WASHINGTON - It didn't take long for Barack Obama to make the first mistake of his presidency.
In the third sentence of his inaugural speech Tuesday, the newly sworn-in president said, "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."
While there have been 44 presidential administrations, there have been only 43 presidents; Grover Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms in the late 1800s.
No, he was actually correct. David Rice Atchison was sworn in as President on March 4, 1849. Zach Taylor was supposed to, but he refused to do it on a Sunday, so Atchison, who was the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, took it instead.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please. It was WWII that got us out of the depression. No thanks to Roosevelt, who simply made things worse.
While I agree that the New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression and WWII was that impetus, without the New Deal their wouldn't have been anything to save by the time WWII came around. The New Deal did not end the Great Depression, but it did save Capitalism and it did keep America afloat until it could be saved.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, he was actually correct. David Rice Atchison was sworn in as President on March 4, 1849. Zach Taylor was supposed to, but he refused to do it on a Sunday, so Atchison, who was the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, took it instead.
Lisa - thanks for this bit of information. I checked out a few sources and they all agree with this wikipedia entry on Atchison.
quote:Atchison himself never claimed that he was technically President of the United States for one day—Sunday, March 4, 1849. Outgoing President James Polk's term expired on March 4, and his successor, Zachary Taylor, refused to be sworn into office on the sabbath (Sunday). Taylor's Vice Presidential running mate, Millard Fillmore, likewise was not inaugurated. As President pro tempore, and therefore Acting Vice President, under the presidential succession law in place at the time, Atchison was believed by some to be Acting President.[4]
However, while it is alleged that the offices of President and Vice President were vacant, Atchison in fact was not next in line. While the terms of President James K. Polk and Vice President George Mifflin Dallas had expired, Atchison's tenure as President pro tempore had already expired when the Thirtieth Congress adjourned sine die on March 3. He also never took the oath of office. No disability or lack of qualification prevented Taylor and Fillmore from taking office, and as they had been duly certified to take office that day as president-elect and vice president-elect, if Taylor was not president because he had not been sworn in as such, then Atchison, who had not been sworn in either, certainly was not President either.[4]
In fact, it's not really clear just who was in charge for that single day, which makes it an even stranger day.
But it still looks like only 43 individuals have taken the presidential oath.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Initially, I thought you all were talking about Rick Warren's claim that there have been 44 peaceful transitions of power for the US (if I am remembering him correctly, and I may well not be).
That first one? Not so peaceful. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And your degree in economics and or American history is certified by what University Lisa?
sndrake, is that really important? Rules of what makes a good speach dictate that a few trivial embellishments are allowed if it makes for a great speach.
Ron Chiang Kai Shek was a moron, an incompetant who had everything going for him and STILL lost against a force 1/10th the size of his, had no ability to manage a country and was corrupt to the core, he cared more about solidifying his power base then fighting FOREIGN INVADERS and had made public remarks to the affirmative. And why should you care? Would you have opposed it if he had ordered Mao murdered? The United States have had a history of overthrowing governments and subverting democracy when it pleases them after WWII and I haven't ever seen you express a single word of condemnation for when Left leadning governments have been overthrown.
A court decided an act is constitutional and thus striking it down doesn't mean that FDR commited a Unconstitutional Act, it means he tried to pass through an act considered Unconstitutional doesn't mean he did an unconstitutional act. I should also not that a large number of programs the court I believe eventually allowed to pass that were previously ruled uncon. does it still make it uncon?
As for Hawaii hindsight is 20/20 vision Ron, sure NOW we say "that was dumb" but back then? When the States didn't even think the Japanese could fly planes because of "bad vision" due to their slanted eyes? Overconfidence and Bureaucratic obstufication lead to the situation at Pearl Harbour and High Command utter blindness towards the versatility of aircraft carriers completely ignoring Billy Mitchel warnings in 1924. The Allies were utterly incompetant at worst in WWII and only barely competant at best.
