Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Secretary Clinton
Politico confirms what we all already knew: Sen. Clinton will be America's next secretary of state.
Breaking: President-elect Obama is expected to name New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary on Monday or earlier. Obama is also expected to announce other members of his economic team, sources say.
Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) plans to accept an offer of secretary of State and resign from the Senate, a top Clinton adviser said. An announcement is expected shortly after Thanksgiving, officials said. "She knew this was the right thing to do but just needed to sit with it for a bit to make sure," the adviser said.
Geithner was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs under Robert Rubin during Bill Clinton's second term. More change we can believe in.
|11.21.08 @ 4:04PM|#
I am not sure about this pick. But Joe said the other day it was a terrible idea. Maybe Joe can come on here and enlighten us as to why this is a bad pick and says bad things about Obama.
SIV|11.21.08 @ 4:07PM|#
What about Geithner as Treasury Secretary?
That means a continuation of whatever Paulson is doing.
|11.21.08 @ 4:07PM|#
All slamming of joe aside, this is pretty fucking awful. Our liaison to the rest of the world is a hawkish, utterly uncharismatic, power-hungry interventionist. At least Condi has some charisma.
|11.21.08 @ 4:08PM|#
I would think this is kind of a demotion for Hills. I think she should have declined and demanded some juicy committee chairs.
SIV|11.21.08 @ 4:11PM|#
I should have read the post first.
Geithner has been at every meetibg between Bernancke and Paulson
since the "economic crisis" started.Some people have suggested he
has been calling the shots all along.Geithner is as much a GWB
retread as a Clinton one.
|11.21.08 @ 4:12PM|#
I don't understand why he'd put himself through this. It's going
to be a constant process of keeping her in line, nevermind
Bill.
He's just asking for trouble here.
So, does that make Nita Lowney the next Senator from New York?
|11.21.08 @ 4:12PM|#
I think it is a pretty cynical pick. He is just doing it so she
can't run against him in 2012. That is a pretty lousy reason to
pick someone to be Sec State after you spent the primaries telling
everyone how wrong her positions on international affiars
were.
I have been baiting Joe on this on another thread. He won't answer
me. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't post on this thread and
just never comments on this. He really does have some kind of prime
directive wired into his head that he can never criticize
Democrats.
|11.21.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Can we call a moratorium on the "More change we can believe in" quip every time Obama appoints an experienced person to a position? Anyone with the experience needed for senior level positions is likely to have been involved in the Clinton administration. If he appointed nothing but newbies, you'd be bitching about that. It's just so tired.
idiotface|11.21.08 @ 4:13PM|#
There's really no defense for a Hillary sec of state nom. I know many folks who voted obama in the primary cause they couldn't stand hills. Total Fin joke.
|11.21.08 @ 4:13PM|#
and also I think State is probably the WORST possible cabinet post for Hillary. Wasn't that whole whopper about running under sniper fire in Bosnia ginned up to bolster her non-existant foreign relations experience?
|11.21.08 @ 4:13PM|#
I stand corrected. But he notice Joe still doesn't say anything bad, just "I dont' understand why he would do this". So the prime directive hasn't been broken.
Elemenope|11.21.08 @ 4:14PM|#
I am not sure about this pick.
Me either. From a political POV, I guess it's a smart move because
foreign policy was an area that Clinton slapped around on in the
primaries, and so co-opting her aggressiveness simultaneously
removes one senator from sniping position and also pacifies some of
the Dem hawks.
On the other hand, he was elected partially because his foreign
policy was distinct from Hillary's. So, perhaps conceding this
position to Clinton may weaken him when he pursues his "more
chatty, more carrot" diplomatic approach.
|11.21.08 @ 4:15PM|#
And here I thought I wouldn't live long enough to see
WWIII.
I'll be in the backyard digging my shelter.
Unsubstantive Kurt|11.21.08 @ 4:15PM|#
He is just doing it so she can't run against him in
2012.
Nothing is impossible for the Clintons.
|11.21.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Hi, John. What is it you're yammering about?
Episiarch,
Our liaison to the rest of the world is a hawkish, utterly
uncharismatic, power-hungry interventionist. She's not exactly
a charmer, but she's also someone who's known around the world, who
brings some stature to the job. Her ability to handle the
diplomatic end of the job is the last thing I'm worried about with
this pick. It's the advice she's give to Obama, and the possibility
of daylight showing between the two of them, that are a bigger deal
for me.
|11.21.08 @ 4:16PM|#
I think it is a pretty cynical pick. He is just doing it so
she can't run against him in 2012.
It's cynical, but that's not why. It keeps her from rabble rousing
in the senate when he needs something. He's keeping his enemies
closer...
Other Matt|11.21.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Where's joe?
He's working on his spinning wheel.
Her ability to handle the diplomatic end of the job is the last
thing I'm worried about with this pick.
Looks like he got it fixed.
|11.21.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Oh, just shut up already John.
The only reason you are remotely surprised that I would write
anything critical about Hillary or Obama is because of how
passionately committed you are to being a Republican hack.
domoarrigato | November 21, 2008, 4:13pm | #
and also I think State is probably the WORST possible cabinet post
for Hillary.
Ditto. I can absolutely see the "team of rivals" argument, but both
of terms of her experience and her personality type, she seems
particularly ill-suited for this particular job.
I guess we'll see.
|11.21.08 @ 4:19PM|#
But she voted for the war Joe. I thought that was the most important decision this generation? How can she possibly be Sec of State when she got that wrong? Isn't getting it "right" the only thing Obama has going for him? It is a hypocrtical and cynical pick that shows that Obama didn't mean a word of anything he said in the primaries. All of the anti-war bullshit was just that bullshit. Frankly, I am glad it was because that is what is best for the country. But I think this pick puts an end to anyone saying that Obama is anything but a typical lying politician.
|11.21.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Joe,
He could have named Bush his sec of state and you would find a way
to minimize it and explain it away. If you had any integrity you
would be angry over this. But since you don't, it is no big
deal.
|11.21.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Some talking heads have been opining that he chose her for SoS
cuz it's better to have her pissing out from within the tent than
pissing into the tent from without.
I don't think that was the reason -- what do you guys think?
Overall though I am must say I am quite disappointed with the names
the incoming Obama admin has been bandying about. When he said he
wanted change, I didn't think he meant "I want to change back to
the way things were in the '90s".
I mean for fucks sake isn't there quite a few competent people to
chose from that aren't Clinton era rehashes? Is there no new blood
or a new generation of people to choose from?
This is not change this is a fucking rerun
|11.21.08 @ 4:21PM|#
I love it. Given the state of the union, and expectation that we will be in a deep recession for quite a while, there's nothing better than knowing we'll all have some good theater to keep us smiling. Hillary will deliver her lines well, and in memorable fashion, Bill will play his part of this drama, usually creating much of it, as always, and Obama will be the stooge. I can't wait for the show to start! Let's make some real buttery popcorn!
|11.21.08 @ 4:22PM|#
So, perhaps conceding this position to Clinton may weaken
him when he pursues his "more chatty, more carrot" diplomatic
approach.
She'd make a good bad cop. Lord knows he wants to be the good
cop.
(Clinton + Emmanuel + Daschle) x Biden = CHANGE!® Damn
straight! Good to see people with their heads on straight replacing
the Republican jackasses who've been running things. Now that's
change I can believe in.
|11.21.08 @ 4:23PM|#
It's cynical, but that's not why. It keeps her from rabble
rousing in the senate when he needs something. He's keeping his
enemies closer...
If this is his belief, I think it's a stupid one. She would be more
loyal as a Senator than as a Cabinet member, IMHO. In fact I think
giving her and her people the office of SoS empowers her to be more
of a thorn in Obama's side, and gives her the ability to make him
look like he has little influence over the actions of his
appointments. At least as a Senator if she she decides to go her
own way on things, it wouldn't reflect poorly on him
|11.21.08 @ 4:23PM|#
OK, the CHANGE!® formula still needs work. But
more elements will be coming forth I'm sure.
Many of us here warned the Obamaniacs to prepare to be
disappointed. For their sakes, I hope they did.
|11.21.08 @ 4:24PM|#
ChicagoTom
Good for you. You are exactly right. I think there would have been
fewer former Clintonites in a Hillary Clinton Administration than
in the Obama Administration. Obama sold himself as something
different than what has gone on for the last 16 years, not just the
last 8. I think people who beleived that ought to be disapointed in
this.
|11.21.08 @ 4:24PM|#
But she voted for the war Joe. I thought that was the most
important decision this generation? How can she possibly be Sec of
State when she got that wrong?
He must be confident she's learned her lesson.
Yes, John, if you think the pick is a bad idea and demonstrates how
foolish it was to vote for Obama, then I guess that's that.
Certainly, it's not like you're someone who just spins about how
bad everything Democrats do is. I'll just take my cues from you
about whether the Obama administration is doing a good job living
up to what I want from them.
|11.21.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Tom,
Obama ought to go ask Bush about the kind of damage the State
Department can do to a President when they don't support his
policies. You are damn right she can hurt him from there.
|11.21.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Ditto. I can absolutely see the "team of rivals" argument,
but both of terms of her experience and her personality type, she
seems particularly ill-suited for this particular job.
She is an awkward introvert with little foreign policy experience
being appointed to the top diplomatic post. She will be a walking
contradiction. It also gives Obama a chance to kill her career once
and for all should their relationship go pearshaped (as it
inevitably will)
I bet the Obama team is more than a little surprised that she is
stupid enough to accept.
ed|11.21.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Less than 60 days to go till the inauguration. How much further
will Saint Obama debase himself? 60 days is a long time in the
hypermedia era. The U.S. might be Canada's bitch by the time he
places his hand on the Koran--sorry, the Bible. Shit,
these are interesting times.
