Really? Who counted twice, FDR (who served long enough for two), Cleveland (who served twice), or Taft (who weighed enough for two)? :uhh:
Presumably you aren't president until you have taken the oath, but ex-presidents keep the title, so Cleveland on his second term was the only 'president' to swear it.
(incumbents don't re-swear for a second term do they?)
Why do you ask?
In the way that presidencies are counted Grover Cleveland is counted as 22 and 24 because of his discontiguous terms of office. While they call Obama 44, really he is but the 43rd unique individual to assume the office.
Apparently the president is the third highest paid federal employee - anyone guess what the two higher ones are?
(if you work for a US university - you will know)
Navy football coach?
Ah yes, didn't think of that.
I'm excited about the whole "restore science to its rightful place" thing.
Also, it's refreshing that he acknowledges us non–believers.
Airforce and Army - the Navy guy is paid even more but it's a private donation !
Words I wanted to hear.
Thank you and congratulations President Obama.
But he didn't say that... he said that he was the 44th American to swear the oath. Not that there were 44 oaths sworn (which may or may not be true), not that he was the 44th president.
Just a little pedantry I thought I'd bring up since I haven't seen it elsewhere.
I like this version because it includes Roberts screw up of the oath. And Obama knew the difference.
You'd think that with the Chief Justice having such little occasion to speak publicly outside the Court, that he could manage not to screw it up.
The first 7 presients weren't American - they were born in a British colony.
Always dangerous around here
Appears he has his eye on the right ball with these statements. Cost, cost, cost; then coverage.
They were American, just not born in the USA.
Just in case there are any people here who are interested in over-analysing obscure technical points - this article describes Biden's brief stint as president today:
Quickly chasing obscurity before it gets away - Sorry I don't think VP Joe had his two minutes. As alluded to in the very last paragraph of your link, I think the technical legal reality is that the US actually has NO President for those couple of minutes. Accession to the office requires some 'controlling legal authority' to take direct action, in this case by means of someone taking the oath as specified in Art II, Sec 1. No one did until 44 stepped up. Same goes for Johnson after Kennedy's assassination, and hence the urgency of swearing him in on the plane back to Washington.
I believe it must have been that concern that motivated Al Haig to rush to the reporters to inform them he was in charge when Reagan was shot and Bush hadn't been rounded up as backup. Never mind that he wasn't next after the VP in succession.
His speech was certainly on the positive note. He uses kind of a selective history and interpretation of it in efforts to be a good speech giver and to inspire people. I'm not saying it is a bad thing. Someone once taught me that every person, can be viewed in two lights. In one light they will be offensive and in another they will be respectable and inspiring. They told me that it is best for a person to choose to view others in the light which is least hurtful to yourself. This is how Obama would have us view America. I'm not sure I like this idea though, because as long as you keep exposing only the positive light, the longer the negative light can go un-noticed and not dealt with. I'm still waiting for Obama to be a little more realistic and down to earth. But, who knows, maybe he will just plain inspire us into a better county. I hope he is successful, but I'm not buying it until the rubber hits the road.
Care to give any specific examples from the speech that struck you that way?
Inspire us? He's placed responsibility on citizens; not to wait around for inspiration or to depend on the President to be successful.
I could mention all the same aspects and historical events he mentioned and make it sound like a hate speech if I wanted.
For example, he could have said. This is a country founded by greedy killers who ravaged the land, decimated the Natives resources and killed off or forced them into camps. Then they went on to build a lush empire out of slave labor. Recently going on to seek control over world politics out of the interest of enriching corporations. Now we are left with a crippled economy, the result of years of greed and corruption which has become stronger than ever.
Instead he puts a positive twist on it. The slaves endured the whip so that we could have a better life. Or, the slaves endured the whip to not get hanged. Obviously he isn't trying to inspire hate, and that is good. By down to earth I mean, to be a little more in the middle, and to include the negative with the good light.
That's not just another take, as a general history it is by and large not true. American natives were mostly killed by disease not Euros; most of the US 19th-20th century wealth came from industrialization, invention and rampant productivity gains, not southern agrarian slave economies, etc.
I don't see it as a positive twist. These things all happened, terrible and grand, the speech mentions both, but the US is here because as a whole those who went before did not quit. The speech emphasizes: what are actions are we to take now, going forward, given that we have inherited this country?
I'm starting to feel as though I have gone a bit far from my original feeling to try and explain it. I don't have that view of the country, that just represents what a completely negative speech would sound like. I was using it as a way to make a contrast between shedding positive light on something vs. negative light.
Also, I don't mean to badmouth his choice of words or tone. What else would be appropriate. I think the speech was brilliant, and made a lot of people feel good. I just have a hard time with things that sound to good to be true. He strings together words of inspiration and hope, and makes people believe anything is possible. Maybe that is a good thing to have people believe. I'm siting wondering if people have gotten so caught up in the moment, including Obama, and have forgotten a little bit about how hard it is to take on these issues. It isn't easy going up against the health care industry, it isn't easy going up against big banks. It isn't easy going up against military officials and generals, it isn't easy going up against intelligence agencies. To me Obamas promises still represent the near impossible, and I refuse to believe in talk and hype until it happens. I'll grant that with so many democrats in the senate and in congress, he will have an advantage in accomplishing things. But corporate infiltration of our government is bipartisan. To accept that Obama will be successful requires the acceptance that congress change it's ways, or that somehow corrupt members of both parties get weeded out somehow. It hasn't been the case that it is easy to deal with the problem. The problem is people in government who have dual loyalty. People who put corporate interests before national interests, they are the true cause of these issues. If Obama is to be successful, I expect to see many people go to jail, and many people to be indicted.
I'm not sure what you mean. He didn't go out of his way to encourage a positive view of the last several years:
"We will restore science to its rightful place...." - Who removed it from its rightful place?
"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." - Who provided the false choice?
"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. " - And in our generation (or at least in the last few years), we forgot that?
"It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break..." - A reminder of how people survived in spite of a botched disaster response.
You could probably find a few other passages in there if you were intent on finding more, but those were pretty blatant reminders of the Bush administration's shortcomings.
(By the way, the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union fell only around 20 years ago. Am I already an earlier generation? )
Separate names with a comma.