So, I listened to the swearing in, and I heard Roberts say in the second line…

”...that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully….”

per the US Constitution, the oath actually is,

”...that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States…”

Now the SECOND I heard what Roberts said, I thought “that’s not right is it?” And I was wondering if I had it wrong in my head or what. Then Obama kind of froze, and Roberts kind of re-iterated it in a more accurate way, then Obama recited it correctly.

Then the person on the radio interjected something about “that’s how it’s worded in the Constitution, so he had to restate it…” or something to that effect, that’s the impression I got anyway. So to my mind, no controversy.

Well then I read an online newspaper story, and in the comments, the right wingers were just all up in arms about Obama flubbing his Oath of Office, and I’m like, WAIT a minute…Obama didn’t really flub anything. As I see it, Obama was almost certainly practicing the oath in his head for weeks. Then what he was ready to say, what he heard in his head, didn’t match what Roberts said and there was a disconnect, just like there was a disconnect for me when I heard Roberts say it wrong.

But the right wingers are already determined to make hay out of it, even feigning shock that the liberals are trying to “blame” Roberts for Obama screwing up.

So, as much as I’d like to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt, given the tone of those who are loyal to the Bush regime to the bitter end, I have to wonder if he did that on purpose just to stir the pot. I mean, the guy doesn’t flub his lines when he’s reading Court decisions. And he’s a very loyal Bush partisan. Could that be one last parting shot that the Bushies got in, one last little immature way to get whatever satisfaction they can?

I wouldn’t even consider this, except for how Bush treated dissent during his reign, and because I had heard stories, and I don’t know if they’re true but I wouldn’t doubt it. The story goes that when Bush took over for Clinton, they actually intentionally damaged some cosmetic things in the Oval Office and then took pictures and blamed it on Clinton to make Clinton look bad. Would it be that far of a stretch for them to want to make Obama look bad…maybe not in a way that would undermine his entire Presidency, but in a way that would “scratch the paint”.

What do you think about the whole deal? And can you even believe that after the last 8 years, this election, and Obama’s speech that people are even focusing on something like this? That THIS of all things is what the neo-cons are going to hang their hats on? Is there NOTHING of substance a conservative could legitimately disagree with Obama on?

Topics: politics, speaking, idiotic, President Obama, silliness