Obama Cabinet Choices So Far -- Grade A-

ED,  What about Napolitano on immigration?  I've heard from some conservative quarters that she is not so well respected on that issue.

Well that immigration issue is a tricky one.  A lot of conservatives really didn't like McCain on that one either.  Then again, a lot of conservatives are simply delusional when it comes to immigration and what to do about it, so I guess plenty would disagree with me as well.  ;-)

Quite frankly, immigration is a tough nut to crack.  There is no right or wrong answer.  The recession will likely do more to prevent it than any measures we've taken to try to enforce it.  I believe in enforcing and funding border control, but I think the fence is silly beyond words.  I also believe legalizing marijuana would take care of a huge chunk of the drug import problem, and taxes could be used to help bolster our forces at border crossings.

Then, too, I think we need to offer reasonable ways to allow people to work in this country at the same time as we find ways to stop further immigration.  We can't tackle the chore of deproting hundreds of thousands of people at the same time as we try to stop up leaks in our borders.

It's not easy, and the usual attack on McCain as "McAmnesty" is not going to cut it.  Napolitano is a pretty straightforward politician, and has viewed the immigration debate as a complicated one that should be approached with some caution rather than reaction.  She has called for more federal funding for the borders, and in a large way I think that the best thing we can do is simply get more boots on the ground here in the South West.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano

Bad Choice, a real bad choice.  You might as well do away with the border gaurds.

You might as well do away with the border gaurds.

I disagree completely.  That strikes me as rhetoric more than anything.

Wasn't she the first to use National Guard troops on the border?

I really thought he would have had a place for Hagel, but I guess not.. it would have rounded out his bipartisan cabinet a little better. But overall, it looks like a decent lineup. We'll just have to wait and see....

Hagel is far more useful to Obama in the Senate where he ties-up a seat that would otherwise likely go to a less bipartisan Republican. This way, Obama has some allies across the aisle to call upon when he needs bipartisan support.

This is a good circle.  There are opinions to be respected here. 

Great start, now imagine if Hillary got turned loose in the mid-east peace process.  Everybody else,  get busy on the books.

Let's get Richardson involved designing infrastructure corridors for freight, passenger rail, natural gas, etc.

Holden closes Gitmo and begins to tape the constitution back together.

Janet and Gen. Jones put the national guard and returning troops to work on our airports and ports.

President Obama, be visible.  People, get ready.

Hagel is far more useful to Obama in the Senate

Hagel is retiring in January. However, it is rumored that he is in line to become Sec. of Defense once Gates steps down--which would probably be in a couple of years.

Ooooh, thanks for that info, Spotlight, I hadn't heard that juicy gossip. I could see Hagel in that position, I think he would do well and it would speak volumes to have a Republican in that cabinet seat.

Ellie:  My AZ friends are laughing heartily at the Janet pick (b/c of the border). . . but doing a jig too- her leaving puts "a better gov. in place." 

I think that is what is being looked at: Gates for continuity, Hagel to replace Gates. Which I think is a good idea since Hagel served in Vietnam so he knows the military.

Re Gates and Jones

I think its a case of pragmatism over ideology and it makes sense. It also has the added appeal of driving the extreme anti-war left even more nuts than they are at quiescence.

I'm sure they are none too happy at the prospect of his appointing James Jones NSA either, another good choice in my view. I heard an interview with his number 2 from the top Nato spot and the guy had nothing but good things to say about him. Apparently he's a pretty smart cookie.

(And nobody hates Marines more than the anti-war leftists. This just keeps getting better and better.)

Napolitano has the added bonus of producing another Republican governor as her Lieutenant is a Republican.

(And nobody hates Marines more than the anti-war leftists. This just keeps getting better and better.)

Actually, the anti-war leftists hate the Army more. The Marines get respect because they understand and respect that to win an insurgency you actually have to shake a few hands and win a few hearts and minds.

The Army, on the other hand, has plenty of Howitzers and very little patience or nuance.

Of all of the offices of all of the services I've met, I've liked the Marines best for their intellectualism, their toughness and their self-assurance.

