Subscribe by RSS
On Saturday, the current President Bush delivered his weekly radio address as did President-elect Obama. Both men discussed the transition and pledged to work together for seamless leadership during the continuing economic difficulties.
The report from Yahoo News:
WASHINGTON – With the economy in a downward spiral, U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the nation under threat from terrorists, President Bush pledged Saturday to make a smooth transition to an Obama administration a top priority for the rest of his days in office.
“Our country faces economic challenges that will not pause to let a new president settle in,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “This will also be America’s first wartime presidential transition in four decades. We’re in a struggle against violent extremists determined to attack us — and they would like nothing more than to exploit this period of change to harm the American people.”
In the Democrats’ radio address, President-elect Obama stressed the nation must act swiftly to deal with continuing job losses and a financial meltdown that poses the “greatest economic challenge of our lifetime.” He noted that he was already meeting with economic advisers.
“While we must recognize that we only have one president at a time and that President Bush is the leader of our government, I want to ensure that we hit the ground running on Jan. 20 because we don’t have a moment to lose,” Obama said.
Obama underscored many of the economic talking points from his news conference Friday, the first held since his victory. He said his administration’s focus will be on creating jobs, stabilizing the financial markets while helping homeowners, and growing the middle class and strengthening the economy in the long-term.
“I do not underestimate the enormity of the task that lies ahead,” Obama said. “We’ve taken some major actions to date, and we will need further actions during this transition and subsequent months. Some of those choices will be difficult, but America is a strong and resilient country.”
Bush said the White House and federal agencies have been working for more than a year to make sure the next administration can get off to a quick start.
Intelligence officials have briefed Obama, the Justice Department has approved security clearances for members of his transition staff and, in the coming weeks, administration officials will brief the Obama team on major policy issues, including the Iraq war and the ailing financial markets. The president said he also would keep Obama fully informed on any important decisions he makes between now and when Obama takes over on Jan. 20.
Until then, Bush said he will continue to address the nation’s economic problems and urge Congress to approve free-trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea and will host an international economic summit in Washington on Nov. 15 to address the global financial crisis.
First, here is the full audio of President Bush’s remarks from November 8th, 2008:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Next, here is President-elect Obama’s radio address from the same day:
The transcripts:
Obama’s Remarks
Bush’s Remarks
Quite amazing how this has all shifted from the campaign to the transition, it’s more interesting to discuss and write about from my perspective anyway.
Visit the You Decide Politics Store »
Loading ...
Looks like it is going to be a smooth transition over. Bush has had a kind of “tired” sound to him this last year but that goes with every president on their last year.
Obama Chats With Russian President
Obama spokes to Dmitry Medvedev Saturday at a round of phone calls with leaders in other nations.
A statement released by the Kremlin says the two “expressed the determination to create constructive and positive interaction for the good of global stability and development.”
Also says Medvedev and Obama believe an “early bilateral meeting” should be arranged.
http://ap.google.com/arti.....wD94B1BU80
Cheney Promises “Smooth and Graceful Transition of Power”
The Vice President ensures an easy handoff to president-elect Obama and veep-elect Biden when speaking to the Virginia Military Institute Saturday.
http://thepage.time.com/d.....institute/
I beleive it was a CNN reporter that told a off camera story about Bush. He said the President shook hands with him and all the crew. It does not suprise me that Bush is doing everything possible to make the transition smooth.
http://republicanleader.h.....log/?p=389
find out what the dems have planned to spend your money.
Say what you will, but President Bush is very classy in that he clearly wants the nation’s interests put first by ensuring a smooth transition.
We are still involved in 2 wars and with the economic issues currently swirling, there needs to be seamless leadership at the helm.
I dunno Nate. I think that President Bush is just anxious to be done with the presidency and having a smooth transition allows him to cut his ties to the presidency much more quicker.
Wasn’t it Clinton who just rushed out doing little to help Bush ?
Yes, Bill, it was a very rushed and hectic transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations, and I fault the Clinton administration for that. However, I think it is difficult to compare that context with this one. Back in 2000, Clinton had just undergone a very public and emotional roller-coaster ride with the Republican Party in which he was impeached. At that time, the economy was strong, and we were not engaged in any major war fronts. Bush won without the public mandate, and with highly contested means.
Right now, the economy is in an extremely delicate place, we are engaged in two open wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is an overwhelming public mandate for the president elect. Bush is doing the right thing– do not get me wrong here. I agree with Nate that he is doing the classy thing. I am just saying we cannot compare the Clinton hand-off to the Bush-hand off so easily.
