Thanks for all the responses to Monday’s “How Obama Undermined the Incoming President,” which examined an excerpt from Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book BALL OF COLLUSION. In breaking news Monday evening, Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation into the FBI’s abuse of the FISA law in its “Trump/Russia” probe is now complete, so McCarthy’s book will make great reading until we see the report, likely a couple of weeks from now.
Along with some great reader comments, we’ve also received a few sharp questions (besides the expected and understandable “when are all these traitors going to prison??”). Here are a few examples...
RELATED READING: John Solomon's list: let the declassification begin!
When a President is elected, why does it take so long to actually enter the Oval Office as President? I believe it should take no longer than one week.
Please explain. Thank you.
From the Gov:
Great question. Ten weeks does seem like a long time, and it gives the political opposition plenty of opportunities for sabotage. Recall my true story of having the door to my new office in the Arkansas State Capitol literally NAILED SHUT before I moved in. Come to think of it, though, that might have taken only a few minutes of determined pounding!
Democrats typically get really, really upset when they have to give up power. Bill Clinton’s childish staff had time to vandalize their offices before George W. Bush's bewildered staffers came in. The Clinton administration pointedly refused to release the transition office funds and workspace to President-elect Bush until all litigation around the contested election was resolved. This made it impossible for the new administration to hit the ground running as they should have been able to do. Needless to say, 9/11 happened not long afterward, illustrating the wrongheadedness of playing such petty games.
To me, sabotage of the incoming administration is the ultimate show of disregard for the electorate. Of course, what Obama’s team did to undermine incoming President Donald Trump was by far the most serious example of this we’ve seen in our lifetimes.
So, considering all the adverse things that can happen during the transition period, why is it so long? After all, in Britain, when a new Prime Minister is chosen, the turnover of his or her office happens right away. But in America, this period is deemed necessary to make sure the transfer of power on Inauguration Day is (theoretically) smooth, and it’s set by the Constitution.
In the early days of our nation, the transition lasted even longer. Between George Washington’s election and his swearing-in on March 4 (!), five months transpired. Of course, there were other considerations back then, such as tediously slow, dangerous, weather-impacted travel and the delayed spread of news. As North-South tensions escalated in the winter of 1861, Abraham Lincoln was still waiting to be sworn in! “Lame duck” James Buchanan failed to address the conflict. Fort Sumter was fired upon in April, just a month after Lincoln was inaugurated; perhaps if he’d gotten into office sooner, he could have averted the violence and even the Civil War. (That’s some wild speculation, but it’s the kind of “what if?” that Quentin Tarantino would make a movie about.)
Still, this is the way it was until the 20th Amendment changed it, and FDR was the first to be inaugurated on January 20.
Since the federal government is so huge (exponentially more enormous than it was in Lincoln’s or even FDR’s day), the transition is now huge as well. Hundreds of appointments have to be made; many of these will have to be confirmed by the Senate. Staffers have to be hired. Office doors have to be nailed shut (ha). The President-elect must be briefed on highly classified national security issues, personal security and much more.
Still, ten weeks would seem like more than enough time to get it together, yet we always hear (albeit from the other party) about the “chaos” of the transition. But now you see why it takes as long as it does. If we want to change it again, we’ll need another Constitutional amendment.
From Laura G:
Governor, please tell me how to get my Democratic friends to listen, stop watching the basic news, and read a book like this [BALL OF COLLUSION]?? Will they ever change??
From the Gov:
Democrat party faithful will avoid BALL OF COLLUSION at all costs. And, of course, the mainstream media will continue to avoid reporting on this until they just have to, and by then they’ll have the excuses crafted. The best thing you can do as a friend is become well informed yourself. When your friends say something outrageously wrong about Trump, Barr, etc., just nicely and assuredly tell them you’ve done some research and that what they said is not correct. (When you think about it, they should be GLAD it’s not correct --- GLAD the President of the United States is not a Russian agent after all! But they won’t be.) Have the answers if they ask questions, and if you don’t know, do some research and respond later with facts. Don't let it turn personal, and don’t be drawn into an argument. You might actually have some persuasive effect, though I wouldn't expect anyone to admit it.
Of course, with your more open-minded friends, you can always try humor. (Caution: humor does not work with hard-core leftists!) Our writer/researcher Laura Ainsworth has written and recorded a great song parody of “American Pie” (“AMERICAN SPIES”) that summarizes the whole Obama FBI scandal as we know it so far. Conservatives will love it. Trump-haters will ridicule it --- though it says nothing about Trump --- but the lyrics make the story easy to understand for those with an open mind who just don’t know much about it yet. Here’s a link to the music video...
While Mr. McCarthy's book may be good (I have not read it yet), the people that I know on the other side will never read the book or if they do read parts of it, they will never change their views or minds. This is just the reality of what the "news media" has created.
From the Gov:
Thanks for writing, Barry. It’s frustrating –- many would never, ever change their longstanding biases favoring President Obama, not even if there were videos, sworn documents and multiple firsthand accounts of him directing every move of both the “Mid-Year Exam” and “Crossfire Hurricane.” They would still believe his ludicrous assertion that his administration was “scandal free.” In keeping with that, they would have to disbelieve anyone who dared to reveal wrongdoing and find creative ways to dismiss the evidence. It’s the thoughtful people in the middle –- the ones who decide elections –- who will want to know what really happened. This book will tell them.
We’ve talked before about the wisdom of bias and persuasion expert Scott Adams (creator of “Dilbert”). This recent blog post can help you understand how confirmation bias causes many people to cling to a version of Trump that is far from the truth. And you’re right, it won’t change for those who thrive on hating him.