Yes they sure showed respect for them at Berkely recently

By that post you have shown more ignorance of the Army than I thought possible. The sweeping generalization of such a huge organization is pretty mind boggling . As if the entire Army can be boiled down to field artillery and as if there were no such things as special forces/special operations that have been doing the sorts of things you mentioned for years. I suggest you read a book or two by Robert Kaplan to avoid such expressions of ignorance in the future. Start with "Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground" (See my page for link I can't get the link function with this version of IE) It covers the small Army and other service anti-terror operations all over the world.

Aw please Wayne, this whole thread is a sweeping generalization, and you don't seem to be coming down on any of those.

Do you deny this is a key doctrinal difference between the Army and the Marines?

As if the entire Army can be boiled down to field artillery and as if there were no such things as special forces/special operations that have been doing the sorts of things you mentioned for years.

Horse@!$%#. That's not what I was trying to do and you know it.

The Army and the Marines Corps are vastly different in size and scope and of course have doctrinal differences. But to imply that the Marines are somehow superior in "making friends and influencing people", as it were, is laughable. Incidentally it was James Jones that recently aligned the Marines COIN/small wars doctrine with the Spec Ops community

Horse@!$%#. That's not what I was trying to do and you know it.

I can only take you at your word and I was only responding to what you wrote. If you want a mind-reader write to Kreskin.

Bill:

I think that is what is being looked at: Gates for continuity, Hagel to replace Gates. Which I think is a good idea since Hagel served in Vietnam so he knows the military.

Given Vietnam was the impetus to change the military what is considered a 180 degree shift from the days before all volunteer, wouldn't Hagel be a good choice simply from the fact that he saw it in its former state and for decades as an all volunteer force? Seems like that would give Hagel a wide experience swath at DoD.

I think everyone's looking at this from the wrong angle. Gates is one of the most experienced national security intellectuals around; he isn't staying on to school Hagel or some such, he staying on to school Obama.  Who has the lesser experience, Gates' replacement, whoever that may be, or Obama himself?

Wayne:

I think everyone's looking at this from the wrong angle.

I was prepared to agree with you... then I read the rest  of your post and am convinced you are looking from the wrong angle.

Gates is one of the most experienced national security intellectuals around;

Yes.

William Cohen under Bill Clinton was also one of the most experienced national security intellectuals around.

he isn't staying on to school Hagel or some such,

Good thing I didn't say that or you'd have me dead to rights. I said he was helping to provide CONTINUITY. Providing stability in an unstable time does not make one a tutor, although I'm sure there are things that Chuck Hagel could probably learn from Bob Gates.

he staying on to school Obama.

Why do you say that with such condescension? He'll be staying on to school Obama if Obama allows him since, as the current President said, the President is the Decider. Knowing Obama's style from working on his campaign, I'm sure he'll talk qith Gates (probably freuently) and solicit his advice to mull it over, but the way you put it it almost seems like you're saying Gates is Aristotle and Obama is Alexander and I don't think that is nearly the dynamic here.

You should also consider that Gates stayed at Texas A&M after several tempting offers and only came back because Don Rumsfeld had so disoriented the Pentagon that only a veteran national security person such as himself could put it back together in functioning order. Rumsfeld's problem was he disassembled an essential clock and then when the time came did not know how to reassemble it in working order. If Gates is staying, he is doing it for the good of the country and not to tutor some presidential candidate that he thinks got in over his head.

Who has the lesser experience, Gates' replacement, whoever that may be, or Obama himself?

Isn't this like the rope question from the other thread? ;-)

Facts are stubborn things. Obama is one of the most inexperienced polticians to win the office in the modern era and the area in which he is the most inexperienced is foreign policy.. While I agree with you about continuity, I still believe the enormity of the job and the stakes involved have a large bearing on Obama's decision to ask Gates to stay on. I'd wager Obama shows a lot more humility in private than he does at pressers. I suspect it is Gates' love of and loyalty to the country more than his affection for Obama (though I'm sure he likes him, he's a likable guy after all) that allowed him to be persuaded to stay on. After all he couldn't wait to leave for that cushy University gig, he even had a countdown clock in his office.