Goddamn that Chinese curse.
|11.21.08 @ 4:26PM|#
I don't see the problem here. I hate Hilary with the passion of a thousand Chinese girls at a Fahrenheit concert. But anything that keeps her out of domestic policy has got to be good for the country. Especially if she get's the Powell treatment.
|11.21.08 @ 4:26PM|#
I don't think that was the reason -- what do you guys
think?
It might be a keep your friends close and enemies closer moment,
but politics is just too fucking warped to accurately divine
intentions.
At least he doesn't have to worry about her submarining his
nominations in the Senate. I'm just pissed as I thought his winning
would mean that we didn't have to hear that excruciatingly grating
voice of hers for another 4 years.
Shit.
|11.21.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Good to see people with their heads on straight replacing
the Republican jackasses who've been running things. Now that's
change I can believe in.
That seems to be a rather low bar your are setting. Time warping
back to the '90s isn't progress. Sure it's "change" in that it
isn't the Bushies anymore, but for fucks sake, the only people
available are a bunch of DLC types and ex Clinton appointees??
Sorry joe, that isn't change worth believing in.
|11.21.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Joe,
For the record. I think Hillary will be an uncompromising secretary
of state that will do a good job on the war on terror. Yeah, she is
a bitch, but she will be our bitch. I think it is a good choice. I
really do. I think Nepolatino is a great choice for DHS. Other than
Holder and Dashcle, from my perspective, Obama's cabinet isn't bad
at all. I don't think everything Dems do is bad. But I am a
Conservative. The fact that I think his choices are pretty
acceptable, ought to give liberals like you a bit of pause.
|11.21.08 @ 4:27PM|#
John | November 21, 2008, 4:20pm | #
Joe,
He could have named Bush his sec of state and you would find a way
to minimize it and explain it away.
joe | November 21, 2008, 4:12pm | #
I don't understand why he'd put himself through this. It's going to
be a constant process of keeping her in line, nevermind Bill.
He's just asking for trouble here.
joe | November 21, 2008, 4:15pm | #
...It's the advice she's give to Obama, and the possibility of
daylight showing between the two of them, that are a bigger deal
for me.
joe | November 21, 2008, 4:19pm | #
Ditto. I can absolutely see the "team of rivals" argument, but both
of terms of her experience and her personality type, she seems
particularly ill-suited for this particular job.
No, but really, I'm just minimizing and explaining away how great
this pick is, because only criticisms that are exactly what John
has decided I should make are actually criticisms. Or
something.
Alan Vanneman|11.21.08 @ 4:28PM|#
"Geithner was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International
Affairs under Robert Rubin during Bill Clinton's second term. More
change we can believe in."
From today's NYT: "After two days of punishing losses, Wall Street
surged on Friday afternoon after news reports said that
President-elect Barack Obama had tapped Timothy F. Geithner, the
president of the New York Federal Reserve, to be secretary of the
Treasury."
You know, Mike, I kind of liked the economy the way it was back in
the Clinton Administration.
|11.21.08 @ 4:29PM|#
hear that excruciatingly grating voice of hers for another 4
years.
Like broken glass in your ice cream, isn't it?
|11.21.08 @ 4:29PM|#
joe-
(Clinton + Emmanuel + Daschle) x Biden = CHANGE!® Damn
straight!
I agree with you that John is a "Republican hack". I also agree
with John that you are a Democratic shill.
Who dares say I can't be diplomatic?
Les|11.21.08 @ 4:30PM|#
I was afraid Obama wouldn't find someone as dishonest and
opportunistic as Rice. This is such a relief.
And I thrill to think how many adventures she'll have as she
travels the world. Snipers here! snipers there! Snipers, snipers,
everywhere!
|11.21.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Like broken glass in your ice cream, isn't it?
While dragging a thousand Siamese cats across a chalkboard.
|11.21.08 @ 4:31PM|#
Obama sold himself as something different than what has gone
on for the last 16 years, not just the last 8. I think people who
beleived that ought to be disapointed in this.
John, I agree with you on this point 100%. So far his choices have
shown a startling lack of "change". Sad really, cuz he really had a
chance to shake things up and bring in some real outsiders and
fresh faces with new ideas and new approaches -- instead he chose
to go with the same old same old.
|11.21.08 @ 4:31PM|#
domoarrigato,
One thing to keep in mind is that Democrats are more willing to
seek out and go along with the guidance of the Foreign Service
professionals at State, as opposed to Republicans, who tend to view
them as the enemy.
Also, "intorvert?" What Senator is an intorvert? She's spent the
last few decades addressing crowds and going up to strangers to
tell them how wonderful she is.
|11.21.08 @ 4:31PM|#
J Sub D,
Yes, you are damn right I am a Republican. I do criticise the hell
out of Republicans though. I would piss down Trent Lott and Larry
Craig and Dan Young and that other jackass from Alaska's legs if I
could get away with it. My Republican enemys list is long and
distinguished. I have never seen Joe express any distain for any
Democrat.
|11.21.08 @ 4:33PM|#
"John, I agree with you on this point 100%. So far his choices
have shown a startling lack of "change". Sad really, cuz he really
had a chance to shake things up and bring in some real outsiders
and fresh faces with new ideas and new approaches -- instead he
chose to go with the same old same old."
Honestly, if he had done that, I would support the guy. As it is, I
look at the Clintonites as the devil I know. One thing is for sure,
there won't be any new new deals or anything that radical in the
next four years. A return to the Clinton 90s, even the first two
years of it, is hardly that radical. I find it conforting. I could
see where someone with your views would find it infuriating.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Anyway, just as the first Clinton administration drew significantly
from the previous Carter administration, so this administration
will draw from the Clinton administration. That ties in with things
like the iron rule of oligarchy, conservation of political power,
etc.
|11.21.08 @ 4:34PM|#
ChicagoTom,
Time warping back to the '90s isn't progress. It's not?
Sure seems like it to me.
the only people available are a bunch of DLC types and ex
Clinton appointees Bill Clinton was the only Democratic
president to hold office in the past 28 years. Of course the people
with high-level executive experience are going to have served in
that administration. If Clinton had been followed by President
Feingold, but Obama was going back to the Clinton administration,
I'd see your point, but another word for "Clinton retread" is
"Democrat with high-level experience in Washington."
Seward|11.21.08 @ 4:37PM|#
joe,
One thing to keep in mind is that Democrats are more willing to
seek out and go along with the guidance of the Foreign Service
professionals at State, as opposed to Republicans, who tend to view
them as the enemy.
I doubt that. No matter what party is in power, one of the
constants in politics is the tension between elected officials and
their political appointments and the career bureucracy. I can't
think of a single administration in my lifetime where media stories
about this tension didn't proliferate.
|11.21.08 @ 4:38PM|#
When ya'll discover how inept Obama is, you'll understand why The Clinton's had to keep their people so close to him.
|11.21.08 @ 4:38PM|#
joe,
While I'm sure extroverts are hugely over-represented in politics -
I'm just as sure it's far from universal. I admit that I have no
reliable evidence that she is, in fact, introverted - but I'd say
I'm pretty confident in my assessment.
Her style with people displays an inward lack of confidence - she
seems ill at ease with people and doesn't seem to connect at all
easily from what I've seen. She's doubtless compensated through
LOTS of practice over the years - but I don't think it's her
natural predilection. Pressing the flesh is done out of necessity
rather than any real enjoyment of it (like Bill).
|11.21.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Sad really, cuz he really had a chance to shake things up
and bring in some real outsiders and fresh faces with new ideas and
new approaches -- instead he chose to go with the same old same
old.
He's doing more of that with his White House team than his cabinet
posts. Even Rahm Emmanuel is more of a Chicago guy than a
Clintonite, and he's the most Clintoney White House staffer to
date.
It looks like he's working to make the White House "his," and
letting the party have the departments.
|11.21.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Joe,
Isn't that the problem? The same people with high level government
experience just keep trading seats depending on which side wins the
election. If you really want to change the govenrment you have to
bring in new people with new ideas. I think people like Tom and a
lot of other people looked at Obama as someone who would be
different and not just bring in the Democratic bunch of hoodlums to
replace the Republican bunch. The fact that he is not doing that
and is just behaving like a typical left of center Democratic
administration ought to be pretty disheartening for them.
|11.21.08 @ 4:40PM|#
One thing to keep in mind is that Democrats are more willing
to seek out and go along with the guidance of the Foreign Service
professionals at State, as opposed to Republicans, who tend to view
them as the enemy.
For the FS professionals the feeling is mutual, I'm told. You can't
hate in a vacuum.
svf|11.21.08 @ 4:41PM|#
If he appointed nothing but newbies, you'd be bitching about
that.
I, for one, would be pleased as fucking punch...
Kolohe|11.21.08 @ 4:41PM|#
Well, yesterday the S&P was back to it's 1997 level.
Now the executive branch is being restored to it's 1997
condition.
Once they bring back the macerena (and I lose 25 pounds) the
restoration will be complete.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 4:41PM|#
joe,
In other words, Democrats are not special or different. They are
subject to the same political rules and laws which Republicans are
and prone to the same errors. Being human and all.
Kolohe|11.21.08 @ 4:43PM|#
btw, that wouldn't be the worse thing in the world. (execpt
maybe the macerena part)
And Bob the Angry flower's Admonitions regarding\ apostrophes in
the 90's obviously are still unheeded by some.
|11.21.08 @ 4:44PM|#
"In other words, Democrats are not special or different. They
are subject to the same political rules and laws which Republicans
are and prone to the same errors. Being human and all."