Michael
You read comments so You may know I feel many of the troubles blamed on Bush, I blame Congress. Bush mstakes was not going public and failure to veto.
Didn’t the impeachment end Feb. 1999. and he left office Jan.2001. I am thinking the Supreme court decision is poor excuss to avoid transition help.
Clinton in the end should have been honorable. With that and his other down falls I have no repect for Bill. Although he has a great first name. I am not a fan of Obama but hope, like many Presidents, he will rise to the occaion. My favorite example is the President who purchased the Lousiana Purchase. He was for small government but over came his doubts thinking of the good of his country.
I feel Bill did not. If Bill and Hilary had followed the law instead of putting her in charge of Congressional committee and breaking the Sunshine law, we would have a health plan today. Both at the time was lawyers.
I see Bill as selfish. Looking out for Bill. With less economic and military turmoil, transition could have been much easier. But no.
I am no fan of Bill Clinton, though his policies, coupled with Bush senior, brought about great financial success in the United States.
My point was less to excuse Clinton for his actions– that was not my intent, but rather to show how the political and economic climate right now is vastly different than that during the Clinton-Bush transition (which was– I believe to this day– the most contested presidential election in U.S history).
Jefferson did well with the Louisiana Purchase. Hard to fault a founding father for bending the rules as things progressed…
Michael
I am surprised you give Clinton credit for good economy. As I recall econmy was improving under Father Bush. When Bill had Republican controled Congress, He inherited a balsnced budget. Congress presented the balanced budget to Bill
I would say same hold trues for Bush. First 6 years with Repblicans contolling, National debt was less. With Democrat taking over, Debt rose. Since Bush pushed for regulations, I don’t blame him for meltdown. I blame Dodd, Frank, Obama, and Acorn.
Bill, where do you get your information from?
“First 6 years with Repblicans contolling, National debt was less.”
I can’t find anything to support that statement. In fact it all evidence point to the exact opposite.
You are giving false information. Please provide a link to some real information.
Here is a chart… you will notice that the national debt went from 5.7 trillion in 2001 to 8.4 trillion in 2006. This was a republican Congress. Not to mention you can see a significant budget deficit growth as far as % of our GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w.....Components
information is pulled from :
http://fms.treas.gov/bull.....ssues.html
And from 2006 to 2008 under the democratic congress the deficit growth actually shrunk when you take out the 700 billion dollar bailout for the banks(from the 2008 year) which both Republican’s and Democrats were for.
You can notice the budget debt shrink from 2006 to 2007 in this chart. (Democrat congress)
http://upload.wikimedia.o.....-_2008.png
Chart information pulled from here.
http://www.bea.gov/nation.....ex.htm#gdp
Again I am looking at this from a budget stand point. The bailout was not apart of the planned budget.
So again… I ask where you are getting your information from, Bill.
JD
I would suggest when you read my comment, you pay special attention to the wording. You would have received an answer to your questions..
I said….”as I recall” dealing with part of your questions.
Same holds true with other questions you have cocerning my comments. Read carefully my comments
Bill — ordinarily I concur with economists in that we need to acknowledge the previous 4 years of presidential policies in conjunction with the current 4, in order to gauge which policies were in play. This is why I said that Bush senior and Bill Clinton should both be acknowledged for the economic stability and strength in 2001 when Bush took office.
Clinton needs to be acknowledged as well, since he was in office for 8 years. The same should go for the current Bush administration. Bush cannot be given fault or credit for his first four years in office– since much of the economy was still reacting to the Clinton initiatives. These last four years (and the four to follow) will better gauge Bush’s policies. (that said, it is a bit unfair to fault Bush entirely for the emerging global crisis, which will continue for at the bare minimum two more years).
I do not believe in playing favorites and faulting a stewardship over a captain. Bush was at the helm– and the executive branch had incredible power these past 8 years. Just like Clinton, the faults should– in the end– land squarely on him, not on key members of Congress. But then, this is my opinion on the matter.
Machel
I see your point. I remember my Mother started making more money with her investments when Clinton took office. She could only understand that Clinton was in office, therefore he got credit.
Clinton wanted more funding for lower income groups. Funding was increased . Sub-prime was pushed through Acorn and Frank in particular. This was leading to our problems today. Of course there was other factors.
I do blame Bush for his few vetoes and not going public with good bills that had a lot of bad.