It wasn't condescension, it was realism.

No it wasn't an open ended question. The poiint is no matter who Obama picks for SecDefense, he will have more experience than Obama (or he'd never get confirmed).

Waynester:

While I agree with you about continuity, I still believe the enormity of the job and the stakes involved have a large bearing on Obama's decision to ask Gates to stay on.

Doesn't that part pretty much speak for itself Wayne? If the situation was not dire, even if Obama had asked Gates to stay on Gates would have politely declined and returned to Texas A&M, the job he was so reluctant to leave before Don Rumsfeld made the organizational mistakes that he made.

I'd wager Obama shows a lot more humility in private than he does at pressers.

Again, this reaks of condescension. Since Andrew Jackson, to the victor has gone the spoils. If Obama wasn't effecting humility by keeping Gates on instead of appointing a Democrat head of the DoD that he knew he could control, what was he doing? Being a cocky motherfu*ker by keeping a lifelong servant of this nation where he belonged? Man, talk about a selfish son of a b*tch.

I suspect it is Gates' love of and loyalty to the country more than his affection for Obama (though I'm sure he likes him, he's a likable guy after all) that allowed him to be persuaded to stay on.

I suspect you're right. Look how much damage Rumsfeld had to do to the DoD before Gates would leave private life to serve as Secretary of Defense. Clearly he's there when his country needs him no matter who is on the other end of the phone.

It wasn't condescension, it was realism.

Realism from whose point of view? I doubt that Gates sacrificed a nice, calm life so he could "school" the new president in how it's done. The condescension comes from the language. The last time I heard someone say he was going to school someone else, it was in the art of fighting and his method of schooling him was beating his ass to a bloody pulp. Do you see why your choice of words could engender hostility?

No it wasn't an open ended question. The poiint is no matter who Obama picks for SecDefense, he will have more experience than Obama (or he'd never get confirmed).

There are Democrats that have resumes similar to Gates. The thing is, Gates is a patriot who is being a moderate because his country needs him and I think that's commendable. He's not staying to teach anyone a lesson, he's staying because it's a bad idea to change a horse in midstream when you're fighting two wars and he is the man coordinating them, not the President.

Bill:

The challenge for the US military today is to continue the force transformation to a lighter more mobile force with heavy emphasis on special forces and counterinsurgency (the former of which was begun by Don Rumsfeld) while at the same time maintaining enough traditional weight to meet current treaty demands

How many soldiers are you thinking? I'm curious because I am skeptical of this whole "light footprint" idea in the first place.

Bob Gates understands this and I would prefer to see him stay on indefinitely.

I'm not going to disagree with you, I think everyone would. But I have the feeling when Gates feels that the country is not at great risk he is going to yield his job to another person. Don't you think? While you answer that, think of his Texas A&M job and close attachment to that.

Bill:

Some of that can be offset by canceling or scaling back new weapons platforms with the F-35 and F-22 programs coming to mind immediately.

I suppose that will depend if we want to hurt ourselves or our allies and what is most feasible at budget time given the F-35 is the stripped down F-22 we sell to our allies. You think they'll get the shaft or we'll try to do with the 183 F-22's I read we're fielding now and press remaining F-15 Eagles and F-16's into service?

As for the length of Gates's tenure, keep in mind that he's only been on the job for about two years and I could see him staying on at least until the middle of Obama's term if not the full four years.

I would like to see Gates stay for four years.

Bill is no right winger. 

didnt lee just get a bunch of money from the gov cause he did not send tech to china..

Bill:

Even granting all those points, especially "the situation on the ground," unlike Bush, Obama understands that it's not the Generals' call. It's the President's. We have civilian control here.

Everyone's talking about the Clinton transition but frankly, I think O needs to be more wary of the JFK transition. Kennedy got rolled by the Joint Chiefs and the National Security apparatus in circumstances not altogether unlike the crap being spewed by the Weekly Standard and Victor David Hanson today. Oooooooo. In one case, Scary Scary Fidel Scary; Scary Scary Arab Scary in the other case.