And are driven by circumstances and have to make the same tough no
win decisions Republicans do once in office. OMG!! You mean Obama
doesn't shoot rainbows out of his ass and won't solve all the
world's problems? I am really cynical now.
|11.21.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Seward,
Yes, there is always that tension between the political and civil
service types, but there's a meaningful difference in degree
between the two parties. The Republicans aren't absolutely, 100% at
war with the bureaucracy either. The two parties are just at
different points on a continuum.
Domo, I hear you on the "natural inclination" point, but at this
point, she's been doing it for decades, and she's gotten pretty
good at it. Also, one thing that I always hear about her is that
she is much more relaxed and charming one-on-one or in a small room
than she is during an event, or addressing a big crowd. That would
fit with what you're saying.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 4:47PM|#
joe,
Yes, there is always that tension between the political and
civil service types, but there's a meaningful difference in degree
between the two parties.
No there is not. There is no meaningful difference. None
whatsoever. On a plethora of issues the Clinton administration went
toe to toe with the FS bureucracy just like the Bush administration
did.
Zeb|11.21.08 @ 4:47PM|#
"At least Condi has some charisma."
Wow. I never thought I would hear anyone say that.
|11.21.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Seward,
Well, yeah, Democrats and Republicans both govern within the same
American political system. So would a third-party candidate if one
ever came to power.
It's odd how people think this is a novel insight that only a
select few understand, and that everyone else will be stunned to
discover it.
|11.21.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Joe, you can find experience in Washington without hiring the Clinton's closest associates. I mean John Podesta? are you kidding me?
|11.21.08 @ 4:49PM|#
No there is not. There is no meaningful difference. None
whatsoever.
Whatever. You can overstate your point, you know.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 4:49PM|#
joe,
Oh, and more to the point, just like preceding administrations, if
it is important enough an Obama administration will try to run
roughshod over the civil service bureaucracy.
|11.21.08 @ 4:49PM|#
"At least Condi has some charisma."
Wow. I never thought I would hear anyone say that.
It was a joke, dude. Christ. It works on two levels, because it
also insults Hillary as having even less.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 4:50PM|#
All the screaming from the right about Obama being a SecretRadicalLeftist looks pretty fucking stupid now, doesn't it?
Seward|11.21.08 @ 4:50PM|#
joe,
Until you can you know, demonstrate your assertion with some actual
facts, I will stick with what we know about human behavior in the
political realm. That human behavior having nothing to do with
whether a D or an R is next to a person's name.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 4:51PM|#
BDB,
Obama appears to be a screaming, radical mercantilist, like most
American Presidents. :)
BDB|11.21.08 @ 4:52PM|#
I've been on the record since around September or so saying he was going to be the Doug Wilder of American Presidents. Cautious and boring but effective and competent. That's about it. Don't expect anything radical.
|11.21.08 @ 4:53PM|#
On a plethora of issues the Clinton administration went toe
to toe with the FS bureucracy just like the Bush administration
did.
Yeah - because the Clinton administration was pulling hard to
right. The FS professionals are reliably liberal and probably
viewed Clintons crap as a missed opportunity to practice highbrow
left leaning diplomacy like they love to do.
Les|11.21.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Also, one thing that I always hear about her is that she is
much more relaxed and charming one-on-one or in a small room than
she is during an event, or addressing a big crowd.
She enjoys being able to look into the eyes of the people she's
lying to. Adorable!
|11.21.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Joe, you can find experience in Washington without hiring
the Clinton's closest associates.
Daschle wasn't a Clintonite. Holder doesn't seem to have been a
meaningful part of their inner circle.
There's a difference between having served in a particular
administration and being that President's guy. Look at Eagelburger
- he served in the Reagan administration (I think he served in the
Harding administration, too), but he's best characterized as a GHW
Bush guy.
Someone who was 45 when Carter left office is now...uh...older than
John McCain. If you're looking for people with upper-level
executive experience at the federal level who are available, they
served in the Clinton administration.
|11.21.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Seward,
"That human behavior having nothing to do with whether a D or an R
is next to a person's name."
has no logical connection to your assertion that the two parties
are equally supportive of, and equally supported by, the civil
service.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 4:56PM|#
BDB,
He may boring, but I would question whether he will be "effective"
in anyway that a libertarian would judge that term. Then again, did
anyone expect Bush to invade Iraq?
|11.21.08 @ 4:56PM|#
joe - it is possible to bring your own experienced people with
you to the white house - like Dubya did. Some were his dad's guys -
but a lot were from Texas.
That said, you would have to have had an actual organization under
you at some point to do this...
|11.21.08 @ 4:58PM|#
What is "effective" in anyway that a libertarian would judge
that term even mean? Is "effective" too close to a compliment
to ever apply to someone whose politics are different from
yours?
OK, what term for "able to solve problems and accomplish goals in
the service of a cohesive strategy" isn't too complimentary to
apply to someone you don't like? We'll use that instead.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 4:59PM|#
joe,
...has no logical connection to your assertion that the two
parties are equally supportive of, and equally supported by, the
civil service.
Sure it does. You've claimed that Democrats are somehow more
supportive of the FS bureucracy, I've stated quite correctly that
is simply not the case. These two power centers are naturally going
to clash and the intensity of such has little to do with whether
the office holder is a Democrat or a Republican. Neither side is
any worse or any better when it comes to such clashes.
|11.21.08 @ 5:01PM|#
domo, W's guys were kind of a disaster. Hughes went back to
Texas quickly, Rove has turned out to be a false prophet. What
worked in Texas won't necessarily work in Washington.
There's always going to be a tension between fresh outsider ideas
and old hands who know the ropes and can get things done. Given
where Obama sits in that range, it makes sense that he'd lean more
towards to the latter in his picks.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 5:04PM|#
I mean "effective" in how most people view "effective" (not in a libertarian sense), as in "not fucking things up that badly, not doing anything really, REALLY stupid".
Nigel Watt|11.21.08 @ 5:04PM|#
joe, a less fellatious (yes, spelled it that way on purpose) way
of saying that would be to note that "Obama is a politician, so he
is appointing hacks. You can see a parallel in the way Bush, also a
politician, appointed hacks."
It's too bad you're not competent enough of a hack to get appointed
to any bureaucratic boondoggles.
|11.21.08 @ 5:05PM|#
I guess Obama wasn't able to find any decent talent to work on his senate staff, or his campaign, for that matter. If he had, one would think at least a few would make the cut.
|11.21.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Bill Clinton was the only Democratic president to hold
office in the past 28 years. Of course the people with high-level
executive experience are going to have served in that
administration. If Clinton had been followed by President Feingold,
but Obama was going back to the Clinton administration, I'd see
your point, but another word for "Clinton retread" is "Democrat
with high-level experience in Washington."
You seem to be assuming that the current President is supposed to
go back to past administrations of his party and bring these people
back? Why? If the people who voted for Obama wanted a return the
players of the administration of the "last Democratic President"
then they would have chosen Hillary as the nominee.
Silly me, and here I thought the fact that Hillary lost the primary
meant that Obama supporters didn't want a return to the '90s and
didn't want a Clinton redux administration. I was under the
impression that they wanted fresh blood and fresh faces and fresh
ideas.
I don't want "Democrats with high level experience in washington" I
want outsiders fresh blood, new ideas. I don't want the old guard
to be brought back and accomplish more of the bullshit 3rd way
centrist/corporatist nonsense.
Sorry joe, but Bill Clinton was not a great President, and bringing
back his dimwits is not "change" (unless the only change you care
about is anybody but Bush -- like I said a LOW BAR)
Where you see high level experience, I see a bunch of people with
political baggage and a bunch of connected insiders who feel the
best way to govern is to water down their own agenda to appeal to
the DLC-types. These people aren't interested in reform -- they
just want to be back in power. I don't see any liberals or
progressives. I don't see any outsiders or reformers. I don't see
any new blood or new ideas.
There is no change there, just a bunch of losers from a decade
ago.
|11.21.08 @ 5:05PM|#
You've claimed that Democrats are somehow more supportive of
the FS bureucracy, I've stated quite correctly that is simply not
the case.
Actually, you've asserted it. And now you're just repeating
it.
These two power centers are naturally going to clash No
question, but the point is, how much?
...and the intensity of such has little to do with whether the
office holder is a Democrat or a Republican. It has a great
deal to do with how much the particular officeholder has faith in
the civil service, and how closely his own beliefs and goals are to
theirs. Democrats tend to be both more confident in, and more
ideologically aligned with, the Foreign Service people than
Republicans.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:06PM|#
joe,
Is "effective" too close to a compliment to ever apply to
someone whose politics are different from yours?
Being "effective" is not a substance free notion. The Bush
administration was quite "effective" on many fronts for many years
after all. They were "effective" in getting majority support for
the War in Iraq, for example.
|11.21.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Nigel,
Sorry you're such a dick.
I don't even know what comment this is supposed to be in reference
to: "Obama is a politician, so he is appointing hacks. You can
see a parallel in the way Bush, also a politician, appointed
hacks." It doesn't really seem to have anything to do with
anything I've written, and looks more like you just blowing off
bile in my general direction, without any connection to the
discusison at all.
|11.21.08 @ 5:08PM|#
James Ard | November 21, 2008, 5:05pm | #
I guess Obama wasn't able to find any decent talent to work on his
senate staff, or his campaign, for that matter. If he had, one
would think at least a few would make the cut.
