Is The Interregnum Too Long?

There seems to be somewhat of a vacuum of leadership between the time the US president is elected and the time he finally takes office. This has been amplified this time around by the financial crisis and by Bush's extreme unpopularity, rendering him bereft of any political capital (even less than other lame duck presidents.)

All this has me wondering if the interregnum is too long. I did a little research, and it seems that other countries have much shorter interregnums. President Sarkozy of France took office ten days after being elected. Recently in New Zealand, John Key, leader of the wining party in last month's election, was sworn is as prime minister 11 days after last month's election. Although, it might be that given New Zealand has a parliamentary system of government, Key, being the leader of the opposition, was more apprised of day-to-day operations of the government than he would have been in a presidential system.

Curtailing the interregnum would not necessarily mean curtailing the transition period. After the president succeeds to the office, the preceding president and his staff could remain in Washington for some time to aid in the transition process. An incoming president immediately taking power needn't cause chaos. If he didn't yet have the operational knowledge of governing, he could simply defer to the preceding president on those troublesome areas.

Texas: a swing state?

In the 2008 presidential election, McCain won Texas by a margin of about 11.7%. Obama won New Mexico by a margin of 14.7%. If NM is considered to be a swing state, then why not TX? Given its increasing Hispanic population, I would bet that by 2012, Texas will be in play.