And even then, as Bismark sad "God protects fool, drunks, idiots and the United States of America" USA was extremely fortunate that its battleships were neutralized as it FORCED the central role of the carrier into US Naval startegy from then on, while it is true a 3rd wave of Japanese attacks could have neutralized Pearl Harbor for an additional year and a Japanese land invasion could have possible prevented any American pacific action in the pacific in totality the US was extremely fortunate that Pearl Harbour occured and did what it did.
IP: Logged |
posted
Obama did seem to flub his lines when giving his oath of office. But news sources said it was actually the Chief Justice who flubbed the line first. Obama seemed to throw him off when he came in with his repeat of the first statement too soon. Then they kind of threw each other off after that. Perhaps they were both too proud to start over again.
As for being the 44th president, this was stated by other speakers before him, and by the news commentators. No one disputed that George W. Bush was 43rd president.
If you are going to count the number of times someone took the oath of office, there are plenty of factors that you can play with. Should you count the times when an incumbent was re-elected, and took the oath of office again? 16 times presidents have been re-elected to a second term. Should you count when the vice-president had to take over for awhile, because the president was unconscious, in heart surgery, or whatever? I believe that happened during Eisenhower's presidency.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, first transition - from Brits to Continental Congress - not so peaceful.
But the past few weeks, I've been thinking now and then about what was probably the most significant inauguration in the U.S. The fourth one, when Thomas Jefferson became president.
In terms of hostility the "culture wars" are nothing new. At that time, it was Republicans vs. Federalists - and they despised each other. Here's a little bit from Steve Chapman at the Chicago Tribune:
quote:The most important presidential election in American history was the fourth one, in 1800. Not because John Adams lost and Thomas Jefferson won, but because Adams and his Federalist party surrendered control of the White House merely because the processes of constitutional government said they were supposed to. On Inauguration Day, we take this ancient tradition as automatic and unremarkable.
No one was really sure that there would really be a peaceful transition until it actually happened.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
But I can say for everyone here when watching the Inaugeration:
posted
sndrake, how does it still look like there were only 43? Atchison took the oath. That's 44.
Ron, I watched the clip. Roberts left out the word "faithfully", and Obama stopped because Roberts had gotten it wrong. Go and watch it yourself. In the end, Obama put "faithfully" back in, but in the wrong place. It was totally Roberts who screwed it up.
Also, you didn't understand what sndrake said. He didn't say that Obama wasn't the 44th president; he was quibbling about whether he was the 44th American to take the presidential oath of office. He was.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, would you argue as strenuously for it being OK for the President of the United States to order the assassination of the head of state of an ally, if it were Bush doing it?
It appears that FDR was really not opposed to communism, or to fascism. All presidents after him supported Chiang Kai Shek and the Taiwanese government of China-in-Exile which he formed. Perhaps if FDR had been a little more enthusiastic and consistent in his support of Chiang Kai Shek, the communists would not have succeeded in driving him off the mainland.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Lisa, if Obama put in the word "faithfully" in the wrong place, then it was not "totally Roberts" who screwed it up. It was a committee effort. They should have started over again. Now who can say what Obama really swore to?
I was not the one quibbling about whether Obama was actually the 44th to take the oath of office. I did not count it as a flub when Obama said he was the 44th to do so.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Off-topic: 1. My condolences on the world's loss of Harriet McBryde Johnson. I thought of how difficult that time must have been for so many.
2. I've been reading David Hingsburger's daily blog, Chewing the Fat. I bet you already know his voice as a disability rights activist, but if you don't, you might find his stuff interesting. He used to work as a caregiver without a disability himself, but, you know, things change. I found him through Amanda Baggs' blog.
Anyway, nice to see you again.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: They should have started over again. Now who can say what Obama really swore to?
I think that the "screw up" was actually a secret-Muslam athiest plot, crafted by Rev. Jerimiah Wright and the Emperor of Kenya to make it so that it would look like Obama had sworn to uphold the constitution, when really he was swearing to destroy the United States.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush at the least has not ordered any assasinations I can think of, probably one of the few restraints he has done with his powers i can credit him for.
