Transition Team/Cabinet Thread

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Heidi Heitkamp is the front runner for Agriculture.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/democrat-heitkamp-tops-trumps-list-for-agriculture-secretary-232465

R+1

Pointless chatter unless it happens as Heitkamp could easily turn it down regardless of what Trump wants; time to find out whether she is a Quisling, I suppose.

[Maxwell]

this is real

[Hindsight was 2020]

this is real

JFC

[Santander]

We need to push Allen West as far from the mainstream as possible.

[RI]

Apparently it was posted by a staffer, not West himself.

[SteveRogers]

Apparently it was posted by a staffer, not West himself.

That's what everyone says. It shouldn't be treated as an excuse.

[The Other Castro]

Politics1.com ‏@Politics1com  6m6 minutes ago
Trump reportedly will name US Sen Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) as Agriculture Secretary. Under ND law, a special election will be held for seat.

Damn, well that's 53-47 if true.

[Classic Conservative]

If I was in the Senate, I'd vote NAY on Tillerson. I don't think a businessman should be the head of The State Department.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Politics1.com ‏@Politics1com  6m6 minutes ago
Trump reportedly will name US Sen Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) as Agriculture Secretary. Under ND law, a special election will be held for seat.

Damn, well that's 53-47 if true.

Collaboratrice.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Politics1.com ‏@Politics1com  6m6 minutes ago
Trump reportedly will name US Sen Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) as Agriculture Secretary. Under ND law, a special election will be held for seat.

Damn, well that's 53-47 if true.

Thanks, Heitcuck.  With friends like you, who needs enemies?

[The Other Castro]

Actually, it seems Politics1 tweeted that based on this Newsmax report: "Report: Trump to Nominate Democrat Heidi Heitkamp to Agriculture Secretary"
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/donald-trump-heidi-heitkamp-agriculture/2016/12/10/id/763299/

But, that report says according to other news reports, which say she is the top choice but do not say she has actually been chosen. So it seems there actually isn't any new information here, just that she's the top candidate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Interesting - Tillerson is apparently not a fan of the use of sanctions.  I guess this means the Iran Deal is staying after all.

[Virginiá]

Honestly, I don't understand why Heidi would even want to join his administration. It's looking like it will have great potential to be spectacularly corrupt and hated, and by joining she will buy herself only an extra 2 years in public office assuming she were to lose in 2018, so how is this good for her? Does she really want being a member of Trump's cabinet on her resume? His reelection is no more a shoe-in than hers, so it's quite possible that she gets just 2 more years at the expense of her integrity/image. Just seems like a sucky deal to me.

But, then again, maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Great....pro-Russia and pro-war....

Well, we won't go in war against Russia then.

Nope. Iran, or maybe Venezuela.  Also a chance of some sort of intervention in Mexico short of outright war.

Why invade Venezuela?  We don't need their oil and frankly, their oil sector is in such a mess that even if we did need more oil, even a neocon nincompoop could see that Venezuelan oil isn't the best option.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What I think is happening here (re: Heitkamp) is either:

a. She's serious about taking the position

or

b. Bannon and co. struck a deal with her that would entail Heitkamp being publicly considered for a cabinet position by Trump, which would give her bipartisan credibility in 2018, in exchange for her vote to confirm crucial cabinet positions.

Her vote's not needed for that.  The Republicans have all the votes they need.  That said, even if she were to stay in office and win reelection, I think the Senate will remain in Republican control in 2018.  There are so few Republicans up in the class of 2018 that at most the Dems can gain only 1 barring an absolute disaster in the next two years, in which case they might regain North Dakota anyway.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What I think is happening here (re: Heitkamp) is either:

a. She's serious about taking the position

or

b. Bannon and co. struck a deal with her that would entail Heitkamp being publicly considered for a cabinet position by Trump, which would give her bipartisan credibility in 2018, in exchange for her vote to confirm crucial cabinet positions.

Her vote's not needed for that.  The Republicans have all the votes they need. 

Depends on if they can keep their guys in line on some of the more controversial appointments. Sessions and Tillerson are certainly at risk of not being confirmed.

[Vosem]

Part of the upshot for Trump in appointing Heitkamp is that it basically clears the field for a Cramer Senate attempt, and Cramer was a very early Trump endorser, which would give Trump more influence in the GOP Senate caucus. I could see Trump therefore trying really hard to get Heitkamp to accept a position (it's Agriculture Secretary, I could see him giving her full latitude to do whatever she wants); she might reason that she could be a better advocate for her positions from within the administration than from a powerless Senate minority. Makes sense to me.

What I think is happening here (re: Heitkamp) is either:

a. She's serious about taking the position

or

b. Bannon and co. struck a deal with her that would entail Heitkamp being publicly considered for a cabinet position by Trump, which would give her bipartisan credibility in 2018, in exchange for her vote to confirm crucial cabinet positions.

Her vote's not needed for that.  The Republicans have all the votes they need. 

Depends on if they can keep their guys in line on some of the more controversial appointments. Sessions and Tillerson are certainly at risk of not being confirmed.

