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
|1.13.09 @ 3:06PM|#
It went by so quickly, but I think you neglected to credit Ms. Clinton with being a US Senator from NY for 8 years. Easy to miss with all this change in the air...
Orange Line Special|1.13.09 @ 3:10PM|#
Cute video. I've been keeping track of Obama's cabinet and other
nominations, and I note a few things that Reason won't tell
you. For instance, while they oppose UHC, they won't ever discuss
the lie from one of BHO's choices.
They probably won't look into whether LPanettaaa had links to a
questionable group; that would be tinfoil hat territory for
them.
And, they definitely won't tell you about the pick who promoted -
wait for it - a "NAFTAFreeway".
Lefiti|1.13.09 @ 3:13PM|#
What's never going to change--despite right-wing "libertarian fantasies--is the continuing role of government in the economy. If anything, the state will increase its role, imposing more regulations on financial markets and providing a greater social safety net for citizens. A larger dose of social democracy won't stop your doctrinaire market fundamentalism, of course, but it will make it seem loonier and more marginal. Good luck with those donations. You're going to need them.
|1.13.09 @ 3:20PM|#
Would you really want an administration staffed with people who
have never had any government involvement before? Just look at all
the talentless hacks Clinton appointed from Arkansas during his
transition.
I'm thrilled that Obama chose someone with no connection to the
intelligence policies of the Bush administration to head the CIA.
I'm even more thrilled that he ignored pressure to appoint someone
with "intelligence experience." So yeah, I'd say I got the change
that I was promised.
squarooticus|1.13.09 @ 3:24PM|#
I can't be the only one who participates in H&R a lot less
often these days because of the troll flood (Lefiti, LoneWacko,
etc.) that seemingly never ends: when actual discussion of the
topic at hand is buried in these trolls' posts and their
follow-ups, neither of which add nothing of value to my knowledge
bank, it drives away real contributions when posters realize the
effort they might put into their own thoughtful posts will not be
recognized as the discussion continues to focus on the antics of a
few abusers.
A few years ago, I took over an abandoned heavy metal message forum
with an associated off-topic forum, and I very quickly realized I
had to implement measures to combat trolls because regulars drift
away when the signal-to-noise ratio gets too low. I fear that is
happening here.
I don't censor individual posts: there is no moderation involved a
la Slashdot or Digg. Nonetheless, I assure you that there are
reasonable technical solutions that still allow the trolls to post,
but with substantially more effort that will limit their
contributions to the points they really, *really* want to put in
the effort to make. I'm sure it reduces their fun, but it improves
the experience for everyone else.
Message boards are private clubs; there's no reason why they need
to be wide open and subject to the tragedy of the commons.
|1.13.09 @ 3:26PM|#
That video is a stupid low blow, I expect better from Reason. Of
course Obama is picking Clinton administration veterans - if he
wants anyone at all with executive branch experience, who do you
think he'd turn to? Clinton is the only other democrat elected to
the presidency since Jimmy Carter, and the Carter administration
veterans are too old now. Even if the Obama administration is
loaded with Clinton administration veterans, the Obama crowd is
quite obviously a change from the Bush crowd.
I've seen republicans call the Obama administration a failure
before he's even been inaugurated, and I've seen democrats raving
about what a wonderful, first-rate staff Obama has put together.
Me, I think it's way too early to pronounce judgment.
I do think Obama is serious about reaching out to the right and
governing in a more friendly, bipartisan manner. The whole Warren
inauguration prayer thing is one of the more obvious signs of that,
but it's hardly the only one.
Of course, from a libertarian perspective, gridlock is usually
preferable to bipartisanship, but that's a story for another
time.
fyodor|1.13.09 @ 3:27PM|#
The juxtaposition of Lonewacko and Lefiti is somehow pleasingly surreal...
|1.13.09 @ 3:31PM|#
What no talk radio host dare to say a few weeks ago is coming up more and more on the air. That is the question: Why Obama tapped twelve of his twenty appointees from the most loyal of Clinton cronies. I've been ridiculed around here for months for saying what is becoming the only obvious answer, the Clintons are running the show.
|1.13.09 @ 3:38PM|#
The argument that Obama has to pick Clintons and their people because nobody else is available is getting stale fast. Aren't there some Harvard types that weren't intricately involved in covering for Bill's indescretions available?
Paul|1.13.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Would you really want an administration staffed with people
who have never had any government involvement before?
Yes. Next dumb question.
Paul|1.13.09 @ 3:49PM|#
I'm thrilled that Obama chose someone with no connection to
the intelligence policies of the Bush administration to head the
CIA. I'm even more thrilled that he ignored pressure to appoint
someone with "intelligence experience."
Ok, so you too are happy that he's appointing people without
experience. Now you're just being contrary.
Oh, and you're correct, he picked someone who was part of the
administration that was asleep during the planning and training
period for 9/11.
Paul|1.13.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Of course Obama is picking Clinton administration veterans -
if he wants anyone at all with executive branch experience, who do
you think he'd turn to?
People with new ideas.
Just shooting fish in a barrel, here.
|1.13.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Choosing HRC for SecState is the only appointment I find deeply
troubling. It's not like I'm happy about some of the others but I'm
sure my happiness in the least of the important man's
concerns.
I can't help but suspect that State was part of the deal that got
Hillary to drop out and endorse BHO. I have some doubt about my
theory on account of the fact that i find it hard to beleive that
it could have been kept a secret for so long.
As to the number of Clinton retreads, I'm in the "where else is he
going to go for loyal experienced government hands?" camp.
At least Panetta has executive experience and a record displaying
competence. Where the hell has Hillary ever demonstrated any of
that? And where are her foreign policy credentials?
Makes me wonder if Obama isn't gonna pull a Nixon and run foreign
policy from the White house and leave State to hold parties for
entertaining our guests.
I might add that I have never really bought any of the
hopey-changey talk so I'm generally able to give you my jaundiced
view of what I expect to be more of the same-o.
|1.13.09 @ 4:21PM|#
How much did Clinton go to the Carter trough? Same situation,
just one additional term separating him from Carter than in the
current instance.
If it's about change, then bringing in lots of status quo
maintainers is exactly the opposite of the right message. There
were senior people in the Clinton administration who weren't as
close to the Clintons as those who are getting appointed, too. And,
of course, there's the private sector, Congress, and the states.
The who-else argument is lame.
I'm mostly with Isaac--the only choice I think was actually
completely stupid was HRC. It's obviously a pay off for something,
likely her final withdrawal and help with the campaign. An outsider
for DCI is one thing, and isn't really unprecedented. An
inexperienced outsider for State is not a good idea.
ed|1.13.09 @ 4:22PM|#
Hillary looked rather frumpy and tired at today's rubber-stamping. Less dynamic, more menopausal. I guess we (American voters) made the right choice after all. We have a telegenic African-Hawaiian-Kenyan-American president-elect who reads cue cards with some proficiency. The world cheers. It's change we can...something...
|1.13.09 @ 4:25PM|#
Great fun seeing Dawn Johnson being represented by actor Don Johnson's photo. Nice touch.
|1.13.09 @ 4:27PM|#
She said something like "We must not give up on Mideast peace" today, too. Ha! That's exactly what I'd like to do. Give up, and let them sort it out. If they want to use our good offices, great, but only after we've reachieved neutrality.
|1.13.09 @ 4:28PM|#
Pro L,
I don't think Clinton went to the Carter trough much. However, the
first couple of years of the Clinton administration were notable
for their ineffectiveness and alienation of his own party. It led
to landslide losses at midterms. I think Obama is trying to avoid
that mistake. Not to mention, Carter's administration was hardly
hailed for its effectiveness, Clinton's was better received.
|1.13.09 @ 4:59PM|#
Clinton largely eschewed the Carter leadership, with a few
exceptions. I think the Clinton bureaucrats, by and large, were
weak, but it would've been worse to have pulled in the losers from
the Carter years.
At any point you want to examine during his time in office.
Clinton's only accomplishments of note, for the most part, were
when he co-opted ideas and/or legislation that the GOP majority
would go for. It's telling how bad his administration really was by
looking at how much they flailed about in the first couple of
years. . .leading, of course, to the 1994 rebellion.
|1.13.09 @ 5:02PM|#
Would you really want an administration staffed with people
who have never had any government involvement before?
Yes.
Next question?
As to the number of Clinton retreads, I'm in the "where else is
he going to go for loyal experienced government hands?"
camp.
Its a big country, full of people who manage to be both (a) not
Beltway lifers and (b) incredibly accomplished at running large
organizations.
We don't need "loyal experienced government hands." That's the
fucking problem, not the solution. We need people who aren't loyal
experienced government hands to take over these agencies and kick
the shit out of them.
|1.13.09 @ 5:33PM|#
Here's some change for you. Iranians are protesting, chanting
"death to Obama!" and burning pictures of him in the street. I'm
sure his fan club will be screaming racism and blaming it on Bush
any minute now.
from Rueters
flugger|1.13.09 @ 5:47PM|#
Would you really want an administration staffed with people who
have never had any government involvement before?
