Bush the Lame Duck

[bascule]

Any speculations as to what Bush is going to do in his remaining months?

[iNow]

Beer pong.

[Pangloss]

Sign the new stimulus package being put forth by Pelosi and Reid.

[iNow]

He'll likely be pushing through a significant amount of deregulations as well:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749.html

The White House is working to enact an array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

 

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift existing constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

 

A related regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks.

 

A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations.

 

These rules "will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come, unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour abuses," said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

[Pangloss]

Interesting.

 

I would assume a slew of pardons on January 19th as well.

[bascule]

I'll be curious to see if Bush tries to pardon himself

[Pangloss]

I believe that's one of those classic unanswered constitutional questions, isn't it?

 

That would be interesting.

[bascule]

I believe that's one of those classic unanswered constitutional questions, isn't it?

 

Yes, it's never happened before, and were it to happen I'm sure it would result in quite the drawn out legal battle.

[ParanoiA]

If I was him I'd hang out in the oval office naked and pee on all the furniture.

 

Seriously, you've got be crazy not to "hit it" in the office ya know?

[Severian]

If he really wants to give Obama a hard time, he could invade Iran.

[bascule]

If he really wants to give Obama a hard time, he could invade Iran.

 

Yeah, that certainly worries me, but I'd hope they wouldn't actually consider doing that

[Pangloss]

Pure fear mongering. There's no logical reason to suspect such a thing.

[Riogho]

He's been a lame duck for the past 4 years. So he'll keep on doing what he's been doing.

 

Recordificating our conversations.

[Severian]

Pure fear mongering. There's no logical reason to suspect such a thing.

 

There was no logical reason to suspect he would invade Iraq either.

[bascule]

There was no logical reason to suspect he would invade Iraq either.

 

Bush did a lot of chest thumping about how he was going to invade Iraq

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, that's one of things I used to bring up alot. Bush campaigned on Iraq and dealing with Saddam. In this, there was a logical reason to suspect he would antagonize which would further imply a potential invasion.

[Pangloss]

There was no logical reason to suspect he would invade Iraq either.

 

I disagree. But even then there was at least some indication of his intentions ahead of time, which is not the case here.

[bascule]

I disagree. But even then there was at least some indication of his intentions ahead of time, which is not the case here.

 

Yeah as much as I hate Bush, I can't really foresee him starting a war in his remaining three months in office

[ecoli]

Of course the deregulation measures he's going to pass will be all for the wrong reasons. Consumer protection is at the way bottom of my list of "bad regulation."

[npts2020]

I don't think the generals will let him start another war, look how thin resources are being stretched now.

[bascule]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15530.html

 

I've seen quite a bit of bluster lately about potential "midnight regulations" Bush might pass not being easily reversible. However, it appears Clinton-era regulations prevent that from being the case.

 

The Bush Administration planned on finalizing all regulations by November 1st, however they did not take into account the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which states that any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. This affects all legislation finalized by October 3rd. The review is filibuster-proof, so a simple party line vote is all that's needed to overturn them.

[iNow]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/20/bush.environment/index.html

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

- Animals and plants in danger of extinction could lose protection under new rules

- Rules must be published by Friday to take effect before Obama is sworn in

- Bush administration admit intent to complete endangered species changes quickly

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Animals and plants in danger of becoming extinct could lose the protection of government experts who make sure that dams, highways and other projects don't pose a threat, under regulations the Bush administration is set to put in place before President-elect Obama can reverse them.

 

 

If successful, the Bush administration will accomplish through rules what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects.

 

[Mr Skeptic]

This kind of thing is yet more evidence that we are repeatedly electing immature children to be our president, despite the 35 year age requirement.

[Pangloss]

I didn't think I was voting for an immature child at the time. The reason I didn't think so is because any evidence to that effect was obscured by the rampant partisanship that forced open-minded people like myself to view such evidence with a massive grain of salt. The fact that, oh I don't know how about Michael Moore, turned out to be correct is just pot luck and I wasn't about to believe what he said at face value at the time.

 

That's one of the reasons we have to clean up this partisanship and put it behind us.

[iNow]

I didn't think I was voting for an immature child at the time. The reason I didn't think so is because any evidence to that effect was obscured by the rampant partisanship that forced open-minded people like myself to view such evidence with a massive grain of salt. The fact that, oh I don't know how about Michael Moore, turned out to be correct is just pot luck and I wasn't about to believe what he said at face value at the time.

 

That's one of the reasons we have to clean up this partisanship and put it behind us.

 

That's a tremendously interesting point, Pangloss. "It's not my fault I chose wrongly on this issue, it was those evil partisan spinsters distracting me." I think there's valid reason to suggest that the spinsters drive that partisan wedge between us for explicitly that reason. I just am not ready to attribute my own mistakes to the "noise" in the system, but I find the central point you're making to be incredibly thought provoking.