What wingnut blog did you cut and paste that from? He's appointed
pretty much the entire top tier of his campaign, and his Senate
Chief of Staff, to high-level White House positions.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:09PM|#
joe,
Actually, you've asserted it. And now you're just repeating
it.
No, what I've asserted is the general rule (backed by years of time
tested experience) regarding the relationship with the two. You've
claimed (knowingly or not) that the Democrats are some sort of
exception to this rule. I don't see any reason to accept
such.
No question, but the point is, how much?
About as much as any other administration.
Democrats tend to be both more confident in, and more
ideologically aligned with, the Foreign Service people than
Republicans.
Until they aren't.
Give this a few years and all this will be born out.
|11.21.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Who wants to wager that Bill Clinton will not be appointed to the UN, or worse, the Supreme Court.
Zeb|11.21.08 @ 5:10PM|#
"It was a joke, dude. Christ. It works on two levels, because it
also insults Hillary as having even less."
Yes, I got it. It's funny and true. I just hadn't thought of it in
those terms.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 5:12PM|#
"James Ard | November 21, 2008, 5:10pm | #
Who wants to wager that Bill Clinton will not be appointed to the
UN, or worse, the Supreme Court."
No, he will be appointed to her Senate seat I bet.
Supreme Court? No. He has been disbarred.
|11.21.08 @ 5:13PM|#
There's always going to be a tension between fresh outsider
ideas and people who have a vested interest in maintaining the
status quo. Given where Obama sits in that range, it makes sense
that he'd lean more towards to the latter in his picks.
What exactly did this Clintonion old guard get done? What were some
of these great accomplishments?
DoMA? Don't ask Don't Tell? The DMCA? The law that was overturned
by the Supremes that required people with adult content on websites
to verify ages with a CC ?
|11.21.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Chicago Tom,
You seem to be assuming that the current President is supposed
to go back to past administrations of his party and bring these
people back? Why? See Carter, Jimmy. The ability to actually
achieve what you set out to accomplish matters, and having people
who know the ropes in Washington is a part of that.
I don't want the old guard to be brought back and accomplish
more of the bullshit 3rd way centrist/corporatist nonsense.
This is the other side - he has to do both. He has to combine
people with fresh ideas with people who can make things
happen.
Where you see high level experience, I see a bunch of people
with political baggage and a bunch of connected insiders who feel
the best way to govern is to water down their own agenda to appeal
to the DLC-types. No, what I see is both. I wouldn't want an
administration of JUST these people, but I wouldn't want the
executive branch being run by a bunch of city clerks from Cook
County, either.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:13PM|#
joe,
Or let me put it differently:
What is a better predictor of the behavior between the two, the
general rule or whatever particular addendum you are making to it?
I'd say the general rule is a far better predictor of what will
happen in an Obama administration. All those affinities and notions
of respect and confidence just aren't that important.
|11.21.08 @ 5:15PM|#
So, Seward, if Ron Paul won the election, you would want him to
surround himself with peole who are ineffective? So he could haven
an ineffective administration?
I don't understand what you're saying.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:15PM|#
BDB,
I believe he'd be the only ex-President to ever serve as a Senator
after leaving the Presidency.
Nigel Watt|11.21.08 @ 5:17PM|#
It doesn't really seem to have anything to do with anything I've written, and looks more like you just blowing off bile in my general direction, without any connection to the discusison at all.
Sorry, I thought this thread was about Obama's cabinet picks.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:17PM|#
BDB,
If that actually happened. Adams II is the only former President to
return to the Congress if I am not mistaken, but he returned to the
House.
|11.21.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Seward,
No, what I've asserted is the general rule (backed by years of
time tested experience) regarding the relationship with the two.
You've claimed (knowingly or not) that the Democrats are some sort
of exception to this rule. No, I haven't. I've agreed with you
on this point every single time I commented on it - Democrats are
subject to the same dynamic.
I'm making a subtle point, and you're insisting on a black and
white one. Sorry, no there are shades are grey. It is possible to
be more or less at war with the bureaucracy, as opposed to it being
a yes/no question.
About as much as any other administration. So what you're
saying is that every single adminstration has had precisely the
same relationshiop with the federal bureacracy.
That's nonsensical.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Seward--
Adams II went to Congress *after* the Presidency. Andrew Johnson
went to the Senate, too.
The only other to have a high profile position was William Howard
Taft (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).
I wouldn't be surprised if putting Bill in the Senate was part of
the deal--partly to contain him and keep him busy.
|11.21.08 @ 5:20PM|#
This was a stupid move on Obama's part. Sorry, but there it
is.
If Obama really wanted to make a splash, he'd appoint at least a
couple of new people to these key positions. He's demonstrating to
me my greatest actual fear--that he's a fully programmed party
machine drone. Of course, the actual proof of that will take much
more time and him actually occupying the White House. Even a
machine guy might acquire some independence once he has to make the
decisions himself.
I hate to say this this early, but the president Obama is reminding
me the most of is Bush. Not experienced enough and not willing to
buck the party establishment. Whether he'll prove to have other bad
qualities remains to be seen. I hope he's not some radical lefty on
top of this--that would just suck in this economy.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:20PM|#
joe,
I don't judge effectiveness merely on the ability to pass a piece
of legislation, etc. Now I guess we could become word sleuths and
have a hour long argument about what "effective" means, but I'm
unlikely to engage in that.
Crow Eating Dumbass|11.21.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Terrible.
These kinds of things happen in politics. You have to nurse
coalitions and repay favors. But Hillary is just not qualified to
do this work imo.
Should have been Bill Richardson clearly.
You know what gets me? Is being a US senator that terrible of a
fucking job these days for a power hungry person? I mean, why not
just be NY's senator for the next dozen years. I don't get it.
|11.21.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Bill Clinton gets any position he wants. After all, it was his idea to find someone who won't ever be scrutinized to run his shadow presidency.
|11.21.08 @ 5:22PM|#
ChicagoTom,
What exactly did this Clintonion old guard get done? What were
some of these great accomplishments?
The 1990s were a period of Republican dominance. For most of his
term, Clinton was playing defense. They did that quite well.
Look, I don't think Bill Clinton was a great president, either.
That doesn't change the fact that the people who know how to deal
with Congress from the White House, and who have actually managed
foreign policy portfolios, and who have significant amounts of
experience, and are Democrats, worked in his White House.
CED|11.21.08 @ 5:23PM|#
"What exactly did this Clintonion old guard get done? What were
some of these great accomplishments?"
NAFTA? Welfare reform? Balanced budgets? Great economy? Respect
around the world?
|11.21.08 @ 5:24PM|#
I have a feeling that Obama won't risk the fallout of trying to appoint an attorney who was disbarred to the Supreme Court. However, the tar from that brush is limited--he could certainly send him to the U.N. or name him to a cabinet post.
|11.21.08 @ 5:24PM|#
See Carter, Jimmy. The ability to actually achieve what you
set out to accomplish matters, and having people who know the ropes
in Washington is a part of that.
This is the other side - he has to do both. He has to combine
people with fresh ideas with people who can make things
happen.
Sorry joe, I am not buying this line of BS.
You don't change Washington by stacking your admin with a bunch of
Washington insiders/dinosaurs.
And tell me, where is this other half ? Where are the people with
the fresh ideas? I haven't seen any of them yet.
There are lots of very smart qualified people that could fill many
of his cabinet positions, and the fact that he is filling them with
Clintonites shows me that "Change" was nothing more than a
slogan.
|11.21.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Who did you want as Sec. of State ChicagoTom? Bill Daley?
Dick Durbin?
Bill Daley was a Clintoninte as well genius
CED|11.21.08 @ 5:25PM|#
In fairness I think you have to consider the woman governor from AZ he picked for Homeland/Death Star Security to be a new face.
|11.21.08 @ 5:25PM|#
I like the Geithner pick. He's a young, rising, intelligent dude. My friends on the Street and in the Exchange like and respect him (they're mostly Republicans) and he doesn't owe anyone on Wall Street anything, like Paulson. A big problem with Paulson is that he had a preexisting beef with Bear and Lehman (and despised Fuld), so it was hard to seperate the personal from the professional.
|11.21.08 @ 5:25PM|#
I love James Ard's Krazy Klinton Konspiracy.
It's really some top-shelf stuff.
Lay it on 'em, James. Hillary, Richardson, Obama. C'mon, I can't do
it credit.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 5:25PM|#
I'm just trying to think if there is some Illinois Mafia he was supposed to chose form. It isn't like he's a Governor that has a pre-set cabinet already.
|11.21.08 @ 5:27PM|#
I don't think Bill would be interested in a Senate seat, or UN
ambassador.
The only role I see him playing is a sort of Special Envoy at
Large. Why would he want to sit on Senate subcommittes as a
freshman legislator?
BDB|11.21.08 @ 5:28PM|#
"Why would he want to sit on Senate subcommittes as a freshman
legislator?"
He'd get his pick of the Senate interns to screw. Sorry, but it's
true. That'd be the reason he wants it.
CED|11.21.08 @ 5:28PM|#
I think Patterson should run for her Senate seat. When there are any charges of malfeasance among any of his colleagues he can say "I don't see any malfeasance here" and he would be telling the truth...
|11.21.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Who did you want as Sec. of State ChicagoTom? Bill Daley?
Dick Durbin?
I would like someone I've never heard of. Someone who the press has
never heard of And preferably someone not from Illinois or at the
very least not from Cook County.
|11.21.08 @ 5:28PM|#
I guess Obama wasn't able to find any decent talent to work
on his senate staff, or his campaign, for that matter. If he had,
one would think at least a few would make the cut.
What wingnut blog did you cut and paste that from? He's appointed
pretty much the entire top tier of his campaign, and his Senate
Chief of Staff, to high-level White House positions.
That came from the National Review.
|11.21.08 @ 5:28PM|#
ChicagoTom,
You don't change Washington by letting the dinosaurs eat you,
either.
|11.21.08 @ 5:28PM|#
CED,
I think you overstate your case. What may have been good was a more
(and temporarily) reform-minded Congress faced off against a
president willing to be a Republican to be more popular. And, of
course, we had the twin good effects of the Cold War bonus and the
realization that we could use computers to run inventories and
stuff (the dot com boom was not the reason for the GDP growth, by
the way).
ChicagoTom,
They'll beat you to death if you say anything bad about Daley,
right?
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:28PM|#
BDB,
Yes, but as I noted above, Adams II went to the House, not the
Senate.
joe,
I'm making a subtle point...
No, from my POV you are making a special rule for Democrats when
that rule is not born out by experience. Again, if you could
actually show some evidence for that it would be helpful. It would
be easy enough to do - I am sure there are plenty of books written
on the major FP areas of the Clinton administration - Rwanda,
Bosnia, N. Ireland, etc. Indeed, I'd be interested to know what the
FS professionals thought of say the whole use of the term
"genocide" during the Rwandan genocide.
It is possible to be more or less at war with the bureaucracy,
as opposed to it being a yes/no question.
And my point is that the "more or less" is a marginal aspect to the
relationship. Indeed, whatever fellow feeling exists will also fade
rather rapidly over the course of an administration.
So what you're saying is that every single adminstration has
had precisely the same relationshiop with the federal
bureacracy.
No, I stated they were about the same. Roughly. Equivalent. Etc.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
classwarrior|11.21.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Undoubtedly, had Obama selected people with no Washington experience, he would have been criticized for that too.
|11.21.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Joe, I think we're about to the point that you need to provide evidence that it isn't a conspiracy.
|11.21.08 @ 5:29PM|#
joe,
Yes, it will be interesting to see where Bill Clinton ends up. He
could just stay on the perimeter, but I don't think he wants
to.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 5:30PM|#
"classwarrior | November 21, 2008, 5:29pm | #
Undoubtedly, had Obama selected people with no Washington
experience, he would have been criticized for that too."
Yes, and instead of ZOMG! CLINTON RETREADS! we would be hearing
ZOMG! TEH CHICAGAO MACHINE! or ZOMG! JIMMY CARTER!!
|11.21.08 @ 5:31PM|#
That's funny, MO, I never go to National Review. But nice to see they think like me.
|11.21.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Bill Daley was a Clintoninte as well genius
Apparently, Clintonitism is a contagious disease, like in 29 Days
After. If you get a single drop on you, you turn into a zombie and
lose your individuality.
I'm sure some of you thought Bill Daley was first and foremost a
Chicago politician. We'll, you're wrong - he held a post in the
Clinton administration, and therefore, he is indistinguishable from
anyone else who held a post in that administration. Just an
indistinguishable mass.
|11.21.08 @ 5:32PM|#
I'd have been happier if Obama had found some new blood. New doesn't necessarily equal inexperienced, either.
|11.21.08 @ 5:34PM|#
You don't change Washington by letting the dinosaurs eat
you, either.
What does that even mean? Is Obama supposed to fear the
ex-clintonites? Really?
They'll beat you to death if you say anything bad about Daley,
right?
The CPD will "interrogate" you to discern your intentions. They
used to fly you to Florida to be interrogated by Jon Burge, but
alas now that he has been indicted they need to find a new
destination.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Well, like I stated above, all of this nicely illustrates the
conservation of political power and the iron rule of oligarchy.
|11.21.08 @ 5:35PM|#
James Ard | November 21, 2008, 5:29pm | #
Joe, I think we're about to the point that you need to provide
evidence that it isn't a conspiracy.
You first. I want everybody to know what you're talking, and what
exactly you think I have the burden of disproving.
You aren't embarassed of it, are you?
|11.21.08 @ 5:36PM|#
No, from my POV you are making a special rule for
Democrats
Since we're talking about two parties, am I not making a "special
rule" for Republicans, too?
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Pro Libertate,
If Obama is elected to a second term that's when more "new blood"
will come into higher positions. These will be folks who are hired
at lower levels at this point. That leads of course to a lot of
self-reinforcement of the idea structures of an administration.
|11.21.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Oh, and by way of evidence, I offer you the Reagan administration vs. the Clinton administration. You would have to be David Patterson not to notice the difference.
|11.21.08 @ 5:38PM|#
I'm sure some of you thought Bill Daley was first and
foremost a Chicago politician.
Are you for serious joe?
Bill Daley was the US Sec. of Commerce under clinton?
You don't think that's enough to call him a Clintonite?
He then was President of AT&T (When it was SBC) and then became
a lobbyist. He was also midwest chairman of BankOne/Chase.
This guy is a corpratist to the bone. The epitome of everything the
Clinton administration stood for.
|11.21.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Yes, and instead of ZOMG! CLINTON RETREADS! we would be
hearing ZOMG! TEH CHICAGAO MACHINE! or ZOMG! JIMMY
CARTER!!
Or ZOMG!!! Dirty Hippies!!
Sigh, Barack Obama promised to change the tone in Washington and
work in a bipartisan manner, and now he brings in a bunch of
radical partisans with no record of reaching across the
aisle.
His supporters must be very, very disappointed.
|11.21.08 @ 5:39PM|#
It was
Victor Davis Hanson and has nothing to do with classics, so I
wouldn't feel too good about it James.
Of course, it's not at all copied and pasted, just a very similar
sentiment.
Invisible Finger|11.21.08 @ 5:40PM|#
I mean for fucks sake isn't there quite a few competent
people to chose from that aren't Clinton era rehashes?
As he has done for the last year, Obama is just following orders
from the Pritzkers.
|11.21.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Embarassed? hell no. Hillary's dad knows where the Chicago bodies are buried. Hillary has access to over 1000 FBI files. Obama has proved to me he's an idiot (Nancy Reagan seances, anybody?). Eliminating competition the Clinton way, personal destruction. Now hiring all the Clinton fixers. Deny all you want, but I see less and less people calling me crazy.
|11.21.08 @ 5:42PM|#
Chicogo Tom,
What does that even mean? Is Obama supposed to fear the
ex-clintonites? Really? I guess there's that, too, but I was
talking about his opposition. He can't be bringing a knife to a gun
fight.
Seward,
If Obama is elected to a second term that's when more "new
blood" will come into higher positions. These will be folks who are
hired at lower levels at this point. There's that, too. I also
wouldn't be surprised if he moved people around earlier than that -
Hillary to the Supreme Court, for example.
Craig|11.21.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Nothing is impossible for the Clintons.
Which is why some might question the wisdom of putting her fourth
in the line of presidential succession.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:43PM|#
One of the things I've heard/read in the media is that the Obama campaign was very disciplined, etc. No leaking, etc. Which reminds me of the Bush II administration in at least its first incarnation. I think it is both remarkable and pedestrian how each party learns from the other regarding political tactics, etc.
|11.21.08 @ 5:44PM|#
I'm sure some of you thought Bill Daley was first and
foremost a Chicago politician. We'll, you're wrong - he held a post
in the Clinton administration, and therefore, he is
indistinguishable from anyone else who held a post in that
administration. Just an indistinguishable mass.
You know what joe, to a certain extent they are all fucking
indistinguishable, especially in the context of trying to change
Washington.
You want to be an apologist for the Obama team go ahead, but I
won't. I expected real change, with new ideas and fresh faces.
Obama had a real mandate for change. If his idea is to wait for a
second term and hope that people are gonna re-up after broken
promises, that's an awfully risky proposition.
Many first time voters came out and were inspired because they
wanted something different. If reliving the '90s is what they get,
I wouldn't be surprised if many of them stay home once they realize
it doesn't matter who wins, cuz regardless it's gonna be the same
small circle of people calling the shots.
|11.21.08 @ 5:44PM|#
I see ChicagoTom's problem now. He's divided the world up into
"the corporate DLC Clintonites" and "the progressive
outsiders."
Are you for serious joe?
Bill Daley was the US Sec. of Commerce under clinton?
You don't think that's enough to call him a Clintonite?
He then was President of AT&T (When it was SBC) and then became
a lobbyist. He was also midwest chairman of BankOne/Chase.
This guy is a corpratist to the bone.
Being the midwest chairman of Chase is the same thing as having
held a post in the Clinton administration is the same thing as
being a lobbyist is the same thing as being a corporatist.
|11.21.08 @ 5:44PM|#
I can't believe yous guys still think Obama is going to be sworn
in. Have you no faith in Alan Keyes' lawsuit?
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200811202676/editorial/alan-keyes-lawsuit-to-stop-certifying-the-electors.html
The .pdf of the suit is at the bottom. (I thought this went
away)
To top it off, he's "Muslim"!
|11.21.08 @ 5:45PM|#
C'mon, James, stop being so shy. Invisible Finger shared his
conspiracy theory, why won't you spill yours?
I like yours. Don't hold back.
Invisible Finger|11.21.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Wall Street surged on Friday afternoon after news reports
said that President-elect Barack Obama had tapped Timothy F.
Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve, to be
secretary of the Treasury."