I should have mentioned but forgot to mention that it was the nearly universal opinion at the time that the Soviets were not our enemies and had no intentions to the world wide spreads of communism aka russian neoimperialism or intended to until roughly the time of the Berlin airlift.
I should also point out that history disagrees with you and so do facts FDR was dead at the time of Chiang Kai Sheks complete military route and in fact President Truman had for a time completely gave up and abandoned Chiang Kai Shek to his fate on Taiwan in 1949 only sending the Fleet to the Taiwan straights in the Korean War.
And oh my gods Ron, the United States gave BILLIONS of dollars in Aid, Funds and Military Equipment to Chiang Kai Shek, the United States massively funded and supported the Republican Army, how do you think the Communists did so well? Chaing's own Logistics Corps defected and transferred most of it over! The Communist forces did so well in the Koreanw ar because they had American equipment!
Do you KNOW ANYTHING about the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949? heck the American military advisors even gave GOOD adivce that Chiang completely ignored in his single minded efforts to drive the Chinese Red Army into the Soviet Union.
heck! Even the Soviets didn't help the Chinese Communists they gave alot of land over to Chiang and gave little to no equipment to them the Chinese Red Army amde do almost completely on captured Japanese weapons caches in the countryside that in Chiangs strategy of securing urban centers completely ignored.
This is not an argument you can win Ron I actually read in minute detail this period of Chinese history the reds were better led, better organized, more determined and had more moral then the Republican Army who were cruel, incompetantly lead, corrupt to the core, had Red spies in EVERY level of Command, poorly trained and unmotivated.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: If you play the tape backwards, it sounds like he really said "I can haz cheezburger."
:: nods :: Totally. Obama has secretly been using subliminal messages in LOLcat pictures to steal the election. The secret message encoded backward into his speech is his way of laughing at us!
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Well, Lisa, if Obama put in the word "faithfully" in the wrong place, then it was not "totally Roberts" who screwed it up. It was a committee effort. They should have started over again. Now who can say what Obama really swore to?
I was not the one quibbling about whether Obama was actually the 44th to take the oath of office. I did not count it as a flub when Obama said he was the 44th to do so.
As long as the Supreme Court SAYS he is the 44th President of the United States then he is the President.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: They should have started over again. Now who can say what Obama really swore to?
I think that the "screw up" was actually a secret-Muslam athiest plot, crafted by Rev. Jerimiah Wright and the Emperor of Kenya to make it so that it would look like Obama had sworn to uphold the constitution, when really he was swearing to destroy the United States.
Careful Noemon, men in black are being dispatched to your house as we speak. You've stumbled upon something bigger than you can imagine.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't I win the argument, Blayne? If you are trying to justify FDR's ordering the assassination of the head of state of an ally--which is the issue here--then how can you expect to win? Besides just declaring yourself the winner. You even praised Bush for not ordering any assassinations. Doesn't your inconsistency bother you at all?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
President Obama (I loved typing that!) did leap in earlier than Justice Roberts meant for him to - although there was a pause.
Then Justice Roberts left out the word faithfully and put it at the end of the sentence. Perhaps a grammar thing rather than a mistake? President Obama waited for him to repeat it (possibly because it wasn't what he expected to hear) and then repeated it as Justice Roberts said it with "faithfully" at the end of the sentence.
President Obama said all the words, Ron. I'm reasonably sure he wasn't trying to leave himself a loophole for a coup.
I think they just needed a rehearsal.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the "screw up" was actually a secret-Muslam athiest plot, crafted by Rev. Jerimiah Wright and the Emperor of Kenya to make it so that it would look like Obama had sworn to uphold the constitution, when really he was swearing to destroy the United States.
I smell a cover-up. You left out William Ayers, who is handling the Marxist elements of the conspiracy.
