Favorably
Unfavorably
Mixed Opinion
Who would be your choice for secstate then?Originally Posted by astralis
I've voted favorably after reading cabinet's biographies. Choice of SecDoD has the aroma of political realism while choice of Secstate has not . In politics everything is valued and evaluated from the fact of final result and not from the expectations of a country citizens. Obama has to prove and show that he is not a "prefab" President. His respect to the International Law should be a paramount by avoiding to maintain his predecessor's mode of doing business.
All this reading of the tea leaves is just a bunch o' crap. It signifies nothing, because the guy setting the policy is a complete neophyte, but an egomaniac.
So, although he's not qualified to lead a squad of postal clerks, he's going to be the chief executive of the world's only hyper-power, without any discernment to let himself know he's in WAY over his head.
And just like everytime a Soviet 'leader' died from a 'cold', everybody in the West found some reason to hope that THIS new guy, FINALLY, was a reasonable man, and not a thuggish killer like all that came before him, and which the very system that produced him presupposes. And WHY did everybody think that? For two reasons: liberals always opt for hope and wishful thinking over historical experience and empirical evidence, and because THIS guy likes American jazz, or he can order in French, or he briefly entertained the notion that not every Jewish emigre' should be instantly liquidated.
And now here we are going through the same 'analysis' of Carter's second term before it's even started, and we're finding the same 'hope' in meaningless departmental managerial appointments and everybody's ready to declare him fit for the office, which he's not.
There's only one thing that's important about ANY of these appointments: who their boss is.
Let me give a scenario:
The New Soviet Union has just taken a slap at their next victim in their 'near abroad'. Obama's first crisis is upon us, just as that giant of the international chess board, Joe Biden, predicted, and the Cabinet is assembled.
Obama: Well, guys, I think it's time to get this crisis SOLVED! Let's get some lunch in here, and start figuring out why Vladimir Putin felt he had to lash out like that. Any theories?
Gates: Mr. 'President', I believe it is an attempt to expand influence in the region, demonstrate military power to the other former Soviet vassals and thereby cow them into a new Finlandization, and to arrest the expansion of NATO any further eastward. Classic power play; and an obvious attempt to test YOU and your willingness to confront a challenge.
Jones: Concur. As former NATO honcho, I can assert with absolute confidence that this move was precisely and cold-bloodedly calculated to put the US into a position of making a binary choice: we either stand by an ally and risk shattering what Putin knows you value - US/Russian cooperation - or we acquiesce in this breach of established international order and sovereign integrity.
Clinton: Well, I think there may be nuances here that these two hawks simply can't appreciate, like the strong feeling of ANY Russian that they're being encircled and menaced by their neighbors. I think we should entertain the idea that we can split the difference with Putin, and allow a PART of a sovereign country to be seized by Russian armor, while putting up a brave front of sternly cancelling Aeroflot flights into JFK and demanding that, as soon as the Russians reach a major river in the invaded country, they have to halt their tanks. That's how me and Bill would've handled it, if I'd shellacked you in the primary like SHOULD have happened.
Jones and Gates look at each other, shaking their heads and rolling their eyes.
Obama: Well, it's almost Valentine's Day, and I think it would be a magnanimous gesture on our part if we sent Putin a nice card, some token of our concern about the danger this puts the US/Russian relationship in, while simultaneously expressing the idea that we see his point of view in the matter, but we're still kinda sad he decided to go this way, instead of talking it all out before going straight to the massive invasion right away, without even telling us and giving us a chance to help him with what's obviously troubling him.
Gates: Mr. 'President'! I rather think we should be sending carrier battlegroups to Putin, and not gifts and cards!
Jones: Concur. If we meet a Russion provocation like this with strength, we may not have a second crisis, and the sooner we act, the less time Putin has to consolidate this move, and make it permanent. Recommend an order for the XVIIIth Airborne Corps to prepare for movement and for STRATCOM to order the recall of all personnel and for strategic platforms to be placed on alert.
Obama: Are you guys still here? Call me from the Hallmark store, and read the card to me over the phone. I'm taking personal charge of this message to Putin, because it's too important to leave it to Cabinet officers.
