Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

[Graybeard]

Articulate and intelligent are not necessarily the same thing. I'm not saying he's not a smart man. Idiots don't end up in the top position of the country (Bush was many things, but he wasn't stupid. Neither was Clinton.) But when you look at the people he's been appointing, you do have to wonder just what he's thinking.

What issues do you have with the people he's been appointing? Is it a matter of competence, or one of behavior? If competence, I don't agree -- by and large, I think these have been fairly proficient people, at least in the jobs they had before joining the administration. (To be sure, this doesn't immunize them against screwing up once they take office.) If the concern is with the rather warped sense of ethics and propriety, not to mention responsibility, that some of them seem to have, that is probably well founded.

It also raises the question: are there any potential appointees who possess simultaneously the attributes of extreme competence, sufficient stature to lead, high integrity, and willingness to take a job requiring a presidential appointment? I really wonder. I'd feel more sanguine about the question if I didn't know so many people meeting exactly three out of the four conditions, and altogether too often, the one that's missing is high integrity, very frequently involving tax dodges. Even some people I know whose ethical sense, in general, I respect very highly, transgress on that one. They can get away with it because of their obscurity (which, lest I be mistaken, does not say that they should get away with it...), but if they were up for presidential appointments, they'd be toast.

[mindstalk]

teleprompter: the version I heard was that it was the Irish PM who did get his speech in time, and started reading Obama's speech for 20 seconds before catching on. Then, when Obama spoke up again, he "thanked himself" as a joke.

appointees: yeah, tax problems. Bad but not huge, though one wonders why Obama's vetting team didn't turn up more of this. Compared to GOP appointees it's all pretty cool. The competence generally seems quite high -- one worry is that Obama's been quite ready to poach Democratic Senators and governors for their experience, which from a partisan POV isn't at all ideal, especially with being so short of breaking the filibuster addiction, and with re-districting coming up.

[Sareth]

Oh... fucking hell...

Just wrote a long, massive post highlighting my issues... and it took so long the computer logged me out before I hit submit. Whole post went poof.

Haaaaaaeeeeeeet.

Alright, let me try this again.

Mostly it's experience, Graybeard. Allow me to highlight what I mean.

Hillary Clinton is now the chief agent for foreign policy for the U.S. in her role as the Secretary of State. But her history dealing with foreign policy consists primarily with being the first lady. Her professional training is as a lawyer, her work history has been almost explusively in business law and social advocacy, followed by being a politician. She has no professional qualifications regarding the international environment she is now expected to be our best and brightest about. As a contrast, her predesessor, Condoleeza Rice, has Ph.Ds in international studies, was one of the chief National Security Council advisors for Russia and the Soviet Block nations, has worked as a research fellow in international law and relations on several think tanks, and had extensive experience working with international leaders even prior to becoming Sec. of State.

Gary Locke, in the Department of Commerce, is now in charge of national policy meant to promote healthy business and industry policy. He's a lawyer who almost immediately went from law school into politics, and hasn't any experience at all heading either businesses or industry, has no professional training in either, and has never even held political positions related to commerce until now.

Raymond LaHood was a school teacher before he entered politics. And yet he now is in charge of the Department of Transportation. He is expected to be able to ensure the safe and smooth flow of traffic on the interstates, highways, waterways, railways, and airways of this nation, even though his entire experience with such is booking flights to D.C. Nothing wrong with school teachers, but I wouldn't expect one to suddenly run a railroad...

Arne Duncan now runs the Department of Education. He's never actually worked in a school, instead spending his time working for education advocacy groups and thinktanks. While that means he has some clue about education, it's the same clue I have about football. No one in their right mind would make me a football coach. Arne Duncan shouldn't be in charge of education. LaHood, on the other hand...

Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security. The primary agency within the nation in regards to coordinating intelligence and law enforcement efforts to prevent terrorism and border threats, and handle national responses to major natural disasters would, you would think, need someone at the helm who actually understands law enforcement, intelligence, or disaster response. Janet Napolitano is a lawyer. The closest to dealing with natural disaster or counterterrorism was being a member of the Attorney General's investigation into Oklahoma City.

It's not all bad. Holder is a good choice for Justice, Chu is a good pick for Energy, and Shinseki will probably do fine with Veterans Affairs (I don't even LIKE Shinseki, and I admit hill be alright.)

But even amongst those picks President Obama has made that ARE qualified there are a few problems.