At the first wisp of insubordination I want Obama to pick one of the Pentagon Brass and do to them what Truman did to MacArthur.

Most of the Pentagon brass, save for ret. Gen. Jack Keane and Petraeus, were dead set against Bush's doubling down in Iraq with the "surge".

I remember reading excerpts from Woodward's book on this, and you're right Bill.  The problem was before the surge...

Bill:

I'm talking bottom line here. Even if the Commander-in-Chief is making a ghastly mistake, it's the President's mistake to make, not the Generals.

Nothing Bush has done for the last seven years has deranged me as much as his constant deferral to the Generals as if they were the ultimate authority on matters military. They aren't. One of your Virginia Gentlemen (maybe one of your ancestors?), John Randolph made the case for civilian authority most strongly.

Bill:

Lincoln did great firing McLellen and putting Grant in.

Those lefties you mention had it exactly backwards.

It's true there hasn't been any MacArthuresque insubordination ... yet ...

Bill:

Heck, even early in 1864 Lincoln looked like a sure loser.

Perhaps not so oddly, Fred Barnes (I think, one of those neocon pundits, anyway) has been talking up Petraeus as a possible Repub candidate in 2012.

Ellie:

Hmmmmmmm. I don't want to shoot any messenger, but all Hillary has to do is resign her Senate seat before Obama submits her name to the Senate, which he technically can't do until the afternoon of January 20th at the earliest.

A conversation for another thread/seed; however, as I say, I support Hillary in the role of SoS and I hope her eligibility will not prove to be a problem.   I also hope Bill will mysteriously go mute.

I also hope Bill will mysteriously go mute.

High hopes, Ellie, high hopes...

But Democrats in the past have inveighed against this sleight-of-hand. In the Saxbe case, 10 senators, all Democrats, voted against the ploy on constitutional grounds. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), the only one of them who remains in the Senate, said at the time that the Constitution was explicit and "we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle."

Call it the Hillary Amendment?

Irony art thou name.

I also hope Bill will mysteriously go mute.

High hopes, Ellie, high hopes...

Dream big or don't dream at all, E.D.

I'm just encouraged considering what his choices could have been.  Bill, even if he doesn't go mute, is superior to, say Teresa H. Kerry, in the SoS spousal roll!

"I'm just encouraged considering what his choices could have been.  Bill, even if he doesn't go mute, is superior to, say Teresa H. Kerry, in the SoS spousal roll!"

You get an A+ for that post.  You are so right!

Bill:

One point I think that has been glossed over in the Hillary thing is how deeply and widely she represents women's aspiration worlwide--most, perhaps, in those very places where women are still most cruelly oppressed. She spoke out against the Taliban years before speaking out against the Taliban was cool, for instance.

One point I think that has been glossed over in the Hillary thing is how deeply and widely she represents women's aspiration worlwide--most, perhaps, in those very places where women are still most cruelly oppressed.

How will that result in what benefit to women in Afghanistan, and how has that resulted or been expressed with the aim of helping women in Afghanistan? She has said nothing,  nor did any Democrat offer anything,  regarding the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which guarantee nothing for women.

What has Hillary written that might tell us how she will influence things for the better for women in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere in the Mideast, or in any Muslim country?

She seemed to echo the party cliche that Musharif was the biggest problem in Pakistan, and that Bush failure to understand that by not demanding his removal the reason we couldn't catch Bin Ladin, which seems, in their mind,  the key to ending worldwide Islamic terrorism.

Judge:

You talkin' to me?

I quoted you. But to anyone who looks beyond reasons that might make Hillary a good political choice, and beyond the fact that every Senator and President is sure that he or she understands the world like no other,  I can't recall anything she has written that indicates she has anything special to offer as Secretary of State. It is one of the skill positions, after all, although some SecStates have been used more as diplomatic silverware, and the role superceded by others.

I hesitate to criticize value of the symbol, here, having scaled that wall before,  but I think that and a few thousand afghanis will get you a cup of tea in Afghanistan.

Probably there will be lots of calls for emergency diplomacy in places with no airports or roads. She could be gone for months at a time. 

