Non-sensical talking point: "Obama's picks will do HIS bidding, not theirs'"

[brentspeak]

So then what exactly is that bidding, if you retain people like Robert Gates or Rahm Emmanuel or Larry Summers to do it?

[natrat]

1. what do ya want in the white house? a liberal or something

[DJ13]

4. Yes!

Please?

[Lerkfish]

2. not really sure what your point is.

are you saying he needs to surround himself with ideological clones?

[rvablue]

18. I think the only thing that would satisfy some folks here is if Kucinich dived into his own portal

like in "Being John Malkovich" and was the only face and voice inhabiting a room.....I loved that movie!

[polmaven]

20. Apparently it should be

ideological clones of whom no one has ever heard, and who have no governmental experience whatsoever.

[Romulox]

21. I'm fairly sure that he has. nt

[yodermon]

3. i don't understand your point.

Are you saying those individuals will not do Obama's bidding?

[DJ13]

9. Do you believe Summers and Rubin were acting on behalf of Clinton

...... or their own interests when they pushed Bill into signing the financial industry deregulation that has created the current crisis?

Were they at fault, or was it all Bill Clinton's fault?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. It was Bill Clinton's fault for signing it.

I know that 8 years of having a clown puppet in the Oval Office can cause one to forget that the buck stops with the President, but the buck really does stop with the President.

Besides, I seriously doubt Clinton signed anything without knowing what he was getting into.

[Spike89]

32. And it isn't that simple

I'm no fan of wholesale deregulation, but that is pure republican claptrap that Clinton is responsible for the current mess. Regulation and deregulation are both tools for managing an economy. Regulation can and often does cool the economy, deregulating an industry can and often gives it a boost. They do work like a brake and an accelerator. So Clinton taps the gas pedal 9 years ago, Bush comes in and mashes it against the floor for 8 years and it's all Clinton's fault?!?!

I don't want to argue the merits and perils of regulation aside from the effects on the economy. I personally think most regulation is morally worth the potential harm to the economy. But there are times when unregulating an industry is the right move, (unregulated Internet is/was a great example) but it must be something you monitor, jumping in with regulations if/when the sharks start skewing the game unfairly.

Why do so many Democrats work so hard to demonize other Democrats?

[cali]

5. uh, Rahm Emanuel will push Obama's agenda on the Hill

He's rather skilled at that, you know. And Summers will advise Obama on fiscal issues- as will several others. Obama is clearly going for competence and expertise over ideology. And that includes such folks as Melody Barnes who's ideology is Progressive.

But whatever.

[brentspeak]

7. Uh, in what way is Larry Summers "competent" and an "expert" on fiscal issues?

You haven't been following the news concerning Summers' role in blocking financial industry regulation back in the late 90's, have you?

[LaurenG]

6. To get people to work together to change some things that are wrong

if you go back and listen to/read what he said he wanted to do I'd have to surmise that that is what his bidding is.
If Obama tells Robert Gates or Rahm Emmanuel or Larry Summers to do something I am pretty sure they're going to do it or risk their jobs. What is so hard to figure out? :shrug:

[brentspeak]

8. It's hard to figure out why he would retain some of the worst people out there.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. You expected SecTreas Kucinich? Or Leonard Pellitier at Interior? n/t

[brentspeak]

12. Straw, meet Man.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. No, Kucinich should be at HHS

Leonard Peltier would probably do well at Interior, but being a convicted felon (even wrongly convicted) he might have a little problem with Senate confirmation. :(

[rvablue]

19. I'm very curious with all of the constant talk of Kucinich....has anyone

either from the man himself or from any Dem back channels ever heard that he is interested in a Secretary position of any kind.

Because Kucinich has always struck me as very independant and I don't think he would want to take orders from anyone or have to cede his point of view to the Chief Executive.....

I'm sure there are quite a few DUers who have an inside into the Kucinich camp...maybe someone should ask him?????????

[gogoplata]

29. My guess is that he would be open to head the Dept of Peace,

should Obama choose to do create it.

[LaurenG]

11. To get them to help him get the other side in gear

We need some changes quickly and it would seem to me if you hire some from the other side whose job it is to get your changes implemented they may have a better chance of convincing the naysayers of the correct action to take.