Are all the NYT staffers under the age of 8? Not one person on Wall
Street makes trades based on news of that sort.
|11.21.08 @ 5:46PM|#
I guess there's that, too, but I was talking about his
opposition. He can't be bringing a knife to a gun fight.
So his "gun" is the Clintonistas who were unable to pass any type
of progressive legislation when they did control the Congress?
Seems like that gun is shooting blanks.
|11.21.08 @ 5:47PM|#
You know what joe, to a certain extent they are all fucking
indistinguishable,
Gee, you don't say.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:48PM|#
ChicagoTom has a point. Imagine if one of Obama's campaign ads
had included proposals for who he apparently wants to be in cabinet
positions. That would have undercut the whole "change" mantra
coming from the campaign.
Then again, campaign slogans should be taken with a grain of salt
no matter who they come from, so...
|11.21.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Joe, the moment I realized it was a fix was when every media type constantly screamed RIVALRY. Not to say they're in on it, but when that many stupid fucks agree on the exact same theme, they're usually wrong. Like climate scientists.
|11.21.08 @ 5:50PM|#
I see ChicagoTom's problem now. He's divided the world up
into "the corporate DLC Clintonites" and "the progressive
outsiders."
I didn't do that, the DLC types did. They were the ones who loathed
the liberals and the dirty fucking hippies and wanted the
Democratic party to ignore the the left wing of the party. And now
you are gonna try and take me to task for demanding that those
fuckers get the heave ho?? DLCers and their apologists can go fuck
themselves.
Being the midwest chairman of Chase is the same thing as having
held a post in the Clinton administration is the same thing as
being a lobbyist is the same thing as being a
corporatist.
Secretary of Commerce is not merely holding a post. It's a fucking
Cabinet position. Yes being a in the cabinet of Clinton makes you
an Clintonite.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Invisible Finger,
There is a distinct problem with the approach of government to
trading markets if they surge and collapse based on the barest news
out of the government. The fact that this sort of news can create
this sort of volatility is about as strong of a criticism of the
current system as one can make.
Craig|11.21.08 @ 5:53PM|#
At least he doesn't have to worry about her submarining his
nominations in the Senate.
But then, why would she? They're all coming out of the Clinton
Administration.
CED|11.21.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Invisible finger is funny, but Invisible Stinky Finger would have been better...
|11.21.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Let me add, Hillary wasn't going to get away with any funny business as president. Obama will.
Craig|11.21.08 @ 5:55PM|#
We should have seen this (a series of totally uninspired and recycled picks) coming after Obama picked Biden for VP.
Inviaible Finger|11.21.08 @ 5:55PM|#
The fact that this sort of news can create this sort of
volatility
But the news didn't create the volatility. If Obama had not
announced any Treasury appointment today, the market movement today
still would have been the same.
Craig|11.21.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Really guys, why do you think Richardson has not been tapped
yet?
I saw a report on CNBC that he would be Commerce Secretary.
|11.21.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Okay, confession time. Who here is not upset that Obama didn't
appoint him or her to the Cabinet? Or to some other plum position?
I thought I had the Court of St. James wrapped up, drat it
all.
CED,
You mean Secretary of Commerce Richardson? Do try to keep up.
CED|11.21.08 @ 5:56PM|#
I mean he came out kinda early and strong for Obama, he's got mad creds and bipartisan respect. And he's from a key demo. Since he was already Energy he'd have to get something like State, so I imagine he will get zilch. I'm very surprised.
|11.21.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Didn't the Clintons kill the last Secretary of Commerce? Aren't
they just setting up Richardson?
Say, this is fun!
CED|11.21.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Well shit! I gotta watch more news more often...
My wife may very well leave me it I do that though...
|11.21.08 @ 6:01PM|#
We should have seen this (a series of totally uninspired and
recycled picks) coming after Obama picked Biden for VP.
Yup. As each horrible choice rolls in, it just cements the fact
that it wasn't a fluke.
|11.21.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Actually, the Richardson endorsement was the beginning of my suspicions. Super Bowl with Bill. Come on, guys.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Looks like the left will be voting for whoever the Green Party nominee is by 2016, though.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 6:02PM|#
BDB,
Anyway, on the boring side I do hope that we have learned the
disasterous lessons of government interventionism that created and
prolonged the Great Depression. No more attempts to limit the
number of producers in a market and that sort of non-sense that was
a cornerstone of the New Deal.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 6:04PM|#
"Anyway, on the boring side I do hope that we have learned the
disasterous lessons of government interventionism that created and
prolonged the Great Depression. No more attempts to limit the
number of producers in a market and that sort of non-sense that was
a cornerstone of the New Deal."
You're not going to get that. We'll probably end up with trade
deals (with heel dragging just to satisfy the moonbats), 1990s
level taxes, and a cut in defense spending.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 6:04PM|#
He will get his "Middle Class Tax Cut" through but it will have a sunset provision that expires in 2013 or some BS like that.
|11.21.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Gee, you don't say.
Gee why don't you explain to me why and how they are so
distinguishable, otherwise have a big glass of STFU to go with your
condescension.
Just because I am more cynical then you doesn't give you the right
to be a smug prick. You want to explain to me why you think I am
making a mistake and have a dialog be my guest -- if you are just
gonna take shots then go fuck yourself.
The election of Obama (among other things) was supposed to be a
repudiation of the Clinton/DLC wing of the party, not an opening
for them to get back into power. Obama bringing them in is a big
fuck you to a lot of his supporters who thought he was gonna be an
agent of change.
SIV|11.21.08 @ 6:05PM|#
I guess Condi's role as "Hottest Secretary of State ever!" is safe for a while.
Kolohe|11.21.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Has Sec. of Defense been taken yet?
I nominate Sgt. Slaughter.
Brian Urlacher.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Based on how things are going, he will keep Robert Gates until June or so and replace him with Wes Clark.
|11.21.08 @ 6:06PM|#
We should have seen this (a series of totally uninspired and
recycled picks) coming after Obama picked Biden for VP.
I thought that at first, but then I figured Biden was chosen to
blunt the "green on foreign policy" attack.
Unfortunately, it was indicative of things to come.
Invisible Finger|11.21.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Obama is the most disappointing President-Elect since George W. Bush.
|11.21.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Obama bringing them in is a big fuck you to a lot of his
supporters who thought he was gonna be an agent of
change
Are you really surprised, though, Tom? Did you really think a
politician was going to change anything?
Russ 2000|11.21.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Brian Urlacher.
???
Don't confuse the Steel Curtain defense with the Bears' current
Beef Curtain defense.
|11.21.08 @ 6:09PM|#
If I die unexpently, You'll know I was right. Now, no more posting by this fake name.
|11.21.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Is Tom Daschle a Clintonite?
Janet Nepalitano?
No they aren't. Although Daschle could hardly be considered a
reformer or an outisder.
Napolitano isn't really all that objectionable.
But the question isn't "are 100% of his picks gonne be recylced
clintonites" the question is what will a majority of his picks be.
So far the trend seems that the Clintonites are going to outnumber
the outsiders by a rather large margin.
Maybe the trend will change, and I hope I am wrong.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 6:11PM|#
BDB,
I doubt that we'll see any cuts in defense.
As for 1990s levels taxes, well, it doesn't matter. Our current
system of taxation leads to all manner of incentives and
distortions no matter what the rate is. Further, given the way that
the tax code works as a lottery for loopholes, the nominal rate
never really matters all that much.
|11.21.08 @ 6:12PM|#
Are you really surprised, though, Tom? Did you really think
a politician was going to change anything?
I must admit, I did. in fact I believed, if not now, then never.
This was his moment. This was his best chance. The people were
hungry for change. I thought he would deliver.
And I am feeling rather foolish that I supressed my natural cynical
tendencies.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 6:12PM|#
I'm not saying any of those things are good. I'm just saying, it is what I'm expecting him to do. Which is not all that much.
Invisible Finger|11.21.08 @ 6:13PM|#
And I am feeling rather foolish that I supressed my natural
cynical tendencies.
There's a voter born every minute.
SIV|11.21.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Obama won't be appointing Wesley Clark to anything.Even a secret MarxistMuslimRadical doesn't hate America that much.
|11.21.08 @ 6:16PM|#
I, for one, am pleased by the internecine conflict here. It
gives me hope that the Democrats in Congress will not, in fact, be
unified in their desire to take my country over a cliff.
Clint Eastwood as Secretary of Defense. Crosses the aisle and would
be full of win. In fact, if Obama makes this appointment, I predict
that bin Laden will turn himself in on the day after the
inauguration.
|11.21.08 @ 6:18PM|#
It's one thing to hire Clinton people. It is another thing to hire the sycophants that sacrificed their souls to cover for him.
Kolohe|11.21.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Wesley Clark is prohibitted by statute from being Secretary of
Defense.
Title X says you need to be retired/separated from being an active
duty officer for a minimum of 10 years prior to being Sec Def or
most of the deputy / undersecretary positions.
Clark retired May 2, 2000 per wikipedia.
|11.21.08 @ 6:36PM|#
I posted this in another thread, but since I'm nominating
Eastwood to Defense, here it is again:
Ten Bears: These things you say we will have, we already have.
Josey Wales: That's true. I ain't promising you nothing extra. I'm just giving you life and you're giving me life. And I'm saying that men can live together without butchering one another.
Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life. . .or death. It shall be life.
Maybe State would be better?
SIV|11.21.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Kolohe,
Damn! for a second I thought maybe they just outlawed him
personally by name.
|11.21.08 @ 7:14PM|#
Would this be a good time to remind Obama that, in fact, everyone didn't love Clinton? That any number of people on either side of the aisle were not happy with his administration? Once everyone is done being happy that Bush is gone, Obama's going to deeply regret making this Clinton 2.0.
|11.21.08 @ 7:20PM|#
No more attempts to limit the number of producers in a
market and that sort of non-sense that was a cornerstone of the New
Deal.