(Is it my imagination, or are we writing stuff we might find written by people who are serious on some of the fringier blogs?)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Careful Noemon, men in black are being dispatched to your house as we speak. You've stumbled upon something bigger than you can imagine.
posted
Not to mention that the actual oath of office is something of a formality. The 20th amendment states that the presidency switches hands at noon on the dot, January 20th. Obama had been president for five minutes already before the flubbathon even began.
Edit: This in response to Blayne's post.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, I would think they did memorize the oath. And Justice Roberts probably had it written in front of him. No excuses. They were both nervous, obviously. How many people were watching and listening? How historic was the moment of the swearing in of the first African-American president?
But come to think of it, if we're going to go down the conspiracy route, wasn't Roberts a George W. Bush appointee?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
watching it again it is not a flubby as it seemed at the time. Still not smooth, but they recovered.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here's the important question with the oath. Does Obama know Chief Justice Roberts so well that he was able to predict that by starting to speak too soon he would throw off Roberts for the next part of the oath thus allowing him to enact his plan? Or is the Chief Justice one of the conspirators as well?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the "screw up" was actually a secret-Muslam athiest plot, crafted by Rev. Jerimiah Wright and the Emperor of Kenya to make it so that it would look like Obama had sworn to uphold the constitution, when really he was swearing to destroy the United States.
I smell a cover-up. You left out William Ayers, who is handling the Marxist elements of the conspiracy.
Actually, despite their nominally being in the same shadow government, William Ayers is the arch nemesis of the Emperor of Kenya. The only thing that may save the republic is the infighting between those two.
quote:(Is it my imagination, or are we writing stuff we might find written by people who are serious on some of the fringier blogs?)
I half expect to see quotes from this thread pop up in some of them. :: laugh ::
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmbboots, I would think they did memorize the oath. And Justice Roberts probably had it written in front of him. No excuses. They were both nervous, obviously. How many people were watching and listening? How historic was the moment of the swearing in of the first African-American president?
But come to think of it, if we're going to go down the conspiracy route, wasn't Roberts a George W. Bush appointee?
They probably did memorize it - that seemed to be part of the problem. Justice Roberts memorized it with "faithfully" in a different place. A rehearsal would have helped with where the pauses would be so the President wouldn't have stepped on the Justice's lines. If Justice Roberts was more practiced, he might have just let it go when President Obama leapt in and then continued without talking over him. And with a rehearsal, they might have noted where "faithfully" went.
But I think that was all honest nerves and lack of rehearsal rather than sinister motives.
I think that the people who get really good at administering oaths are people who do a lot of weddings.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why can't I win the argument, Blayne? If you are trying to justify FDR's ordering the assassination of the head of state of an ally--which is the issue here--then how can you expect to win? Besides just declaring yourself the winner. You even praised Bush for not ordering any assassinations. Doesn't your inconsistency bother you at all?
I am going to give the benefit of the doubt here as I was probably unclear.
I will not delve into whether assasinating Chaing kai Shek was right or not as afterall it didn't happen and I should point out it did not stop futurue presidents democrat or republican from doing so, as such that was after my initial paragraph not what I was referring to or arguing however I AM disputing your comments about the Chinese Civil War and American partiticipation in it.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I hear his alien probe revealed non-human anatomy, too.
!!! I suspected as much, but I never thought that the jackbooted thugs at SETI would allow that information to become public.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
What I am saying is that on a argument on the facts of recent Chinese history between me and you I indisputably know more then you, bias or no bias. To avoid the logical phallacy of appealing to authority I also in the effort to prove this gave the counter argument/facts to counter your remark/argument that was not at all based on historical fact.
Correcting peoples misunderstandings of history is far more important to me then wether some act was morally or ethically justified.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, what I said--which seems to be what you are arguing about--was this: "Perhaps if FDR had been a little more enthusiastic and consistent in his support of Chiang Kai Shek, the communists would not have succeeded in driving him off the mainland." Did you notice the first word in that sentence? Perhaps? You are treating the sentence as if I made an assertion. What I made was a suggestion.
What exactly are you trying to refute?
If you are so motivated to correct misunderstandings of history, then the view of history Democrats propagate must be driving you to distraction.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Off-topic: 1. My condolences on the world's loss of Harriet McBryde Johnson. I thought of how difficult that time must have been for so many.
2. I've been reading David Hingsburger's daily blog, Chewing the Fat. I bet you already know his voice as a disability rights activist, but if you don't, you might find his stuff interesting. He used to work as a caregiver without a disability himself, but, you know, things change. I found him through Amanda Baggs' blog.
Anyway, nice to see you again.
Good to see you, too.
Seeing how we've drifted into alleged assassination orders directed at an Asian ruler over a half-century ago, I don't think there's any danger into going any more off-topic.
Thanks for the condolences, but Harriet and I weren't close. In fact, I decided I wouldn't be able to write about her since I wouldn't be able to do it honestly. Don't mean to be mysterious, but there are some things you just pass on.
I did, however, post something from historian/disability studies scholar Paul Longmore in response to a NY Times "Tribute" to her by Peter Singer - Link here.
(My last entry was a tribute to Ben Franklin in honor of his 303rd birthday.)
I don't read Dave's blog that often, but he's always been a great writer. And he tends to make me look calm and reasonable by comparison.
Lately, I've been reading William Peace's Bad Cripplepretty regularly.
Within a week or two, I should have a second blog up and running - this one a personal neurodiversity blog (tentatively) titled "water on the brain - and lots on my mind." Complete with baby pictures.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Being Canadian I could not care less about what History the Dems propogate.
I am refuting your claims of:
1) That The US did not consistently give aid and support to the Nationalists.
2) That All Presidents gave aid once they retreated to taiwan, this is false aid was only resumed after/during the Korean war.
3) I am also disputing that you inply that the Nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek could have won at all, considering how massively he ****ed it up as we say in the ghetto.
IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I decided I might as well let all my nerdiness, grumpiness and geekiness hang out.
At first I was amused, then annoyed, at the elaborate arrangement of a Shaker tune celebrating simplicity - Simple Gifts.Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like Senators Byrd and Kennedy were taken to the hospital. Kennedy in an ambulance.
Edit. Senator Byrd was taken away ill, but not necessarily to the hospital.
Edit again to update: Looks like Senator Byrd did not go to the hospital and is okay. Senator Kennedy is awake and was able to take a phone call from the President.
posted
Further Evidence of a vast Left Wing Conspiracy That the Communist Pseodo fascists of the Democrats are purging their ranks to make way for the Obama Soviet Dictatorship By willfully WISHING their political opponants to have strokes!
IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of liked the sophisticated arrangement of "Simple Gifts." It was originally an old Shaker tune. I believe the Shakers are all gone now--they did not believe in procreating. Left some fine furniture behind to remember them by--and this song. So they are in no position to object. The same song is also known with different words, "Lord of the Dance." I always wondered what the Shakers thought of that.
It was neat to have Ytzak Perlman and Yo-Yo-Ma playing together. I had not heard of the clarinettist or pianist, but I assume they were well-known too. (Was it a clarinette? I did not get a good look at it.)
Oh Blayne, not to keep beating a dead donkey, but I just have to wonder how whole-heartedly the government of FDR was supporting Chiang Kai Shek if FDR ordered his assassination. After the attempt failed, don't you think Chiang figured out who had tried to off him? That would surely have tended to cool relations with the U.S.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Congrats, guys, on a historic day. Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The British and American governments (and the Soviets via Operation Zet should look it up sometime) gave aid to the Chinese in their fight against their common enemy via the Burma Supply route (and why the Japanese invaded Burma and took Ragoon, to cut off Allied supplies to China) even if FDR did order CKS's assasination he still would have fielded supplies in an effort to further entangle the Japanese in China.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