I agree with all you said, except I give more good and fault to Congress. A solution would be more vetoes and/or power of line item veto.
I said..” I would say same hold trues for Bush. First 6 years with Repblicans contolling, National debt was less. With Democrat taking over, Debt rose. Since Bush pushed for regulations, I don’t blame him for meltdown. I blame Dodd, Frank, Obama, and Acorn.”
JD said.. “Again I am looking at this from a budget stand point. The bailout was not apart of the planned budget.”
Lets compare what I said and how you changed it to fit your purpose
1. I said..”national debt”
@. You said ..”planned budget”
3. I gave credit for Bail-out to Congress. Since we must pay it back some day. It counts
You don’t win arguments by comparing apples to oranges
…………………………………………………….As I said earler, read comment caredfully, before you respond
Machael
As far as the key members of congress, or anybody as far as that goes, large sums of money given to their campaign can be a bad sign. Frank love involvement with a high official in either Fanny or Freddy does cause concerns of possible wrong doings. Add the donations. Plus his saying there was no problems with these institutions. The least that should happen is an investigation.
Dodd reportilly was given a sweet heart loan on his house and large donation. Again, investigation showed be made.
Bill,
The National Debt has to do with deficit spending. The reason why I didn’t include the bailout is so we can compare apples to apples.
I would argue that the reason we had to even do the bail out is because of the lack of regulation that went on during the republican controlled congress and Bush administration and the failure of sub-prime lending.
The current crisis arose because banks and mortgage companies made risky “subprime” loans to people with poor credit histories that were then packaged into securities and sold to institutional investors.
As interest rates rose and home prices began to fall, homeowners unable to refinance the loans or sell their properties began to default, unleashing a cascade effect through financial markets. That phenomenon had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie’s internal problems; in fact, both firms were praised for cushioning the financial free fall and keeping the market afloat by spending billions of dollars to purchase sub-prime loans.
To be clear, your wonderful guy, McCain stood up in the senate in May of 2006 about Freddie and Fannie internal accounting (not related to the Sub-prime) which was a republican senate. It was not until the elections on November 17th 2006 that congress became democrat controlled.
So again, to compare apples to apples you have to look without the bailout.
Bill Hedges
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Go here. You’ll see that no one will support a WitchHunt on donations yet because this is a bi partisan problem. Not heavily on one side or another.
You see i can Cherry Pick from the site a senator and focus on a contribution.
I chose Republican Kay Bailey
http://www.opensecrets.or.....=N00005675
she got 600K from Oil and Gas companies.
But that was just one i selected. If you went through all of them you would end up possibly investigating everyone and having no congress at all. Another point is investigations are usually done to expose something sinister which is in the dark. All of this information is open and available to regular folks like you and I.
If this was seriously considered a problem then they should outlaw contributions over a certain dollar amount in the future. Another suggestion is outlawing multiple donations from the same person or the workers of the same institution.
Dreadsen
Donation in itself is normal in Congress. You seemed to stop reading my comment after I mentioned donation.
Now that you have gotten it all out of your system, you can read other points, along with donations, that can cause concern
Thank you for ignoring other contributing factors that need to be present with donation, which was point of my coment
Bill Hedges
I didn’t ignore anything. I was trying to give an example of why they probably won’t do an investigation. Because too many similar links can be made with other institutions. Including Fannie mae and Freddie Mac. I chose the one Congresswoman because lets say all of her votes are in favor of oil companies. Wouldn’t you suspect that the large amount of money being donated to her could possibly have had an influence on her vote? So don’t you agree that there should be other things put in place to prevent large amounts of donations from large institutions? If they can not receive the money then that will reduce the chance of influence.
First Dreasen says
” Go here. You’ll see that no one will support a WitchHunt on donations yet because this is a bi partisan problem. Not heavily on one side or another ”
Since you are asking for proof of me today, can you back this?
Then he says
I didn’t ignore anything. I was trying to give an example of
why they probably won’t do an investigation
“You see i can Cherry Pick from the site a senator and focus
on a contribution. ”
“I didn’t ignore anything”
Although you casually mention other sinster, my comment was directed at $700 Billion dollor subject matter and actions that lead to it. No need to investigate Congress on this ?
Thank you for at least mentioning Fanny and Freddy. In second comment. Your previous comment mentioned none. Which is the point of my original comment that you decided to take issue with.
Michael
I don’t recall you commenting on sub-prime in our discusion. I feel it is a major issue. It brings in Acorn and corrumption in Congress. As well as Obama