THAT is the way it would go down, because Obama is IN CHARGE, and these guys all work for him now. And he's so sure he's the smartest guy in the room that he will make the call - certain to be a BAD call - and these guys will either have to execute Obama's policy, or clean out their desks.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
From America With Love
Why do you think "THAT is the way it would go down, because Obama is IN CHARGE, and these guys all work for him now. And he's so sure he's the smartest guy in the room that he will make the call - certain to be a BAD call"? He hasn't given an indication of being an egomaniac. Why he have all these dissenting voices just so he can dismiss them and make the wrong choice automatically?
bluesman,
given the number of challenges that will be staring in the face of the new president, we will find out soon enough whether that's an accurate prediction.THAT is the way it would go down, because Obama is IN CHARGE, and these guys all work for him now. And he's so sure he's the smartest guy in the room that he will make the call - certain to be a BAD call - and these guys will either have to execute Obama's policy, or clean out their desks.
although i have to say, that's the first time i've heard positions such as SECDEF and SECSTATE "meaningless departmental managerial appointments". isn't this another "tails i win, heads you lose?" given that obama has not appointed raging liberals to major positions in his administration, the response is "these positions are worthless anyway"?
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
Well "O" did say he would talk his way out of problems.
Honestly, what power do they hold? They're advisors and managers. They carry out the Prez's orders. He doesn't have to listen to a word they say.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
confed,
what obama has said on the subject of diplomacy doesn't differ that much from SECDEF gates, which is that diplomacy is a tool underutilized and a very important part of national power. in fact, if you look at what gates said after russia's foolhardy georgia venture, it's not exactly close to the words bluesman envisions gates would say. while i certainly wish obama would be a bit more hawkish, there's a big difference between that and saying he'll bend over at every opportunity.Well "O" did say he would talk his way out of problems.
they hold immense power, even more so if the president is a delegating type of leader (like bush). rumsfeld had enormous power as SECDEF- he actually negotiated with the combatant commander on the number of troops to send to iraq. gates has enormous power now, undoing much of the focus of rumsfeld.Honestly, what power do they hold? They're advisors and managers. They carry out the Prez's orders. He doesn't have to listen to a word they say.
similarly, SECSTATE powell influenced bush to go through the UN prior to the iraq war, which caused things to run very differently.
the infighting between SECDEF and SECSTATE and national security advisor in the first administration caused executive chaos- SECDEF winning his intra-dept war against state and rice resulted in bush basically giving DoD full ownership of the aftermath of the war, which was not a good idea.
these are not worthless positions. just as the president may tell them what to do, they in turn heavily influence the president and the decisions he makes.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120402863.html
that soft-hearted liberal kissinger on the importance of obama's national security picks.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
I don't understand the Daschle pick.
I figured we wouldn't have to hear from him again once he lost his seat. The fact that his wife is a long time lobbyist seems like it should exclude him from holding any position in gov't.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=40241
Since when did gov't care about the Constitution?(CNSNews.com) - The Senate’s senior member and staunchest constitutional advocate on the Democratic side of the aisle, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is exploring whether Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is eligible to become secretary of state in the Obama administration.
The question of eligibility arises from Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution. It says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a civil office that benefited from a salary increase during the time that House or Senate member served. On Jan. 4, 2008, President Bush signed an executive order raising the salaries of cabinet secretaries from $186,600 to $191,300, a cost of living adjustment.
The Saxbe fix will take care of that.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is to know to not use it in a fruit salad.
regarding the gates choice.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28087336/
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
I have to ask the question. If the Obamanation is about change, why then has he chosen a cabinet filled with the usual suspects of former Cintonistas and members of the current administration, who, according to most liberals, "failed so miserably."
Where is the change and fresh blood in the government as promised?
Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...
The change will be about a change in tone and tenor. Away from partisanship and toward dealing with the country's problems. His Cabinet picks fit nicely into that change-he picks his former rivals, like Clinton, and members of the opposition. Did you see Bush offer a Cabinet position to McCain in 2000? I doubt it even crossed his mind.
As for "fresh blood" he still has to govern, the US is in the middle of several crises, and Cabinet positions are not exactly entry-level jobs. Better to have experienced post-partisans, then inexperienced partisans, don't you think?
Spooky how well you channel Hillary Blues. It was like she was right here talking to us.Good post though, in a scary way, because you're probably right.
IMO the cabinet selection signals the Clinton redux sans the BJs in the oval office(at least not from Monica) plus, if Bill had inherited this financial mess, I doubt if his legacy would have been as favorable. Obama is up against one hell of a mess that regardless of experience, wisdom or dumb luck, he just won't be as successful as his flock expects. I really wish him best of luck.
And just for the record, I don't think ANYONE elected pres this time around had much of a chance to do any better. The problems we face need to be fixed by the people, not the Gov.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: