Recent political events discussion kept, hopefully, civil

[Flybrick]

While I do want Obama to be a one-term wonder, I do want him to succeed in getting our nation back in a positive direction (so my wants are probably opposed to each other), however, I am interested to read the opinions of those who supported Mr. Obama regarding his choices for his executive team?

I am very surprised by the number of Clinton re-treads. I am curious if this is what you thought he'd do and/or if you think it's a good idea?

I am for an incoming President having the Cabinet and executive branch he wants; he won the election, he should get the picks he wants to carry out that vision. Note, this applies to any future Republican Administrations as well. The fairly recent practice of holding up nominations in the Senate by whomever the opposition party has got to stop. My interpretation of "Advice and consent" is based more on the qualifications of a nominee vs. the political ideology.

I'm surprised by the pick of Daschle - I never thought him particularly effective.

I'm surprised by the Richardson withdrawal. Ooops.

The Treasury pick is an area I'm not smart enough on to know whether he's good or bad.

I'm surprised by the Panetta pick for CIA. What message is there?

I applaud the pick of Gen (ret) Jones for National Security Advisor as well as ADM (ret) Blair for DNI. Not because they were military but because they are incredibly smart, experienced men well-suited for those positions. Not to forget Gen (ret) Shinseki (sp?) for VA Secretary.

Changing gears: I wonder at the Caroline Kennedy Senate drama? I wonder, and here I acknowledge getting snippy, why no outcry over her lack of qualifications for the position? Bit of pot/kettle thing going, I think.

The Blago/Illinois Senate drama - brilliant move on Blago's part. Foul on the US Senate Democratic leadership although I love the farce of seeing Harry Reid trying to play a tough guy. I think he will crumble/cave in very soon. I also think it's a lawful Senate appointment. I don't think Blago should have done it, but that's a separate thread.

Any heartburn with Biden's son being the heir apparent for his seat upon the younger's return from Iraq and his military duty?

Here's to a Happy, calm, peaceful New Year for our country.

[DevilKitty100]

........said the spider to the fly.

[nitrah55]

For the most part, the people he's picked are neither ideologues or eggheads. They are people who have had to do stuff, either as governors, senators, or, in the military. I am not surprised by this, as it's about what Obama was running on- easy on the ideology, heavy on competence.

That Obama pulled some people from the last Democrat administration is neither suprising nor bothersome. Bush 43 pulled a few from Bush 41- and Ford, for that matter.

Panetta? Clearly, he's putting the CIA on notice that the director will run the agency, not the other way around.

No outcry over the Caroline Kennedy drama? You must not read the New York papers. The dozen other people who want the job are doing what they can to trumpet their qualifications- usually by means of surrogates. Gov. Paterson, I think, now regrets not naming someone right off the bat. PS- my prediction is Steve Israel, congressman from Long Island, will get the job.

Two op-eds worth reading today at nytimes.com. One is Maureen Dowd, supporting her friend Caroline Kennedy, and citing the number of incoming senators who are related to other members of Congress. The other is a review of the 17th amendment, which every governor in the US and the Senate ignore in the event of a vacancy in the Senate.

Blago should not have done it. The Senate should take him. This is more about the odds of getting a Democrat elected to the seat two years hence.

The younger Biden will still have to run for the seat. Vox pop.

Hey, if someone appointed me to the Senate, I'd only want to be there two years, tops. Governor, you have my number.

[peacock2121]

........said the spider to the fly.

you bad girl

bad

[Flybrick]

Nitrah, I should have specified here on the Bored vs. the wider world for a Kennedy reaction response. I've read onesy-twosy here, but nothing like the Palin barrage when that was an issue. Wanted to see how it played out here.

Regarding the CIA, the current Director is anything but being run by the Agency. You may be right if that's Obama's message, but I'm not convinced.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Devil Kitty, your point? Am I interested in political discussions? Yes. Do I want this or others to go into personal attacks? No. Am I interested in those that voted for Obama to opine on how things are shaping up? Yes.

Anything nefarious noted?

[earendel]

While I do want Obama to be a one-term wonder, I do want him to succeed in getting our nation back in a positive direction (so my wants are probably opposed to each other), however, I am interested to read the opinions of those who supported Mr. Obama regarding his choices for his executive team?

I am very surprised by the number of Clinton re-treads. I am curious if this is what you thought he'd do and/or if you think it's a good idea?

I know the left-leaning blogosphere is somewhat dismayed at his choices, but in point of fact I don't want a bunch of newcomers trying to do the jobs that need to be done, especially in the matters of the economy and foreign affairs. Face it - no president is going to choose complete unknowns to fill important roles. The left should get over itself.

