The President G W Bush (not its not Jr. his father was G H W Bush and hence not Sr.) could still use the directive to act in case of an "Emergency" the emergancy might very well be some sort of war condition in Iraq or anything else GW Bush decides is a threat to the USA -- possibly including voting illregularities due to the electronic-voting machines.
Remember Obama is not elected president yet.
He won't be until the Electorial College meets and elects him. Until then electorial votes can still be changed in some cases since they are not all bound to vote the way the districts in the states have voted.
Is that wishful thinking on your part? Obama is our president elect, and that in itself is a promising fact, especially compared to our current commander in chief. Transparency is something I believe Obama will be very comfortable with, and who knows, maybe if we give Dennis Kucinich a listen, it will help send Bush/Cheney and fellow cronies to the Hague, The Netherlands, facing charges as the war criminals they are, besides impeachment. Whatever it is they did, and did not, is known all over the world anyway.
Another problem cited by critics is the possibility of "faithless electors" who defect from the candidate to whom they are pledged. Most recently, in 1976, a Republican elector in the state of Washington cast his vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the Republican presidential candidate. Earlier, in 1972, a Republican elector in Virginia deserted Nixon to vote for the Libertarian party candidate. And in 1968, Nixon lost another Virginia elector, who bolted to George Wallace.
some states have passed laws that say an elector should vote as pleged but they still aren't necessarlly required to do it
The origionall intent seems to be similar to a parlement system where the ministers elect a prime minister --- since it seemed that individual states would loose power in popular votes and because they didn't want the legislators to choose the president (seperation of powers) they chose the electoral college system.
Additionally later the house of representatives limited in size to 435 that should have never really happened and when it did the number of electors in the electoral college should have been adjusted to the original formula used for representatives Instead of the re-apportioning
He can't do everything. He sold us all a dream. He'll be better than bush 41 and 43. Better than Clinton, Regan and Carter. But for him to meet his expectations he must be better than Roosevelt, Teddy and Frankling, Lincoln and Kennedy.
Two of those guys were assassinated.
Be realistic. That's all I'm saying. He could be our best president in 30 years and for some people that still wouldn't be enough.
The fact that Bush is already pissed off at him for being open about what went on between the two of them when Obama met Bush at the White House was a big sign to me that he planned on being open with the public about what is going on.
That is where you are wrong since it states right on his web page
"Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will reverse President Bush's policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective."
Then THIS article was about 60 groups jumping on the bandwagon and agreeing with the plan Obama has advocated for months during the campaign.
It does not make it any more right just because it did not mention something that was well documented already.
Since Obama has the support of these 60 groups it would make a lot more sense to follow through with that plan than just forget it because any power he tried to use with it would be offset with a loss of power from the withdrawal of support from those groups.
"More than sixty groups call for revocation of presidential secrecy directive"
Kind of a misleading title on this, no? Obama never stated he "could" or would do this. This article is about the sixty groups calling on him to do the right thing. It sure will be a test to see if he does it as it will hold his administration to the same standards. He is coming into office with the most power ever held by a president of this country. Let's see how far he really goes to give it all up once he has it.
and NO ONE should give Obama any credit for ANYTHING yet. He hasn't done anything yet.
He needs to earn credit and trust.
If anything, I am going to be far more critical of Obama than I was for the lost-cause of Bush. You couldn't expect anything good from Bush, but it seems Obama might be on a good preparatory path to change.