Which will have Bill owing Obama big time.

Bill Harrison,

re; #7.6

"There is, however, a degree of risk involved if her views do not find favor given her already high profile but I think any turf wars of the like that Bush allowed to go on wouldn't be tolerated by Obama."

Precisely what I was alluding to. Does Obama need a turf war with the Clintons? Payback's a @!$%#. 

Time will tell and hopefully you're correct.  

That was an extremely coherent statement for someone with the blog name 2sheets2thewind!  Thanks for the post.  You are right, short of seeing him fall flat on his arse... nothing will please them.  I think he's off to a great start!  I also loved reading this article and the posts...  The article was well written and the posts were intelligent.  Thanks all.

Thank you Songbird, but it is 3 not 2 sheets to the wind.

Everyone loves my SN.

Most people may think of a drunk sailor but the term comes from when the wind and water would be so dangerous that it could tip over a ship so they would have to put up three sails, or sheets to try to keep the ship steady in dangerous weather.

I'm not a sailor I just like history.

3sheets and Songbird,

Actually, I believe those of us who were most concerned about Obama's lack of experience are at least partially relieved that he is selecting an experienced and moderate cabinet thus far.  Of course, how he chooses to use them -- the marching orders he gives -- could change my opinion. But, if, as Bill posits, the personalities indicate the policy to come, it is encouraging thus far.

Ellie has hit on some of the relief being expressed in my own conservative circles.

When considering the Clinton governance, their political measure is more centrist.  We've speculated that PE Obama is "girding" against the Left pull that will be in congress.  It may or may not matter in the end, but it does give calm some fears as to direction.

GoldenGateMami_Susi you are so right.  He is off to a great start, with good choices.  Put the good choices together with his focus and intensity and I think we are going to see good things happen.  I am hopefully optimistic...

When did Hillary become a liberal?

Really I want to know because her and Bill were always moderates there was nothing liberal about the Clintons.

^^ When did she even become a politician ? After her husband was the last dem president ?

I doubt she's a genuine anything. She's a liberal agenda female token who will say or do anything to pander to that audience.

(Among other things like power lusting shrew, etc)

Then I guess you are ready to be doubly ****** if that is the position given to Richardson. :)

If I had a daughter I would happily do so. She could learn much about organization and government.

Bill:

Lecture RockyRoad. Even if things don't go well, my hypothetical intern daughter learned something (what not to do) did she not?

This, George, is what we call graceful losers, fair-minded, respectful of the office.  It's something you didn't get to see exercised during eight years of Bush-bashing mania.  Observe and learn, my friend. 

Even though we still don't agree with Obama's positions, we recognize he did win the election.  Elections have consequences.  We could imitate what the left did for the last 8 years; but, we are, instead, participating in the process as LOYAL opposition.  Supportive where we can be.

Ellie, I have to call you on your selective memory.

What the electorate heard from Republicans during Bill Clinton's years of economic growth and balanced budgets was 7 years of Whitewater investigations and an impeachment over a blow job.

What the electorate heard from Democrats during George Bush's years of incompetence, budgetary disaster, a war of choice and a tax cut for the wealthy (that never did seem to trickle down) was by and large reasoned disagreement on policy.

While I'm happy that you're determined to be graceful in your loss, that doesn't relieve you of the duty to be truthful for its own sake.

It's usually not too big a challenge to "call me" on my memory; but, I wasn't blogging then, Azz, so not guilty.  Bill wasn't my favorite, but I did NOT shred his reputation the way dems have done to Bush.  Clinton was probably the most influential person in terms of turning me from a disgruntled republican-cum-Perot-voter into a disgruntled-but-gonna-work-from-within-henceforth republican.  The cradle-robbing treachery and subsequent lies of which you speak was appalling to me, to be sure.  But, I went to the wall against my leftie friends (yes, I have many) over Kosovo.  He was absolutely right to do what he did there.

What the electorate heard from Democrats during George Bush's years of incompetence, budgetary disaster, a war of choice and a tax cut for the wealthy (that never did seem to trickle down) was by and large reasoned disagreement on policy.