That was the Early New Deal. Roosevelt had those people out the
door by '36. It didn't work.
Secretary of Commerce is not merely holding a post. It's a
fucking Cabinet position. Yes being a in the cabinet of Clinton
makes you an Clintonite. Oh, spare me. If Richardson had
gotten State, you'd be turning cartwheels.
|11.21.08 @ 7:22PM|#
I do hope that those who think Obama will be efficient and
competent and boring are right. A technocrat would reassure me; I
don't like or trust people who want to change the world, and people
who want to perfect it or save it are even worse. It sounds like my
own personal nightmare of an NHS-style government healthcare
program might not be a foregone conclusion. I don't fancy pulling
my own teeth or waiting six months for a cancer screening. If that
makes me selfish, oh well.
NAFTA? Welfare reform? Balanced budgets? Great economy? Respect
around the world?
Why does everyone forget that Clinton spent 6 of his 8 years with a
Republican majority? Welfare reform was accomplished with a
Republican majority Congress; NAFTA too, IIRC (I'm off the clock
and disinclined to do the research right now) - balanced budget
ditto, great economy ditto - stock market took off after 1994,
economy was rather lackluster while Clinton had a Dem majority in
Congress. The respect around the world was off and on; recall that
the French started whining about hyperpuissance while Bill was in
the WH.
And finally - why on earth would anyone who's paid even minimal
attention for the past two years think Obama is anything BUT a
machine drone? He has no past, no resume, apart from the Chicago
Democratic party machine. How could he possibly bring new faces to
DC?
And I have a girlcrush on Condi Rice. There. I said it. I'm not
necessarily proud of it, but it's easier to defend than my head
crush on James Carville.
BDB|11.21.08 @ 7:27PM|#
You gotta love how there is a mini Civil War among the left less than three weeks after their victory.
concerned classwarrior|11.21.08 @ 7:45PM|#
Once again, joe pwning every libertard in this thread. You'd
think that everyone would've learned their lessons after he
schooled you wingnuts on the meaning of the word "kidnap".
Just give it up already. You fools have no chance against such a
vastly superior intellect.
Seward|11.21.08 @ 9:09PM|#
joe,
That was the Early New Deal. Roosevelt had those people out the
door by '36. It didn't work.
Thus demonstrating the fundamental problem with central planning
(FDR's programs throughtout the New Deal being the epitomy of such)
- it places all the eggs of an economy in one basket. Markets
promote a diversity of baskets on the other hand.
The Angry Optimist|11.21.08 @ 9:09PM|#
You gotta love how there is a mini Civil War among the left
less than three weeks after their victory.
You're being generous, BDB. The interest-group Civil War started
when the Prop 8 returns came in.
The Democrats (although this is true for Rs, too) really don't
stand for anything. They are a conglomeration of interest groups
that should be, by all rights, diametrically opposed (i.e. unions
and the environmental left).
Seward|11.21.08 @ 9:16PM|#
joe,
BTW, the fact that the New Dealers even thought that it would is a
testimony of their incredible ignorance. By that point in time we
had a couple of thousand years of experience with efforts by
governments to sanction just a few actors in a market and the
repeated failure of such.
|11.21.08 @ 10:39PM|#
I can't say I'm disappointed by Obama's pick of HIllary Clinton
for another job she's hopelessly unqualified to perform, since I
never expected any more than mediocrity from him.
This is rather worse than a business-as-usual choice though. The
woman is a snivelling, lying, race-baiting, power-hungry harpy, who
will be the worst secretary of State since Kissinger. So much for
Obama's foreign policy credibility.
-jcr
|11.21.08 @ 10:41PM|#
Obama bringing them in is a big fuck you to a lot of his
supporters who thought he was gonna be an agent of
change.
Change we can believe in!
One of the few silver linings for me in the upcoming
administration's vaudeville show is going to be the bitter
disappointment suffered by the people who bought Obama's act.
-jcr
|11.21.08 @ 10:45PM|#
Can we call a moratorium on the "More change we can believe
in" quip every time Obama appoints an experienced person to a
position?
Request denied. The man provided the catch phrase himself and it's
our right and duty as Americans to slam him with it at any
opportunity.
-jcr
|11.21.08 @ 10:57PM|#
You know, there's one thing that just occurred to me, that Obama
could do that would raise my opinion of him tremendously.
He could give HIllary the gig, get her to give up the senate seat,
and then can her the next time Bill gets caught taking money from
some unsavory characters or banging the help.
-jcr
Famous Mortimer|11.22.08 @ 4:41AM|#
"He may boring, but I would question whether he will be
"effective" in anyway that a libertarian would judge that
term."
Huh?
Are you being serious?
Of course not.
A cursory review of the archives will show that nothing Obama does,
short of becoming Ron Paul will be satisfactory to
Libertarians.
Initially, when it paid, he was a radical Leftist hell bent on
converting the U.S. into a Communist regime, and now he's just far
too vanilla to really matter. Somehow his sudden lack of radicalism
is a negative development that should outrage his supporters, and
leave us all brooding over the coming Apocalypse.
Of course, he hasn't even been inaugurated yet.
Cut the bullshit gentleman. You're not engaging in serious
political commentary. You're dick waving.
And stop moving those Goddamn goal posts.
Famous Mortimer|11.22.08 @ 4:48AM|#
"Request denied. The man provided the catch phrase himself and
it's our right and duty as Americans to slam him with it at any
opportunity."
Yes, because it isn't Libertarian change that you can believe in.
Unless of course you think that the average person who voted for
Obama is disgusted with the thought of having to convert from Bush
back to Clinton; which I would be willing to bet both of your
testicles they're not.
Anyway, despite any intellectual flag that you think you're waving,
it's simply a matter of style.
It's like the fat kid who keeps falling over in his chair because
he got a laugh out of it the first time.
Everything in moderation.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 7:20AM|#
Famous Mortimer,
Then why should be satisfactory to libertarians (liberals)?
Initially, when it paid, he was a radical Leftist hell bent on
converting the U.S. into a Communist regime...
I can think of few commentators here who made any sort of claim
like that.
Somehow his sudden lack of radicalism is a negative development
that should outrage his supporters...
Back in 2000 a lot of people made arguments about how Bush was
going to bring bi-partisanship to D.C. Were you castigating folks
back then for being incredulous, etc. regarding such remarks.
Of course, he hasn't even been inaugurated yet.
The guy is the President-elect; it is perfectly appropriate to
scrutinize any and all decisions by him and his staff. Particularly since he is
making substantive policy proposals, like this one.
|11.22.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Seward,
Do you any logical problems with the formulation "Roosevelt's
ending certain efforts early in his administration demonstrate the
failure of the efforts throughout his administration? Any at
all?
BDB,
You gotta love how there is a mini Civil War among the left
less than three weeks after their victory. Except there isn't,
really. There's a great deal of braying from the right about how
awesome it would be if there was a civil war on the left, and an
effort to goad them into one, but it's really not materializing.
Even people who don't like this pick are inclined to trust Obama.
See Randolph's comment: One of the few silver linings for me in
the upcoming administration's vaudeville show is
going to be the bitter disappointment suffered by
the people who bought Obama's act.
It's no different from how they spent a couple weeks talking about
how the left was panicking over Sarah Palin - just more wishful
thinking, on the theory that misery loves company.
|11.22.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Of course, he hasn't even been inaugurated yet.
Precisely, FM. This is the pre-programmed talking point, and
they're all trotting it out not based on whether it's accurate, but
whether it might be plausible. Like everything else you find in the
political analysis in National Review - as repeated so dependably
here - it's not an effort to describe what's actually happening
(ie, reality-based), but an effort to control people's perceptions
of reality and thereby create a new political reality.
See, look at this: I can think of few commentators here who
made any sort of claim like that. Right, that's why the words
"socialism," "Maoist," "Comminist," "leftist," "redistribution,"
and the like are never to be found in the Hit & Run archives'
Obama threads.
Unless of course you think that the average person who voted
for Obama is disgusted with the thought of having to convert from
Bush back to Clinton; which I would be willing to bet both of your
testicles they're not. Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina,
Florida, New Hamsphire, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Iowa, one of
Nebraska's Congressional districts...I'm sure they're bummed out
that Hillary beat out Dennis Kucinich for the State gig. LoL.
|11.22.08 @ 10:34AM|#
The guy is the President-elect; it is perfectly appropriate
to scrutinize any and all decisions by him and his staff.
Particularly since he is making substantive policy proposals, like
this one.
There you go: change we can believe in. Big, left-leaning policy
proposals. Most un-Clintonian.
BDB|11.22.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Joe, how do you explain people like ChicagoTom and the guy he
linked to.
OH NOES! CLINTONIANS! They're probably the same group that voted
for Nader in 2000.
|11.22.08 @ 2:00PM|#
As minimal, BDB. You can always find a few people saying
anything.
As far as civil wars go, I'm seeing ten times more angst over the
Lieberman vote than the Clinton appointment.
|11.22.08 @ 2:07PM|#
...that excruciatingly grating voice of hers..."
Does it piss anyone else off that Amy Poehler doesn't even attempt
to do that voice in her impersonation of Hillary? Shows how
politically blinkered the SNL people are (except for Darrell
Hammond, who does pinpoint takes on whomever he's impersonating);
they don't want to make her look bad.