I'm surprised by the Richardson withdrawal. Ooops.

I'm not surprised at the withdrawal; I'm surprised at the original selection. Surely Obama's transition team knew about the potential long before it hit the media.

I'm surprised by the Panetta pick for CIA. What message is there?

The message, it seems to me, is that it's time for someone to lead the CIA rather than letting the bureacracy run the director. The choices of NSA and Director of DNI indicate that Obama isn't going to ignore the importance of intelligence.

Changing gears: I wonder at the Caroline Kennedy Senate drama? I wonder, and here I acknowledge getting snippy, why no outcry over her lack of qualifications for the position? Bit of pot/kettle thing going, I think.

What qualifications? The Constitution only has an age requirement, so anyone is eligible. She's as qualified as anyone and more than some, it seems to me, because of her involvement in nonprofit organizational leadership. Personally,though, I think that if the NY governor wants a sharp-witted woman to fill the seat, our own Peacock would be an ideal choice.

The Blago/Illinois Senate drama - brilliant move on Blago's part. Foul on the US Senate Democratic leadership although I love the farce of seeing Harry Reid trying to play a tough guy. I think he will crumble/cave in very soon. I also think it's a lawful Senate appointment. I don't think Blago should have done it, but that's a separate thread.

It is indeed a brilliant move on Blago's part - it's no longer about him, it's about race, and that gets him out from the spotlight. NPR had a piece this morning about how Burris' nomination has highlighted a split between the "old guard" among African-Americans and the "next generation".

Any heartburn with Biden's son being the heir apparent for his seat upon the younger's return from Iraq and his military duty?

Only the heartburn that comes from realilzing that although we may not like monarchies or dynastic leadership, we can't seem to avoid it.

[Bob78164]

I am very surprised by the number of Clinton re-treads. I am curious if this is what you thought he'd do and/or if you think it's a good idea?

. . . .

The Blago/Illinois Senate drama - brilliant move on Blago's part. Foul on the US Senate Democratic leadership although I love the farce of seeing Harry Reid trying to play a tough guy. I think he will crumble/cave in very soon. I also think it's a lawful Senate appointment. I don't think Blago should have done it, but that's a separate thread.

Any heartburn with Biden's son being the heir apparent for his seat upon the younger's return from Iraq and his military duty?

I had no idea who Obama would choose for his Cabinet, but I don't have a problem with him selecting people from the Clinton Administration. During those eight years, government more or less worked -- a far cry from the case today. (For example, compare FEMA then to FEMA now.)

I've expressed my opinion earlier on the Burris appointment. I wish that Blagojevich had found the class to resign, but it appears to me that the appointment is legal and Burris is entitled to the seat. If the Senate Democratic Caucus really wants to make a point, it should seat him and then move to expel him while making clear that they will accept anyone appointed by Blagojevich's successor (including Burris), or even Blagojevich himself, if he's not removed from office, without a fuss. Win (which would require some Republican votes) or lose, they'll have made the appropriate political point.

I have no problem at all with Beau Biden getting a shot at the seat. I understand that he's already won statewide office in Delaware, as attorney general, in his own right. And he'd be getting the seat as the result of an election, not an appointment. --Bob

[peacock2121]

Nitrah, I should have specified here on the Bored vs. the wider world for a Kennedy reaction response. I've read onesy-twosy here, but nothing like the Palin barrage when that was an issue. Wanted to see how it played out here.

Regarding the CIA, the current Director is anything but being run by the Agency. You may be right if that's Obama's message, but I'm not convinced.

Regarding Kennedy - why would anyone other than us New Yorkers have anything to say about who gets appointed as our Senator?

I don't think any of us not from Illinois gets to have their opinion matter about Burris either.

I do think the Senate (whoever that is) should have sworn Burris in.

I am not wise enough to know who Obama 'should have' appointed to anything. I can't see into the future to know how said appointments will matter. I do trust my president right up to the point I don't. I am not at that point.

[peacock2121]

oh - you are not in the HoltDad category for me, so I will respond without thinking that you are trying to trap me.

[peacock2121]

While I do want Obama to be a one-term wonder, I do want him to succeed in getting our nation back in a positive direction (so my wants are probably opposed to each other), however, I am interested to read the opinions of those who supported Mr. Obama regarding his choices for his executive team?

I am very surprised by the number of Clinton re-treads. I am curious if this is what you thought he'd do and/or if you think it's a good idea?

I know the left-leaning blogosphere is somewhat dismayed at his choices, but in point of fact I don't want a bunch of newcomers trying to do the jobs that need to be done, especially in the matters of the economy and foreign affairs. Face it - no president is going to choose complete unknowns to fill important roles. The left should get over itself.

I'm surprised by the Richardson withdrawal. Ooops.

I'm not surprised at the withdrawal; I'm surprised at the original selection. Surely Obama's transition team knew about the potential long before it hit the media.

I'm surprised by the Panetta pick for CIA. What message is there?

The message, it seems to me, is that it's time for someone to lead the CIA rather than letting the bureacracy run the director. The choices of NSA and Director of DNI indicate that Obama isn't going to ignore the importance of intelligence.

Changing gears: I wonder at the Caroline Kennedy Senate drama? I wonder, and here I acknowledge getting snippy, why no outcry over her lack of qualifications for the position? Bit of pot/kettle thing going, I think.

What qualifications? The Constitution only has an age requirement, so anyone is eligible. She's as qualified as anyone and more than some, it seems to me, because of her involvement in nonprofit organizational leadership. Personally,though, I think that if the NY governor wants a sharp-witted woman to fill the seat, our own Peacock would be an ideal choice.

The Blago/Illinois Senate drama - brilliant move on Blago's part. Foul on the US Senate Democratic leadership although I love the farce of seeing Harry Reid trying to play a tough guy. I think he will crumble/cave in very soon. I also think it's a lawful Senate appointment. I don't think Blago should have done it, but that's a separate thread.

It is indeed a brilliant move on Blago's part - it's no longer about him, it's about race, and that gets him out from the spotlight. NPR had a piece this morning about how Burris' nomination has highlighted a split between the "old guard" among African-Americans and the "next generation".

Any heartburn with Biden's son being the heir apparent for his seat upon the younger's return from Iraq and his military duty?

Only the heartburn that comes from realilzing that although we may not like monarchies or dynastic leadership, we can't seem to avoid it.

Very sweet, earendel.

I would decline such an offer.

[Bob78164]

Nitrah, I should have specified here on the Bored vs. the wider world for a Kennedy reaction response. I've read onesy-twosy here, but nothing like the Palin barrage when that was an issue. Wanted to see how it played out here.

It seems to me that there's a world of difference between seeking a Senate seat with a thin resume and seeking the Vice Presidency of the United States with a thin resume. A dumb or unqualified Senator can be ignored and marginalized -- learning on the job, if necessary, is fine. After all, the country hasn't had a problem surviving Jim Bunning. On the other hand, a dumb or unqualified Vice President can end up running the country. --Bob

[Flybrick]

I thought Biden the younger was being appointed to fill the vacancy?

I've no problem with if he wins an election based on name recognition.

I have a problem with the Kennedy issue. Both from a qualification issue (substantive not literal) and from a hypocrisy standpoint. The hue and cry regarding Gov Palin's unsuitability for the VP was deafening here, yet the same cannot be said regarding the Kennedy possible selection. Especially given what I take as her air of entitlement. Her statement that she wouldn't run in 2010 if not appointed now was the height of arrogance to me.

I would argue that a US Senator has, day to day, far more impact on the nation than any VP.

edited to add: It's obvious that opinions differ on the similarities of the two women's situations. I propose leaving it aside.

pea, as it's a political discussion (hopefully), there is no intent to influence the processes in either NY or IL, just an interesting conversation.

[andrewjackson]

I thought Biden the younger was being appointed to fill the vacancy?

Ted Kaufman, an advisor and former aide to Sen. Joe Biden, has been appointed to fill the vacant seat once Biden resigns to be sworn in as VP. There will be an election for the seat in 2010.

It is widely believed that Beau Biden will run for the seat once his National Guard unit is rotated back to Delaware in late 2009.

[Bob78164]

I thought Biden the younger was being appointed to fill the vacancy?

Incorrect. He's constitutionally ineligible at the moment because he's actively serving in the military. I believe Kaufman (a former Biden staffer) is being appointed as a placeholder with the expectation that Beau will end his military commitment in time to run in 2010 for the balance of the term. --Bob

[MarleysGh0st]

I have a problem with the Kennedy issue. Both from a qualification issue (substantive not literal) and from a hypocrisy standpoint. The hue and cry regarding Gov Palin's unsuitability for the VP was deafening here, yet the same cannot be said regarding the Kennedy possible selection. Especially given what I take as her air of entitlement. Her statement that she wouldn't run in 2010 if not appointed now was the height of arrogance to me.

Some of us are too happy being able to leave the Moratorium Lounge in peace and quiet to want to raise a hue and cry so soon.

And, as a New Yorker, I can say that we never really have well-known statewide candidates, if they don't enter the state with a national reputation, a la Senators Clinton and Robert Kennedy. There's always the Upstate NY vs. NYC rivalry. And Lieutenant Governors are traditionally chosen from virtual unknowns; Paterson's name recognition was probably still low until the day he found himself as Governor.

So, I'm not happy about Caroline seeking the job, but I'm not motivated to start a debate about it.

[DevilKitty100]

Devil Kitty, your point? Am I interested in political discussions? Yes. Do I want this or others to go into personal attacks? No. Am I interested in those that voted for Obama to opine on how things are shaping up? Yes.

Anything nefarious noted?

LOL.....not one iota. Actually I usually enjoy reading your political posts. While I may or may not agree with them, I nearly always find them well thought out and validated from your point of view.

The remark of "things remaining civil" simply made me chuckle in the sense that a wife asks her husband, "Do these pants make my ass look fat?" and thinks hurt feelings are not going to
ensue.

[DevilKitty100]

........said the spider to the fly.

you bad girl

bad

[Flybrick]

Bob, thanks for the correction. I knew Biden the younger was in Iraq as part of the Delaware Army Guard and being activated, but I thought he was coming back in January to be appointed. If he runs in 2010 and wins, fair enough.

Devil Kitty, point taken.
Of course, the correct answer is "Of course not, honey, you look great! Can I give you a foot rub?"

Marley, interesting take, thanks.

[Bob78164]

Two op-eds worth reading today at nytimes.com. . . . The other is a review of the 17th amendment, which every governor in the US and the Senate ignore in the event of a vacancy in the Senate.

According to that OpEd piece, the issue has been litigated and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision upholding the system as presently implemented. The author of the OpEd piece is talking out his hat when he attempts to denigrate the precedential force of a per curiam summary affirmance. It's just as binding as any other decision made by the Supreme Court on the merits (as opposed to denying certiorari, which means simply refusing to consider the case at all). --Bob

[Bob78164]

The remark of "things remaining civil" simply made me chuckle in the sense that a wife asks her husband, "Do these pants make my ass look fat?" and thinks hurt feelings are not going to ensue.

The correct answer to the question, "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?" is, "Darling, you look almost as good in that dress as you do out of it." --Bob

[tlynn78]

So, I'm not happy about Caroline seeking the job, but I'm not motivated to start a debate about it.

I think Marley's nailed it, Flybrick. I know I'm bored with the political crap, and can't muster up much care for who is appointed. I rather doubt she's the most qualified, but look who else those wacky New Yorkers elected senator.


t.

[peacock2121]

So, I'm not happy about Caroline seeking the job, but I'm not motivated to start a debate about it.

I think Marley's nailed it, Flybrick. I know I'm bored with the political crap, and can't muster up much care for who is appointed. I rather doubt she's the most qualified, but look who else those wacky New Yorkers elected senator.


t.

bite me

[Rexer25]

So, I'm not happy about Caroline seeking the job, but I'm not motivated to start a debate about it.

I think Marley's nailed it, Flybrick. I know I'm bored with the political crap, and can't muster up much care for who is appointed. I rather doubt she's the most qualified, but look who else those wacky New Yorkers elected senator.


t.

bite me

I thought t had made it perfectly clear you can forget about that.

[peacock2121]

I think Marley's nailed it, Flybrick. I know I'm bored with the political crap, and can't muster up much care for who is appointed. I rather doubt she's the most qualified, but look who else those wacky New Yorkers elected senator.


t.

bite me

I thought t had made it perfectly clear you can forget about that.

I am always ready for people to come to their senses.

[silverscreenselect]

For the most part, the people he's picked are neither ideologues or eggheads. They are people who have had to do stuff, either as governors, senators, or, in the military. I am not surprised by this, as it's about what Obama was running on- easy on the ideology, heavy on competence.
Panetta? Clearly, he's putting the CIA on notice that the director will run the agency, not the other way around.

I didn't think it was about the competence. It was all about hope and change, putting an end to business as usual in Washington. And if it is about the competence, I'm not exactly sure how putting someone in charge of the CIA who has no background in intelligence work whatsoever is a matter of rewarding competence or a means of "putting them on notice" that he'll be running the agency.

Panetta will run the CIA the same way Col. Klink ran Stalag 13.

I am looking forward to Jan. 21 when Obama's supporters will have actually have to come up with inventive and convoluted ways to justify his actual policy decisions instead of merely being required to explain away campaign misstatements or tentative personnel selections (remember Bill Richardson).