is a lying sack of shit.

[Machu505]

That is HUGE.

/Dick Morris

[saysmydoctor]

In Dick Morris's defense, he is a lying sack of shit.
Jon Stewart fucking told it.

That was the funniest thing the Daily Show had done in a year.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17826.html


"Gibbs leaned on several phrases and reiterated the same points no matter how often he was asked — so much so that the room groaned at his seventh or eighth use of “abundance of caution” to explain why Obama decided to redo the oath.

“I don’t mean for you to laugh when I don’t say something altogether generally funny,” Gibbs responded, looking slightly insulted."


He wouldn't say it if you didn't ask the same question. God...

[J.C.]

How about you ask him about something more important?

[saysmydoctor]

Seriously. He is President regardless. The oath was flubbed but stated and besides the fact, it was past 12:00. It was really just a formality.

[lew_1987]

He wouldn't say it if you didn't ask the same question. God...

I thought this too... it was pretty obvious what he was saying, no need to question him endlessly over it.

[x togepi x]

I wish obama was a socialist. that would rule so much.

[Lueda Alia]

I wish obama was a socialist. that would rule so much.
Haha it would be fun.

I sometimes wonder if people seriously think that he's a socialist. I find that quite funny.

[CrenshawPunch]

Really, still this he's a socialist, ready to damn America with socialism rhetoric?

Yup. His voting record and speeches say that to me. Bush already handed him the largest bank in America, Bank of America, which is now controlled by the government.

[J.C.]

Haha it would be fun.

I sometimes wonder if people seriously think that he's a socialist. I find that quite funny.

Oh, they do. There's a significant portion of the country that will buy into whatever you tell them and that goes for people on both sides. Did you see the poll that came out during election season that showed 1 out of every 4 Texans believed Obama was Muslim? That's hard to even fathom.

[J.C.]

Bush already handed him the largest bank in America, Bank of America, which is now controlled by the government.

Obama is a socialist because Bush nationalized the banks?

[Lueda Alia]

Oh, they do. There's a significant portion of the country that will buy into whatever you tell them and that goes for people on both sides. Did you see the poll that came out during election season that showed 1 out of every 4 Texans believed Obama was Muslim? That's hard to even fathom.
Yeah, I know about all that. It boggles my mind. People's definitions are so messed up sometimes.

[x togepi x]

Yup. His voting record and speeches say that to me. Bush already handed him the largest bank in America, Bank of America, which is now controlled by the government.

if he's a socialist why aren't his economic advisors neo-marxists and critical theorists?

That's the problem with your logic. You're calling any government regulation "socialism". If doing something to solve the economic problems instead of letting the free market solve them is socialism then why exactly is that a bad thing?

[J.C.]

Conservatives do a great job bastardizing certain words. Socialism is one example. They've done it to an extent that the word no longer means anything. That's why they were able to convince their base that a progressive tax system(which we've had since conservative icon Teddy Roosevelt instituted it) was some new socialist policy.

[Machu505]

Conservatives do a great job bastardizing certain words. Socialism is one example. They've done it to an extent that the word no longer means anything. That's why they were able to convince their base that a progressive tax system(which we've had since conservative icon Teddy Roosevelt instituted it) was some new socialist policy.

O hai fascism.

[x togepi x]

Socialism still means something, that's why they feel it's a good charge to level. They can't tag Obama as a liberal anymore because people would go "meh, who cares" so they have to go further to the left to insult him. it's just political manuevering to look like they're doing something when they can't really.

[J.C.]

It means something in the sense that it elicits a reaction. What I meant was that it no longer has a functioning definition.

[x togepi x]

It means something in the sense that it elicits a reaction. What I meant was that it no longer has a functioning definition.

It has a functional definition, people are just misusing it for political purposes. If it meant "nothing", it wouldn't elicit a reaction. I mean if i made a thread on AP.net saying Obama is nothing but a dirty "frihojegr", I highly doubt I'd get any reaction other than "what the fuck are you talking about".

I would contend the reason the right wing things the socialist attack on Obama is so useful (even though it's not really) is because they're trying to play into people's fear of change. A socialist America would be way different than what we have now, obviously. To some people, that would be scary. Call Obama a socialist and you are just playing into that fear.