BDB|11.22.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Minimal but it was enough to throw the election to Bush in 2000. It will be interesting to see how Obama holds onto his left flank over the next eight years to prevent that 3% or so from bolting for the Greens in 2012 or 2016. Because he is going to alienate more of them than centrists.
BDB|11.22.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Bush's problem was holding onto moderates. Obama will have problems holding onto his nutroots base.
VM|11.22.08 @ 2:37PM|#
"Obama will have problems holding onto his nutroots base."
actually, BDB, it's pretty easy - dig your thumbs into your taint
and cup your hands upwards. that'll keep your nutsroot in place,
nicely
Seward|11.22.08 @ 3:09PM|#
joe,
Do you any logical problems with the formulation "Roosevelt's
ending certain efforts early in his administration demonstrate the
failure of the efforts throughout his administration? Any at
all?
1936 was not "early" in his administration, and that was not the
only screwy policy by FDR that lead to continued economic troubles.
Here is a
nice summary of much of the evidence against FDR's
efforts.
This what I wrote:
I can think of few commentators here who made any sort of claim
like that.
This is what you wrote in response:
Right, that's why the words "socialism," "Maoist," "Comminist,"
"leftist," "redistribution," and the like are never to be found in
the Hit & Run archives' Obama threads.
So, since when did "few" morph into "never?" This makes you look
like a jackass.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 3:15PM|#
joe,
As for FDR, I would note that much of the modern notions of the
Imperial Presidency arise with his administration, and that lead to
a number of negative outcomes in his administration and those that
followed.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 3:24PM|#
joe,
BTW, I don't think the modern Democratic party has much of a
problem with the term "redistribution." Indeed, that is the
rationale behind many of the policies that Democrats support. If
could please explain why that isn't the case I'd be more than happy
to hear you out. Otherwise I think it is a very accurate and fair
word to use.
BDB|11.22.08 @ 3:31PM|#
I think WWII and the Cold War would have naturally led to the
formation of the Imperial Presidency, even if Wendell Willikie had
won the 1940 election.
I don't have a problem with expanded powers during a (real live,
not fake) global war, its when you can't get those powers back
after the war that is the problem!
Seward|11.22.08 @ 3:36PM|#
BDB,
I do mind extended powers in wartime, largely because the extension
of those powers has proven time and time again to be far more than
what is needed to prosecute a war.
BDB|11.22.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Yes, well, "what is necessary" is difficult to gauge. Though I'll say, for example, that we got the Presidency back down to a normal size after the wars of Madison, Polk, Lincoln, and Wilson, but they've been institutionalized since FDR. I blame the Cold War for that more than anything. It is difficult to scale back "emergency" powers that you've had for forty years.
BDB|11.22.08 @ 3:41PM|#
And when I say "war" I mean a war that threatens our very national survival, not a pseudo-colonial war or a fake "war" on drugs, poverty, or terrorism.
BDB|11.22.08 @ 3:42PM|#
For example, Seward, it would be next to impossible to put something like the control of our nuclear arsenal under a Congressional committee.
|11.22.08 @ 3:44PM|#
BDB,
Because he is going to alienate more of them than
centrists.
I could see that happening, but having Hillary in his cabinet
wouldn't do it by itself. We'd actually have to see him tack
considerably further to the right than he did during the campaign,
and that's pretty unlikely.
Seward,
1936 was not "early" in his administration
Roosevelt served from 1933 through 1945. 1936 was one quarter of
the way through his administration.
So, since when did "few" morph into "never?" Since when
does what the last three months of commentary have to offer morph
into "few" examples of people making hyperbolic claims about the
radical leftist Obama? Have you even been reading Hit & Run
during the campaign?
This makes you look like a jackass. No, pretending that
such hyperbolic claims were somehow rare of few in number makes you
look like an ignoramus...at least, to anyone with a passing
familiarity with what his critics spent the fall writing on the
threads.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 3:45PM|#
BDB,
Well, the presumption should be the most minimal expansion, which
is the direct opposite of the presumption these days.
|11.22.08 @ 3:47PM|#
I know, how about you veer into a tedious dissertation delineating the precise semantic meaning of the term "few," so as to change the subject from the implausible claim that Barack Obama wasn't frequently, on a daily basis, accused of being a radical socialist on the comment threads.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 3:50PM|#
joe,
Since when does what the last three months of commentary have
to offer morph into "few" examples...
There are a few commentators on this blog who have made remarks
like that. Just a few; a half-dozen at most.
No, pretending that such hyperbolic claims were somehow rare of
few in number makes you look like an ignoramus...
I was pretty clearly talking about the number of commentators, not
the number of comments made by them. So yeah, sure, they made a
whole bunch of comments; that doesn't speak much about what the
overall population of this blog thinks. You keep on looking like a
jackass.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 3:55PM|#
joe,
...so as to change the subject from the implausible claim that
Barack Obama wasn't frequently, on a daily basis, accused of being
a radical socialist on the comment threads.
The thing is, I never made that claim joe. Never. Nothing that I
wrote illustrates such a claim. You are completely out in the weeds
with this one.
|11.22.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Maybe if you write the work jackass again, no one will notice your backpedaling.
|11.22.08 @ 3:59PM|#
That's not what "in the weeds" means.
"In the weeds" would mean, for example, debating whether some
hyper-technical definition of "few" is functionally equivalent to
some other definition.
The opposite of this would be debating the broad point of whether
the characterization of Barack Obama as a radical socialist during
the last three of so months was a relatively common, mainstream
line of commentary among his critics, or a marginal one.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 4:03PM|#
joe,
I missed this...
Roosevelt served from 1933 through 1945. 1936 was one quarter
of the way through his administration.
And four years into his administration they suddenly realized that
creating government enforced cartels was a terrible idea (an idea
that should have seemed non-sensical on its face). Note that the
best defense you can apparently make of this terrible mistake which
led to massive economic turmoil was that it was simply "early" in
his administration. That's pretty pathetic.
It is a fine example of why central planning is so terrible and why
it leads to economic disaster time and time again. Central planning
is a put your eggs in one basket approach; markets provide for a
diversity of baskets.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 4:07PM|#
joe,
The opposite of this would be debating the broad point of
whether the characterization of Barack Obama as a radical socialist
during the last three of so months was a relatively common,
mainstream line of commentary among his critics, or a marginal
one.
Now, it is "among his critics," not just his critics here. Look, I
simply stated what is obvious; the vast majority of commentators
here (very few of them that is) did not claim that Obama was going
to turn the U.S. into a Communist regime. I didn't make any
statement about how many comments were made, etc.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 4:19PM|#
BDB,
For example, Seward, it would be next to impossible to put
something like the control of our nuclear arsenal under a
Congressional committee.
Yeah, but that doesn't say much about nuclear weapons policy, which
should probably be more under the wing of the Congress.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 4:39PM|#
joe,
I notice you completely skipped my statement/question about
"redistribution." I'll take that silence to mean that you agree
with me.
Seward|11.22.08 @ 11:47PM|#
joe,
1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936. Four years into his Presidency. Anyway,
you are even wrong about 1936 - having done a bit of research I
found that cartelization continued after 1936, see for example the
Connally Hot Oil Act (1935).
Famous Mortimer|11.23.08 @ 3:23AM|#
Jesus, this blog is hilarious.
Let's review:
1. Obama, who was once too radical to be a safe choice for
President, is now not radical enough, and so his yet-to-begin
Presidency is a total sham. Libertarians, um, told you so...I
guess.
3. The market would have resolved the practice of slavery, even if
it took a few more generations, or twenty. In fact, anti-slavery
activists probably slowed the whole process down, and even killed a
puppy along the way.
4. The civil war wasn't really about slavery (a classic), yet
demonstrated the tyrannical nature of bleeding hearts.
5. The current economic crisis is actually due to FDR's policies,
and probably every single Liberal president that has ever
existed.
Are you guys intentionally trying to parody yourselves, or are you
just assuming that no one is paying attention?
Seward|11.23.08 @ 3:50AM|#
Famous Mortimer,
I guess if any of those statements represented the majority of the
viewpoints taken here they would have merit.
1. Obama, who was once too radical to be a safe choice for
President...
According to some people, of which a few populate this blog.
(3) (where is 2?) and (4) are consistently argued against by the
vast majority of commenters here, including myself.
I don't recall (5) being made by anybody. All FDR's policies did
was deepen and prolong the depression of the 1930s. Thankfully,
much of what they tried to do as far as price stabilization, market
entry regulation and other absurdities are now on the dust heap of
history.
Then again, what exactly is the problem with both welcoming a
diversity of viewpoints while also arguing against those viewpoints
which one finds absurd?
|11.23.08 @ 11:52AM|#
(Clinton + Emmanuel + Daschle) x Biden = CHANGE!® Damn
straight! Good to see people with their heads on straight replacing
the Republican jackasses who've been running things.
joe -- If by "heads on straight" you mean "their cranial appendages
are not visibly askew when viewed from the front", then I totally
agree with you.
If you mean "imbued with common sense and an ability to not create
clusterfucks when governing", then not so much so. Bailouts.
HillaryCare. Voting for the Iraq war. An alarming propensity to
advocate new wars. Voting for spending far in excess of available
revenues. A severe problem with telling the truth (sniper fire), or
delusional thinking, or perhaps both. And so on.
Meet the new jackasses, same as the old jackasses. (With apologies
to The Who).
Paul|11.23.08 @ 5:02PM|#
I think it is a pretty cynical pick. He is just doing it so
she can't run against him in 2012.
Disagree. I think she's accepting it so she can run in 2016.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245