I don't think there's any particular opposition from within the Republican caucus to Sessions, and at least 1 Democrat has agreed to cross over and back him. Sessions will be fine. As for Tillerson, that might go over more poorly if the "neocon wing" decides they don't want to back him; they're numerous enough to tank any Trump Cabinet appointment they dislike.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Great....pro-Russia and pro-war....

Well, we won't go in war against Russia then.

Nope. Iran, or maybe Venezuela.  Also a chance of some sort of intervention in Mexico short of outright war.

Why invade Venezuela?  We don't need their oil and frankly, their oil sector is in such a mess that even if we did need more oil, even a neocon nincompoop could see that Venezuelan oil isn't the best option.

The Venezuelan government is already portrayed as  "bad guys". It's close so it's logistically easier. It can easily be spun as a much larger threat than it really is. And because President Pussygrabber is going to have a hard-on for a short victorious war. Besides Iran, or maybe Mexico, there isn't a better target in sight.

Once again I will ask why people keep deluding themselves that objective reasoning and critical thinking have ANYTHING to do with the actions of President-elect Pussgrabber and his crew of super-deplorables.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Great....pro-Russia and pro-war....

Well, we won't go in war against Russia then.

Nope. Iran, or maybe Venezuela.  Also a chance of some sort of intervention in Mexico short of outright war.

Why invade Venezuela?  We don't need their oil and frankly, their oil sector is in such a mess that even if we did need more oil, even a neocon nincompoop could see that Venezuelan oil isn't the best option.

The Venezuelan government is already portrayed as  "bad guys". It's close so it's logistically easier. It can easily be spun as a much larger threat than it really is. And because President Pussygrabber is going to have a hard-on for a short victorious war. Besides Iran, or maybe Mexico, there isn't a better target in sight.

Once again I will ask why people keep deluding themselves that objective reasoning and critical thinking have ANYTHING to do with the actions of President-elect Pussgrabber and his crew of super-deplorables.

Because while Trump is impulsive, he isn't a total nincompoop. Even if it's a bad reason, he's still going to need a reason to invade a place. Venezuela doesn't offer any reasons that Trump is likely to consider as war worthy, plus he'd step on the toes of Rosneft if he invaded there.

[politicallefty]

What I think is happening here (re: Heitkamp) is either:

a. She's serious about taking the position

or

b. Bannon and co. struck a deal with her that would entail Heitkamp being publicly considered for a cabinet position by Trump, which would give her bipartisan credibility in 2018, in exchange for her vote to confirm crucial cabinet positions.

Her vote's not needed for that.  The Republicans have all the votes they need.  That said, even if she were to stay in office and win reelection, I think the Senate will remain in Republican control in 2018.  There are so few Republicans up in the class of 2018 that at most the Dems can gain only 1 barring an absolute disaster in the next two years, in which case they might regain North Dakota anyway.

If she were to take such a position, I'm wondering if that'd be a tell that she views her own reelection prospects to be quite dim. Some people are writing her off for reelection. I'm not one of them, since North Dakota is a small state where retail politics matter. However, she would probably have more insight into her own prospects than anyone. If she did take the position, it'd still be nice if she managed to get the Governor to appoint a moderate Dem replacement (like when Democratic Governor Lynch of NH would have appointed a liberal Republican caretaker if President Obama had nominated Judd Gregg to Commerce).

[The Other Castro]

Christie was apparently offered several spots, including Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Ambassador to Italy, and a White House advisory role, but he turned them all down because he only wanted Attorney General.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/12/christie_turned_down_job_in_trump_white_house_repo.html

[The Other Castro]

Dr. Rand PaulVerified account
‏@RandPaul
I am a no on John Bolton for ANY position in the State Departement and will work to defeat his nomination to any post.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Honestly, I don't understand why Heidi would even want to join his administration. It's looking like it will have great potential to be spectacularly corrupt and hated, and by joining she will buy herself only an extra 2 years in public office assuming she were to lose in 2018, so how is this good for her? Does she really want being a member of Trump's cabinet on her resume? His reelection is no more a shoe-in than hers, so it's quite possible that she gets just 2 more years at the expense of her integrity/image. Just seems like a sucky deal to me.

But, then again, maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

Let's look at it just a tad differently.

It's a Cabinet position Trump won't tinker with.  Agriculture doesn't seem to be on his radar.  Being called Madam Secretary for the rest of her life might sound appealing, as will the gagillion dollar corporate job she'll get in the industry assuming this is her last political post.  Of course she could always run for another office afterwards if she's not totally inept at this job.  This is pretty much a no lose situation.

[The Other Castro]

Even FBM sounds like a NO on Tillerson:

Marco Rubio ‏@marcorubio  13m13 minutes ago
Being a "friend of Vladimir" is not an attribute I am hoping for from a #SecretaryOfState - MR

[The Other Castro]

We're nearing the season finale of The Apprentice: Cabinet Edition

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump  3m3 minutes ago
Whether I choose him or not for "State"- Rex Tillerson, the Chairman & CEO of ExxonMobil, is a world class player and dealmaker. Stay tuned!