[ambulance]

I imaging by 'no functioning definition' he meant that the majority of Americans can't define what it really means. Its been so distorted that 'socialism' has a wide range of definitions that are just being used by conservatives to elicit fear and hatred.

[J.C.]

I imaging by 'no functioning definition' he meant that the majority of Americans can't define what it really means. Its been so distorted that 'socialism' has a wide range of definitions that are just being used by conservatives to elicit fear and hatred.

Yes.

[saysmydoctor]

Yup. His voting record and speeches say that to me. Bush already handed him the largest bank in America, Bank of America, which is now controlled by the government.
Obama is a socialist because Bush socialized a bank. This is a whole new transitivity property.

[x togepi x]

I imaging by 'no functioning definition' he meant that the majority of Americans can't define what it really means. Its been so distorted that 'socialism' has a wide range of definitions that are just being used by conservatives to elicit fear and hatred.

yes but the majority of Americans are so uneducated about politics that I'm not a big fan of deciding whether something has a functioning definition based on what they think.

[ambulance]

Again, I don't think he was saying no REAL definition actually exists. Just in the minds of most of America, there isn't one. I'm pretty sure most of the people posting in this forum actually know what socialism is......I hope.

[J.C.]

Yes, they're uneducated, which is why conservatives have had such success convincing them that socialism means things it really doesn't.

[x togepi x]

Again, I don't think he was saying no REAL definition actually exists. Just in the minds of most of America, there isn't one. I'm pretty sure most of the people posting in this forum actually know what socialism is......I hope.

I'm not entirely sure why you think this is responsive to my point about how if I called Obama a gibberish word, nobody would know what is going on. It has a functional definition, even to most Americans. It's just based on a misconception.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Yes, they're uneducated, which is why conservatives have had such success convincing them that socialism means things it really doesn't.
Exactly, my friends all think that socialism is a redistribution of wealth, when of course that is only one small part of socialism and almost all economists agree that redistribution is part of any modern tax system.

[ambulance]

I'm not entirely sure why you think this is responsive to my point about how if I called Obama a gibberish word, nobody would know what is going on. It has a functional definition, even to most Americans. It's just based on a misconception.

It was a response to what you said right above my post that you quoted. The only 'functional' definition it has is the one that has been assigned by ignorant Americans, conservatives, the media. You just said that you're not a fan of deciding whether a word has a functioning definition based on what they think. I'm just saying that right now, that is how the definition has been defined.

I'm distinguishing 'real' and 'functioning' definitions. Of course there is a real definition. The functional one, the one that is being used as an attack on the left, has been distorted. I don't know if that makes sense. I think we are just mixed up in semantics.

[saysmydoctor]

Exactly, my friends all think that socialism is a redistribution of wealth, when of course that is only one small part of socialism and almost all economists agree that redistribution is part of any modern tax system.
It's one of the four Rs of taxation. Anyone who has taken a high school economics class knows this. (Not ranting at you...just ranting.)

[Jason Tate]

Yesterday, President Obama rescinded the "Mexico City Policy" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationPlanning/) and released the following statement:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/statement-released-after-the-president-rescinds/

[windmillninja]

With the federal deficit bloated to almost three times its previous size, I don't see how American tax dollars going towards overseas abortions is a good thing.

[Jason Tate]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Lueda Alia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
So good. I love it, really.

[Mercy Medical]

I wasn't too stoked when I read my feeds today and saw this (http://i.gizmodo.com/5138271/obama-supports-warrantless-wiretapping-just-like-bush)...

The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.

[J.C.]

That's weak. I'd like to hear the whole rationale. Opposing a judge making a ruling doesn't necessarily imply support of the wiretapping, but it doesn't look good when Obama just got done saying we don't need to sacrifice our ideals for the sake of safety.

[windmillninja]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece

Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.


Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

BARACK OBAMA’S INAUGURATION: FOURTEEN TIMES BIGGER THAN THE SUPER BOWL (http://graneyandthepig.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/barack-obamas-inauguration-bigger-than-super-bowl/)

The build up begins today for Super Bowl XLIII. In the coming week, you’ll hear and read lots of stories about the economic impact the game will have on the city of Tampa.There’s no doubt the financial benefit a Super Bowl has on a community can be huge. However, in an appearance on CNN Sunday, writer Rick Horrow said the economic impact of this month’s presidential inauguration was even bigger for Washington D.C.
WAY bigger.
In fact, according to Horrow, the economic benefit for Washington was FOURTEEN TIMES bigger than a Super Bowl. Horrow has been making the rounds on the television talk shows and has an article in Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/print/lifestyle/content/jan2009/bw20090115_040522.htm). He says the two million out-of-towners who came to Washington D.C. for the inauguration rented far more hotels and spent far more money in bars and restaurants than the typical Super Bowl crowd.


--------

eat that people who think that the inauguration cost too much

[Tony Pascarella]

BARACK OBAMA’S INAUGURATION: FOURTEEN TIMES BIGGER THAN THE SUPER BOWL (http://graneyandthepig.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/barack-obamas-inauguration-bigger-than-super-bowl/)

The build up begins today for Super Bowl XLIII. In the coming week, you’ll hear and read lots of stories about the economic impact the game will have on the city of Tampa.There’s no doubt the financial benefit a Super Bowl has on a community can be huge. However, in an appearance on CNN Sunday, writer Rick Horrow said the economic impact of this month’s presidential inauguration was even bigger for Washington D.C.
WAY bigger.
In fact, according to Horrow, the economic benefit for Washington was FOURTEEN TIMES bigger than a Super Bowl. Horrow has been making the rounds on the television talk shows and has an article in Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/print/lifestyle/content/jan2009/bw20090115_040522.htm). He says the two million out-of-towners who came to Washington D.C. for the inauguration rented far more hotels and spent far more money in bars and restaurants than the typical Super Bowl crowd.


--------

eat that people who think that the inauguration cost too muchLet's see...2 million divided by 14 comes out to about 140,000 people, which is a bit higher than people would expect for a Super Bowl. Sounds in line when you consider Washington is a hell of a lot more expensive than Tampa.

Add it to the fact that I can't see this year's Super Bowl being particularly exciting as much as I want to care, and that's a win.

I saw it mentioned in here earlier in the thread but I haven't made it around the politics forum much lately; I really was kind of shocked/intrigued by Castro's statements about Obama. I think the general perception that the guy is and has always been a thug is kind of misguided in the first place, but these writings that come out every so often (supposedly) from him are definitely showing a different side and while he's not running the country anymore, maybe will help lead to an opening of cordial relations with Cuba sometime in the next 4 years.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Today, President Obama signed his first major piece of legislation (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD 960MGKG1), boosting workers’ ability to bring pay discrimination lawsuits. Also at the ceremony with Obama was Lilly Ledbetter (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=tap_talks_with_lil ly_ledbetter), Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and other top women in government. From Obama’s remarks during the East Room signing ceremony.
And I sign this bill for my daughters, and all those who will come after us, because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams and they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers never could have imagined.
Today was technically Obama’s second bill-signing. (The first was for legislation fixing the Interior Secretary’s salary (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/opinion/29collins.html).) President Bush’s first piece of legislation didn’t come until Feb. 16: a resolution honoring Ronald Reagan’s 90th birthday (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa021601a.htm).

[J.C.]

Long overdue.

[Machu505]

Equal pay > Ronald Reagan's birthday

[Tony Pascarella]

Interesting article on the various expectations within the Obama White House versus the Bush one and how it's a lot more informal. There's a few laughs and good anecdotes in there too.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/29/america/whitehouse.1-418325.php

[sweet tragedy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/opinion/29cohen.html

So good. Hopefully it keeps up this way.

[J.C.]

That was a really good interview he gave with Al Arabiya. I wish it had gotten more play on our own networks. There was a lot in there that the American people needed to hear.

[Tony Pascarella]

That was a really good interview he gave with Al Arabiya. I wish it had gotten more play on our own networks. There was a lot in there that the American people needed to hear.Yeah, until I tracked it down, the most coverage of it I saw was Colbert's "Obama was kidnapped" segment.