Obama and Judgment
7/1/09 09:40![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFood for thought, especially since we haven't even seen Obama take office officially yet.
The chief argument during the campaign regarding Ayers, Wright et al was the judgment issue - Obama lacking the judgment to competently select those he associates with. Now we see:
* Rahm Emanuel (Freddie Mac, Blago)
* Three Constitutionally invalid appointments in Clinton, Salazar, and Solis.
* Bill Richardson. (Under investigation)
* Sonal Shah (Alignment with militant Hindu group)
* Sanjay Gupta (who's next, Jim Kramer at Commerce?)
* Leon Panetta (zero experience in area he was appointed to)
* Possibly RFK Jr. (anti-science
That's 8 choices right away that are problematic, and you and I both know there will be more coming down the pike. Worse, we're not talking partisan complaints, either - all the names on this list have issues surrounding them that have nothing to do with party or ideology.
This doesn't even approach more partisan issues with folks like Rick Warren (convocation evangelical), Timothy Geithner (former Bush official who Obama said wasn't doing his job regulating the financial industry) or Robert Gates (current Bush Sec of Defense).
Doesn't this suggest that judgment as an issue was pretty spot-on? Can we expect it to get better?
The chief argument during the campaign regarding Ayers, Wright et al was the judgment issue - Obama lacking the judgment to competently select those he associates with. Now we see:
* Rahm Emanuel (Freddie Mac, Blago)
* Three Constitutionally invalid appointments in Clinton, Salazar, and Solis.
* Bill Richardson. (Under investigation)
* Sonal Shah (Alignment with militant Hindu group)
* Sanjay Gupta (who's next, Jim Kramer at Commerce?)
* Leon Panetta (zero experience in area he was appointed to)
* Possibly RFK Jr. (anti-science
That's 8 choices right away that are problematic, and you and I both know there will be more coming down the pike. Worse, we're not talking partisan complaints, either - all the names on this list have issues surrounding them that have nothing to do with party or ideology.
This doesn't even approach more partisan issues with folks like Rick Warren (convocation evangelical), Timothy Geithner (former Bush official who Obama said wasn't doing his job regulating the financial industry) or Robert Gates (current Bush Sec of Defense).
Doesn't this suggest that judgment as an issue was pretty spot-on? Can we expect it to get better?
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 14:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 14:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 14:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:31 (UTC)And your question was more reciprocal than rhetorical.
Btw I thought you hated "joos"?
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:41 (UTC)With that said, sure, it's unlikely I'd like most Obama appointments, but considering the amount of vetting that's supposed to be happening and the laundry list of problems and issues...
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 16:39 (UTC)I think the uber vetting process is kind of silly. Yes, it's important to know everything, but people are being disqualified for all kinds of minor transgressions. (if you believe that app the candidates had to fill out).
I also agree that Panetta was a poor choice. He seems very well rounded and experienced when it comes to many things, but intel? Not so much. I like most of Obama's other picks though.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 02:17 (UTC)I trust him to know what's what.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 15:59 (UTC)Leon Panetta? James Risen would have been a better choice.
Counterpunch? That's the only place I can find accusations against Shah. Forgive me if I sound skeptical, but I am.
I won't argue that Obama wasn't my first choice, and he's made some very risky choices, but he isn't all that bad. I just hope he doesn't come after the economy like FDR did back in `32, or else we'll be in a load of hurt.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 16:24 (UTC)Emannual isn't tied to Blagojevich. Neither is Obama. Way to try to do that, tho!
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 01:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 02:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 16:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 18:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 19:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 00:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 16:55 (UTC)Out of this entire list, the only "objection" you mention that could hold any credibility at all is Emanuel and Freddie Mac. The rest are just hazy associations (Richardson), wild falsehoods (Shah), and things that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever moral crusade you seem to be on about (over half of your list - Clinton, Salazar, Solis, Gupta, Panetta). You're just taking the whole "six degrees of separation" crap and trying to turn it into seven degrees.
You'd think this past election would be enough to prove that "Person X was seen eating the same brand of potato chips as Commie Terrorist Baby-Eater Y" doesn't work. Nobody cares. Get over it already.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 18:53 (UTC)There will be four years of this hazy nonsense until the next election. Then, whichever party is in the opposition will gear it all up again.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 01:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 02:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/09 18:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 01:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 02:22 (UTC)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010602867.html
"He was in the small handful of people who knew there was a terrorism problem long before anybody else had heard of al-Qaeda," Clarke said of Panetta.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 03:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 03:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 03:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 05:23 (UTC)But in this case, it's obvious we have someone who does not like Obama's pick for a number of posts. So he keeps trotting out the need for some objective measure of Panetta's ability to be in the post - like expertise. The joke is that expertise in the department is simply not necessary, and may be a detriment.
At some level of government - and I'll argue it's about the position of deputy director or under secretary - your ability in the field has absolutely zero relation to your success in your post. At this level, people must be experts in government, not in some specific and arbitrarily defined field like "intelligence" or "commerce".
I am sure that members of the CIA would be ecstatic to have someone of Panetta's stature getting their budgets approved and bending the ear of the President.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/09 07:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/2/11 05:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/11 14:03 (UTC)