Timothy Geithner has held numerous private and public sector positions involving finance. He should know a thing or two about money, budgeting, and economics. But his tax gaff wasn't just a minor "oops." It was a clear and blatant belief that he was above the very tax laws that he, as the Secretary of the Treasury, is now expected to enforce. Our chief bean counter can't be trusted with the beans. Now, I can't blame President Obama for nominating him. He's qualified. But once it came out that he wasn't trustworthy President Obama should have withdrawn the nomination. Congress should have refused him (but considering they can't be trusted with beans either, it's no surprise they didn't want to seem hipocritical), and the IRS should have charged him, siezed his assets, and enforced the law, like they would have done had it been you or I that had dodged.

Robert Gates is qualified as well in his position, having worked with the military and intelligence agencies for decades. However, he was also up to his neck in Iran-Contra. He clearly knew funds were being diverted illegally. He further aided attempts to hinder investigation of the incident. In spite of such things as aiding illegal weapons exports and money transfers and lying under oath, he was appointed to be in charge of the entire U.S. military by President Bush, and retained by President Obama.

Not pleased with the Cabinet. Nope. Not pleased.

[mindstalk]

Arne Duncan was CEO (?!) of the Chicago Public Schools from 2001, and part of the system from 1998. That's more than think-tank or advocacy.

Clinton travelled to 79 countries, had offices in the West Wing, did a tour on behest of the State Department, and I recall lots of people thought she was an awesome appointment on account of experience, popularity overseas, and knowing the people she'd be dealing with. Plus half the Democratic electorate thought she was qualified to be *President*. And Rice's "qualifications" don't seem to have helped much. As Senator, "She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[207] (since 2001).[208]"

LaHood seems a fair cop. Locke was governor of Washington for 8 years; appointed after Richardson and Gregg. Napolitano was a governor. Qualifications admittedly not obvious, but there's a clear gubernatorial trend... and governors are traditionally good fodder for becoming President. (What were Bill Clinton's qualifications for running the country? What were George Bush's?) LaHood is Republican and expected to be overshadowed by the committee chair in Congress.

At that level, it's not clear to me if what matters most is area-competence or administrative-competence and political savvy and influence in Congress. Having all would be nice, but there's the Undersecretary level for wonkery.

Gates is almost certainly retained for purposes of continuity regarding the wars we're running, more urgently relevant than his Iran-Contra sins. Blame Bush for the appointment.

Bush:
2nd Education was less qualified than Duncan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Spellings
First one had run schools (not that the Secretary of Education does... not clear what that office *does* do), but in office called the NEA a terrorist organization, backed No Child Left Educated (snark), and got fined for illegal propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Paige
Mineta, Transportation. Legislature in transportation issues, Commerce under Clinton. Followed by Mary Peters, state and federal transportation administrator. Strong picks.
Mel Martinez, Housing. Had been chair of Orlando Housing Authority but not clear why, career seems to be lawyer+executive.
Alphonso Jackson, Housing 2. Strong pick.
Steve Preston, Housing 3. No obvious housing experience whatsoever.
Spencer Abraham, Energy. As Senator, proposed abolishing the Department. No obvious experience.
Samuel Bodman, Energy 2. Chemical engineering degree, no obvious experience.
O'Neill, Snow, Paulson, Treasury -- CEO of Alcoa; government jobs; Goldman Sachs. None an actual banker.
We'll draw a discreet veil over the Attorneys General, though the third was at least a judge.

Unmentioned Obama appointees:
Hilda Solis, Labor. Congresswoman; father was a union shop steward. Dealt with labor issues through her legislative career, including organizing and funding a minimum wage initiative; seems a strong pick.
Vilsack, Agriculture. Governor of Iowa; previous two secretaries were also farm state governors. Traditional pick.
Salazar, Interior. Seems to have a strong career into Interior-type stuff, which doesn't mean he'll be good from an environmentalist view. Better than his predecessor. Traditional pick.
Shaun Donovan, Housing. Past Housing career in NY. Strong? pick.


Conclusion: yeah, a few of Obama's may seem weak, most obviously in the bipartisan pick (LaHood), but as a whole the Cabinet doesn't seem any weaker.

[Graybeard]

At that level, it's not clear to me if what matters most is area-competence or administrative-competence and political savvy and influence in Congress. Having all would be nice, but there's the Undersecretary level for wonkery.

Thanks for putting this so succinctly; I was about to write something similar. At the same time, I have been personally victimized by Washingtonians who come into high places and are administratively energetic and efficient, but clueless in the area they're nominally in charge of. They can't be completely out to lunch in their subject areas. However, I don't see any of these appointments as fitting into the completely-clueless category.