[brentspeak]

13. Is that what Obama said?

[LaurenG]

15. Is what -what Obama said?

That he has to get the country united and get the two sides working together rather than acting like partisan hacks, (my words, his sentiment) or that we are going to have to work together and bring both sides of the house and senate on board?

[gogoplata]

22. Why would the threat of losing the job be a deterrent?

[LaurenG]

25. Do you mean that being replaced isn't a bad thing?

How else does it work? If people can't do their job and follow direction from their boss the next thing is termination. Which of the new hires for this term do you think want to be replaced? Or even better which do you think are not going to follow direction?

[gogoplata]

27. It works both ways, if Obama has to terminate, it still reflects on him.

[LaurenG]

30. Too bad

Since I have hired plenty of people and fired very few all I can say is oh well. If the people I hire can't do the job I hired them for and aren't able to follow guidelines - they get the boot. Sometiomes that happens.

[gogoplata]

31. You're missing both points. First the appointees have no real fear of leaving the

post, financially they do much better in the private sector. Secondly, your personnel judgments are not really of interest to the United States or the world, Obama's are.

[Grateful for Hope]

34. The fact that they are accepting these positions

and are choosing not to be in the private sector suggests that these positions must mean something to them. My guess is that they mean a LOT to them.

So, being fired would most probably be a painful experience.

[LaurenG]

35. Ha - you are too cute

Of course my personnel "calls" are of no interest. The point is, that is the way things go. If these people don't want their jobs let them go find something else to do, that's life. There are plenty of other people who can take the position and would love to help do what Obama asks of them.

"So what" is still my answer and no I didn't miss any point. No one is indispensable.

Do you want to try again? :shrug:

[high density]

17. It's about getting people that know how to navigate Washington.

Your OP is something we can only judge from a point in the future after Obama has been president for a while. Too many on DU are acting like they've seen the future already and are concerned that Obama is some sort of Bush clone. Give it a break.

[gogoplata]

23. If that's the way governing works, that the President determines everything anyway,

why doesn't he just keep everybody from the b##h administration in. They know how to "navigate" DC, as everyone touts as some kind of asset.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Those he chose to carry out his vision, will carry out his vision.

It really isn't that difficult of a concept to understand.

You have obviously joined the mindset of those who have decided to measure Change as being anyone, anything, and all that Obama utters in total without thought or nuance. I don't blame you as this is simple and convenient. In fact, you sound just like every talking head currently on the Television....as they too are instigating by making statements similar to yours.

The beauty about this, just like anything else, is that time will tell much.

[brentspeak]

37. In English, please?

Some of us are cautious Obama supporters, not wide-eyed sycophants.

[FrenchieCat]

39. I am not surprised that you can't comprehend what I wrote,

nor that snark and name calling comes with your post.

Does Cautious mean "not really"? Because if it does, then I have cracked the so called "brentspeak".

[Zynx]

28. Department heads are administrators, not drafters of policy for the most part.

Sure, they have significant input, but you want capable people who can actually run a large body. You don't put political statements in as heads of departments.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Easy. Have you ever actually held a job?

You do what you are charged to do. Not happy? Work somewhere else.

DUH.

[brentspeak]

36. You didn't even bother to answer the question, so it wasn't the clever response you thought it was.

The question was: what really is Obama's agenda if he has Gates, Emmanuel, and Summers acting on his behalf? Does he share their political and economic views? (Gates: let's stay in Iraq/torture isn't so bad; Emmanuel: let's drum out the truly progressive Dems from the party, and listen more to corporate lobbyists; Summers: let's stick with trickle-down economics).

[BeyondGeography]

40. Except he's the boss and, based on the feedback he received during the hiring process

they gave him the answers he was looking for and persuaded him that they were sincere.

If it turns out they were bullshitting, he cans their asses.

[DevonRex]

38. Nonsensical talking point: "Obama's appointees won't do what they're told."

They'll be the only appointees ever in the history of the United States who just do what they want, no matter what Obama says. And, of course, Obama won't fire them for it, either.

:sarcasm: