Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Obama's Appointees

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I like reading Dick Morris because he doesn't spin for one side or the other and just tells it like it is. He has an interesting piece out today showing all the people Obama has been selecting to be in his transition and administration don't represent "change" at all, they're the same Washington insiders from the Clinton era: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/11/07/...ngton-insiders/

This isn't the full article below but is just a part of the roll-call:

His Transition Committee looks like a reunion of the Clinton Administration. No new ideas of how to reform the system there. The Chairman, John Podesta, was Clinton’s Chief of Staff. He presided over the outrageous last minute pardons and his style is strictly inside-the-beltway and make-no-waves.

Then there’s Carol Browner, Clinton’s competent former EPA Administrator who became the consummate Washington insider. She’s Madeline Albright’s partner and recently married mega-lobbyist and former Congressman Tom Downey. During the uproar over Dubai taking over U.S. ports, Browner brought Downey to meet with Senator Chuck Schumer to plead Dubai’s case. Downey was paid half a million dollars to push Dubai’s position. He’s also a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, paid half a million to try to cover their rears on the subprime mortgage mess. Is his change?

Federico Pena was Clinton’s Secretary of Transportation and of Energy. The President felt he was unduly soft on Air Florida after their crash and lost confidence in him. Now he’s back as a Transition Committee member.

Bill Daley, Clinton’s former Secretary of Commerce and the brother of the Mayor of Chicago, is the epitome of the old Democratic establishment. Clinton appointed him to the Fannie Mae Board and his son worked as a lobbyist for the agency. Aren’t these the kind of folks that Obama ran against?

Larry Summers, President of Harvard and former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury is not exactly an outsider either. He’s also alienated more than a few with his bizarre suggestion that women may be genetically inferior to men in math and science.

Susan Rice, Assistant Secretary of State under Clinton advised John Kerry and Mike Dukakis. Does that tell you enough?

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't be terribly sad if he selects Clinton's cabinet. Am I the only person who thinks Clinton wasn't terrible? I really don't think he was a member of the New Left, and with a Republican congress we saw the best years in a damn while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else imagine incest when they read about these creatures marrying their own breed?

When he said "Madeline Albright's partner" I thought to myself, "Madeline Albright is a lesbian? That makes SO much sense now!" ;)

Am I the only person who thinks Clinton wasn't terrible?

I dunno, "don't ask" and I "won't tell" :P

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was considering starting a thread on that subject too because I am curious to know people's reaction to the possible appointments of Volker or Geithner since I really don't know anything about them or what they would do. But this is as good a thread as any. So who are these people?

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was considering starting a thread on that subject ...

So stop considering and start doing.

I think it would be a sign that Obama is putting moderating elements into his cabinet. Volker particularly would keep him honest about the realities of what his plans might do to economic recovery.

Now, Reich as Treasury secretary? All bets are off. Obama is a neo-Marxist, and he will reap his just rewards...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title of this thread sounds broad enough to cover all his eventual appointees if you wanted.

According to news reports and a piece I saw on CNN, Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's cheif of staff is known for his volatile temper. Apparently he was so angered by one pollster he sent him a dead fish. One of the characters on the West Wing was also fashioned after him. And according to another story...

The intense, eventually successful campaign took a serious toll on him. Colleagues reported that amid a discussion over a celebratory dinner about which political figures had earned the new president's enmity, Mr Emanuel became so enraged that he grabbed a steak knife, stood up and began reciting a list of names, plunging the knife into the table and shouting "Dead! Dead! Dead!" after each one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...s-enforcer.html

If that's true, the guy must be seriously whacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't be terribly sad if he selects Clinton's cabinet. Am I the only person who thinks Clinton wasn't terrible? I really don't think he was a member of the New Left, and with a Republican congress we saw the best years in a damn while.

I read somewhere that Clinton was somewhat a believer in smaller government eventhough he was a democrat. Anybody have any quotes of his regarding the governments role? And what does he(not his wife) think caused the current crisis? I can't find anything.

Bush got in because he was change in the "ethical christian" department.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't be terribly sad if he selects Clinton's cabinet. Am I the only person who thinks Clinton wasn't terrible? I really don't think he was a member of the New Left, and with a Republican congress we saw the best years in a damn while.

Well, he was more to the left than he ran as, but fundamentally he was a centrist. Still, his first two big actions were a missguided stimulus pacakge and "Hillary-care." Both were quashed by Republican opposition in Congress.

Which brings me to the other point: Clinton was not so bad because he faced effective opposition in Congress. My hope this next two years is that the GOP will proove effective as the minority party again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings me to the other point: Clinton was not so bad because he faced effective opposition in Congress. My hope this next two years is that the GOP will proove effective as the minority party again.

But how much in the minority were they from 92-94? The Dems have a pretty solid majority, and just barely missed getting a supermajority in the senate. Even if the numbers are comparable, I doubt they will be as effective this time around. At the beginning of Clinton's first term, the Republicans stood for something and they had a real agenda...a generally positive one of less government. Now, however, the Republican party is reeling and is going to have to redefine itself.

You can argue that, in the 90's, the Republicans still had some of Reagan's afterglow. Well, after the past 8 years, that afterglow is gone. Couple that with the fact that Obama has developed what can only be called a cult of personality (in his defense: this is not his fault...it's the fault of his idiot disciples), and I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the Republicans can be an effective minority party. The odds of them getting any significant gains in the 2010 congressional elections are slim...I would give it until at least 2012 before they have a decent chance of a resurgence.

And another thing...this recession won't last forever, and Obama will get credit for pulling us out of it.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how much in the minority were they from 92-94? The Dems have a pretty solid majority, and just barely missed getting a supermajority in the senate. Even if the numbers are comparable, I doubt they will be as effective this time around. At the beginning of Clinton's first term, the Republicans stood for something and they had a real agenda...a generally positive one of less government. Now, however, the Republican party is reeling and is going to have to redefine itself.

There are other differences. In early 91, right after the stunnign vicotry in the Gulf War (I), no one thought the Democrats had a chance of winninf the presidential election in 92. That's why the heavyweigths of the party dind't run, and instead the battle was between two relatively unkowns and Clinton won. The media was not for Clinton all the way. In fact, one of his first scandals ahd to do with the press corps at the White House. He joked about not ahving had a honeymoon with the press, even,. they fell in love with him only after the GOP took Congress in 94.

But there are similarities. Clinton dind't even wait to be inaugurated before he started breaking campaign promises. Obama hasn't, either. The minute he announces the US cannot summarily withdraw from Iraq, his love affair with the MSM will be at an end, or at least severly dimminished "I love Barack Obama, but....") And the Democratic Congress is 1) less popular than Bush and 2) filled with "blue-dog" Democrats. A majority, but not a unified one or one with a mandate.

So the GOP has an excellent chance to take Congress by storm in 2012. they won't take the White House until 2016, because by 2012 it will be deemed racist to vote against Obama, unless he fails even worse than Carter did.

If they can offer the voters something they'd rather have, that is.

There's a lot of talk in GOP fora, particularly in conservative circles, that the Republicans have become too much like Democrats, and they need to return to their small-government, religious origins. I stress the religious part now. It's conceivable they'll get back Congress in four years, and piss it all away trying to outlaw abortion and gay marriage.

Couple that with the fact that Obama has developed what can only be called a cult of personality (in his defense: this is not his fault...it's the fault of his idiot disciples),

I diagree. it is entirely his fault. He said of himself his presidency would amrk the moment the oceans began to recede and other such messianic nonsense. He is the "Great Leader" in his own head. And that's his choice.

And another thing...this recession won't last forever, and Obama will get credit for pulling us out of it.

If Obama lasts two terms, and the recession lasts two and a half terms (extremely unlikely), and if by the third term tere's a pro-free market GOP president, Obama will still get the credit. His policies just needed time to work, don't you know. he can do no wrong. Not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure enough, Dick Morris wrote another op-ed peiece today on Hillary as Sec. of State lol

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/11/14/...-is-he-kidding/

All of this illustrates the fundamental problem Obama faces within his party: He was not their top choice for the job. The Democratic Party’s top brass wanted Hillary, not Obama. When Obama began winning primaries and caucuses, they fell in line and refused to make a super-delegate goal line stand for Clinton, but that does not disguise the fact that most of them backed Clinton from the outset.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...