Yes.
Next question?
It's easy and snarky and fun to say that, but why would you want
someone unfamiliar with nuclear weapons safeguards managing their
deployment? Let's face it, government is a complex mess, and
organizational chaos is not going to help make it smaller.
If libertarians want to get anywhere, they'll need to prove
themselves capable of managing government down to a small size, not
decapitating it.
|1.13.09 @ 6:00PM|#
flugger and others,
I think you dramatically overestimate the importance of the
top-level appointees to the actual operation of government. Other
than commissioners, who can be very powerful, only the AG and SoS
strike me as people who should be personally capable of something
beyond mere administration. Since we can put someone like Clinton
in the SoS role, then why can't we put someone equally
inexperienced in any cabinet-level position?
|1.13.09 @ 6:08PM|#
Awesome video. Inspirational. Can't wait for the Obama team to
take over.
Panetta at CIA, and Johnson at OTC, are especially awesome.
Thanks for posting this.
Only one more week, until that change comes to pass.
|1.13.09 @ 6:16PM|#
Pro Lib,
He consistently and publicly denounced torture, beginning as soon
as it became public that the Bush administration was engaging in
it.
Also, his tenure as Chief of Staff pretty much marked the end of
the Clown Car that was the early Clinton White House. Very
competent manager.
|1.13.09 @ 6:31PM|#
Competent, yes, awesome, no. I also don't think he was quite as
vocal as all that about torture, though he gets points from me for
even denouncing it at all. Of course--and I attack with a broad
brush here--opposing torture is all about how you define it. Ask
the Bush lawyers, if you don't believe me.
I oppose even vigorous interrogation. Not because I don't despise
the actual terrorists or think that they don't morally deserve
torture, but because I don't think it works and because it demeans
us to resort to such tactics. Being the good guy is hard
and sometimes means not being able to take the easier path.
|1.13.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Pro Lib,
The thing about Panetta is that he didn't denounce torture as the
Bushies defined it; he denounced how they defined it. He denounced
their definitions as the efforts to enable torture that they so
obviously were.
Maybe I'm setting the bar lower that I once might have, but I can
live with that. The fact that the Bushies were so absolutely awful
doesn't make it less significant that Obama is appointing decent
people like Panetta, but more.
|1.13.09 @ 7:00PM|#
Hold it, hold it, hold it:
I also don't think he was quite as vocal as all that about
torture...
I think it is incredibly fucking awesome that we are sitting
debating whether the anti-torture CIA Director-designate, who is
going to take over the agency in a matter of weeks, is anti-torture
ENOUGH.
Damn straight that's change we can believe in. Thank God Obama
won.
|1.13.09 @ 7:16PM|#
Oh so I see that it is not just the "Right - Wing" folks that
have a "Good ol Boys Club"
The socialists ....I mean Comi-crats seem to have an long list of
the same old same old.
Change would be to get the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
back!
Nothing even close to what this or any "R.O.N" administration will
ever give us will be real "change"
......smoke 'm if you got 'm
BDB|1.13.09 @ 7:27PM|#
Joe, in all fairness, McCain was going to close down Gitmo and end this crap, too.
|1.13.09 @ 7:59PM|#
OK, a point on McCain closing Gitmo, but I don't buy the broad "end this crap" language.
|1.13.09 @ 11:27PM|#
McCain's no torture fan. No telling for sure how much he'd have actually done in office in regards to the war(s). Honestly, though, I think that's at least as true with Obama.
Guy Montag|1.13.09 @ 11:29PM|#
Awsome! this is almost as AWSOME as joe being nominated as CIA Director!!!
|1.14.09 @ 9:16AM|#
Come on, Guy, let it all out.
Really, all that anger and fear, you need to get it our of your
system, or it will eat you alive.
Tell us how much it hurts to know that the next CIA Director
opposes torture.
We're here for you, buddy. This is a safe place. It's ok to vent,
and really make your true feelings known.
|1.14.09 @ 1:21PM|#
If he really wants to bring in change, Obama can replace the people running the INS and the drug war by...nobody. The Panetta appointment is classic: a straight up payoff to an old Clinton hand who's never dealt with intelligence except as a passive, second-hand consumer in Congress. Obama is all but conceding the obsolescence of the CIA. But a clean cut is not, ah, moderate enough. None of these guys can find a single office of government that they can shed, despite running on change. The true irony is that if JFK followed through on eliminating the CIA and scouring natsec for idiots and crooks, he might well have lived out two terms and seen the light on Indochina. Capote said that style is just being yourself on purpose. A little more of that couldn't hurt BHO.
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