Actually, and very much connected to this point, to me one of the more worrisome appointments is the guy that I kinda-sorta work for (as a smelly contractor, not a fed): Chu at Energy. Great was the rejoicing here at having a Nobel laureate in that job -- finally, someone at the helm of that agency who actually gets SCIENCE. But then there was a growing realization of exactly the point that you make: he's never going to touch any actual science in that job in a way that will matter much, and there is a fear that he's going to be a babe in the woods when it comes to dealing with Congress, other agencies, etc., and the ferocious back-stabbing agendas that about 90% of the 'crats in Washington have. If he can get his hands around that, great; his positive traits (the science) will then become a real asset. But that's one real cattywhompus of an "if". Still, I'm happy to have him instead of the Bush appointments, who were pretty well ciphers, as you point out.

I know a few of the assistant-secretary-level appointees, and by and large, think fairly highly of them. As you point out, that's where some actual hands-on experience in the subject matter is more valuable, although their jobs too are intensely political. By and large, the Obama team seems to have done their homework in the choices they're making for those slots.

[Labrat]

Saying that the Obama administration is set up a little bit better than the Bush administration may not be the message you want to be sending right now. It would be like Cambodia's Pol Pot saying that he only murdered two or three million people and so at least he still had a better track record than Stalin. Bush just isn't a benchmark you want to judge your president by.

What I have been hearing since before Obama even started campaigning was that most of the ills plaguing our government can only exist due to the stagnancy of Washington politics, like gangrene setting in in a closed wound. Obama was supposed to be the lance for that boil... something I have not yet seen. The very platform he ran on does not allow him the chance to be just another president and the same holds true for his minions.

[mindstalk]

Saying that the Obama administration is set up a little bit better than the Bush administration may not be the message you want to be sending right now. It would be like Cambodia's Pol Pot saying that he only murdered two million people and so at least he still had a better track record than Stalin. Bush just isn't a benchmark you want to judge your president by.

No it's not, but I suspect that if one looks at Clinton's Cabinet it would look much the same, in terms of surface qualifications. The problem with the Bush administration was not largely ones of qualification, apart from perhaps Bush himself, the problem was what they did. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Alberto Gonzalez were not redeemed by their apparent qualifications; they still lied, connived, or advocated torture. There aren't degrees in "being a decent human being."

[Labrat]

No it's not, but I suspect that if one looks at Clinton's Cabinet it would look much the same, in terms of surface qualifications. The problem with the Bush administration was not largely ones of qualification, apart from perhaps Bush himself, the problem was what they did. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Alberto Gonzalez were not redeemed by their apparent qualifications; they still lied, connived, or advocated torture. There aren't degrees in "being a decent human being."

Of course there are degrees to being a decent human being. If there weren't, you would have to separate everyone in the world into the categories of 'saint' and 'somebody you have to kill for the good of the world'. In other words, you would be worse than Rorschach*. My problem with the members of the Bush administration wasn't that they were willing to compromise their principles... it was that they did so in an immensely stupid fashion that ended up helping nobody. They could have committed nearly any atrocity I can think of and I wouldn't have minded as long as doing so would have been to the nation's benefit.

Unfortunately we get a few minor atrocities... and no benefit. The nation is, if anything, in a worse position now than before. I feel ripped off.

*Not entirely a bad thing, but good luck on running that civilization of yours.

[Graybeard]

What I have been hearing since before Obama even started campaigning was that most of the ills plaguing our government can only exist due to the stagnancy of Washington politics, like gangrene setting in in a closed wound. Obama was supposed to be the lance for that boil... something I have not yet seen. The very platform he ran on does not allow him the chance to be just another president and the same holds true for his minions.

Uh, are you old enough to remember the Carter administration?

[Labrat]

Uh, are you old enough to remember the Carter administration?

Fortunately, no. I dodged that bullet by a couple of years.
The implication that a failed Obama (or alternately a successful, but severely deranged, Obama) will be remembered as the second Jimmy Carter does not fill me with confidence. In fact its enough to make me go into the kitchen and take a couple shots of scotch for its medicinal value.

Edit: Knowing little more than what little I can glean from history texts and the angry ramblings of both my father and grandfather, I choose to sit out any comparisons with Carter. I have a hard enough time avoiding being a total jackass when I have a moderately deep understanding of things.