I'll have to call you out on this statement.  What I heard from democrats was rabid, foaming at the mouth, "Bush is responsible for all the world's evils and Cheney is the devil incarnate."  Eight years of it.  On that, my memory is quite reliable.

You, too, have a duty to be truthful.

Thankfully, it appears from his selections the PE is smarter and will not spend his time or political capital pursuing political vendettas.

But, I went to the wall against my leftie friends (yes, I have many) over Kosovo.  He was absolutely right to do what he did there.

Agreed. The results seem to bear out the wisdom of the policy (Minus one Chinese embassy)

What I heard from democrats was rabid, foaming at the mouth, "Bush is responsible for all the world's evils and Cheney is the devil incarnate."

While I heard these sorts of claims from the extreme ends, you always do. By and large people are giving the man considered by many to be the worst President ever a pass. IMO an impeachment proceeding based on the proven lies he used to start the second Iraq war are FAR more justified than an impeachment proceeding based on lying about a blow job.

My point is that IMO the rabid condemnation is far more justified for Bush than for Clinton.

You, too, have a duty to be truthful.

I do try.

Thankfully, it appears from his selections the PE is smarter and will not spend his time or political capital pursuing political vendettas.

Agreed.

Chris:

Actually, there is. How do you think previous transitions occurred? Congress created and appropriates money for that office. And, technically, it's a Constitutional position since it is referred to in the XXth Amendment.

Anything else I can assist you with?

I know how transitions work.... but there is not a "PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION OFFICE", is there?

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 does not outline any details about the creation of an official government entity entitled “The Office of the President-Elect”.

The PRESIDENT-ELECT is not an elected office (such as the office of the President) or an administrative unit of government, such as the Office of the Comptroller of Currency or the Office of Management and Budget.  The “President-elect” is just the person who has been elected to, but does not yet occupy, the office of the President. 

In fact, the act specifically says:

“The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2.”

So, while Obama is doing his very best to make it look like it’s an official government entity, it is not.

No assistance needed, thanks!

Chris:

Yeah, of course. The top guy in one office is "The President of the United States" and the top guy in the other office is "The President Elect."

The PRESIDENT-ELECT is not an elected office

What does that have to do with anything? "Football coach of the University of Alabama" isn't an elected position either. You wanna tell Lou Saban he's not the king of all he surveys down there in SEC country?

jazz:

Could you lower your voice? Rosie O'Donnell's new show is on and I'm trying to watch.

LIZA!!

Jazz, it's Thanksgiving dude.

Bill,

Even more reason to remember the powerful wrath of, and then be thankful for the mercy of,  God.

Happy Thanksgiving Brother!!!

jazzman:

So did God bless the Assyrians and all the victors that came before the Israelites since you refuse to take Bill's hint and unlock your jaws to let this bone go? I'm a Catholic but your tone simply makes me want to debate you because you are so absolutely certain you're right... it's not like you read God's Word, it's like you ARE God.

Bill:

Indeed, it takes time and patience to obtain an archbishopric, not fervor. ;-)

Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
The Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Alice: I don't much care where.
The Cat: Then it doesn't much matter which way you go.
Alice: …so long as I get somewhere.
The Cat: Oh, you're sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.

Perhaps you did!

Good thing I gave up shaving...

The Right was expecting William Ayers to be named as Secretary of Blowin' Things Up Real Good.  Some are disappointed. 

It is all about expectation versus reality, isn't it schnoo?  The left was expecting a new post of Secretary of Putting Halliburton and Big Oil out of Business.  Reality creeps in. No more voting 'present'.  Now he must actually govern.  So far, so good.  But, as many have pointed out, he's not even in office yet.  Vigilance.

Sure seems like Obama's governing already.  Although that Office of the President-Elect podium sign cracks me up every time I see it.

Palin could be assigned to keep an eye on Russia.  She's had plenty of practice. 

He's not really even the President-elect yet. (not till Dec 15th)He could correctly be called the presumptive President-elect.

Office of the Presumptive President Elect of the United State (OPPETUS)....LOL