FOT Forum

FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: yesno on January 21, 2009, 09:36:39 AM

Title: Oath flub
Post by: yesno on January 21, 2009, 09:36:39 AM

Just listening to last night's show and the discussion of the oath flub.

* Obama interrupted Roberts, which threw him off his game I suspect.

* Roberts was saying the wrong words, which Obama didn't repeat.  This confused Roberts.  They eventually sorted it out.

Verdict:  Roberts messed up, though Obama's failure to repeat what Roberts was (incorrectly) saying made some think Obama was messing up.  But, Obama shouldn't have interrupted.

Bonus screwup:  Roberts called Obama "Senator Obama."  (1) Obama became President at exactly 12 noon.  Amendment 20.  The oath is merely necessary for the President to "enter on the Execution of his Office."  Art. II. (2) Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt on that, since many people (even Supreme Court justices) believe that the President doesn't become President until taking the oath, he had resigned from the Senate back in November.  However, some think it's appropriate to continue to refer to a former Senator as "Senator" for life, just as we do with Presidents.  I think both are inappropriate.  It should be "Mr. Bush" and "Mr. Clinton" once they leave office.  It's not a title.  But maybe he gets the benefit of the doubt on that, too.

Title: Re: Oath flub
Post by: cutout on January 21, 2009, 11:10:05 AM

I've already read on some screechy liberal blogs that Roberts did it on purpose to ruin Obama's historic day. Way to reinforce the stereotypes, guys.

Title: Re: Oath flub
Post by: Chris L on January 21, 2009, 11:10:41 AM

Thanks to the proliferation of celebrity couple nicknames, we can just call the two of them Robama when discussing this oath flub.  Or if you prefer titles, Presustice Robama.  

Title: Re: Oath flub
Post by: yesno on January 21, 2009, 11:17:32 AM

Quote from: cutout on January 21, 2009, 11:10:05 AM

I've already read on some screechy liberal blogs that Roberts did it on purpose to ruin Obama's historic day. Way to reinforce the stereotypes, guys.

And Drudge first had a little headline that said "Obama flubs" or something before changing it.

I have to hand it to him, I've never seen Drudge correct an inaccuracy so quickly before.

ps:  Why have I punished myself by reading Drudge for so many years?

Title: Re: Oath flub
Post by: cutout on January 21, 2009, 11:51:54 AM

Whenever my mom comes to visit, she invariably uses my computer for something and later on I'll see 'www.drudgereport.com' in the Firefox history bar. Hard to bite my tongue. Then again after I visit her, she probably sees stuff like hotchickswithdouchebags and headsethotties.com in her history bar, so I guess we're even.

Speaking of Drudge, I couldn't decide if this 37 signals post was an actual troll or not -

http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1407-why-the-drudge-report-is-one-of-the-best-designed-sites-on-the-web

Title: Re: Oath flub
Post by: JonFromMaplewood on January 22, 2009, 09:05:36 AM

Steven Pinker op-ed about the flub...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?_r=1&hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?_r=1&hp)

Title: Re: Oath flub
Post by: Bryan on January 22, 2009, 10:10:36 AM

Quote from: JonFromMaplewood on January 22, 2009, 09:05:36 AM

Steven Pinker op-ed about the flub...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?_r=1&hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?_r=1&hp)

Goddamn, it's glorious when grammar makes national news.