Talk Elections

http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/1850400.html?view=116199456#t116199456

Livejournal?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1208/Solis_to_Labor.html

Barack Obama has decided on Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.) to be his labor secretary, according to Democratic sources, tapping the daugher of Hispanic immigrants to serve in an important post for the Democratic coalition.

Solis came to Congress  in 2000 in part thanks to organized labor. With financial and organizational support from unions, she knocked off a Democratic incumbent who had supported "fast-track" trade authority in a heavily liberal Los Angeles-area district.

An ally of her fellow Californian House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Solis serves on the influential House Energy and Commerce Committee. She rates a 97 percent lifetime AFL-CIO voting record.

Before coming to Congress, Solis was the first Hispanic woman to serve in the California Senate.  She is the daughter of a retired Teamsters steward.

She is the third Hispanic in the Cabinet, joining Ken Salazar and Bill Richardson.

Her appointment comes after two prominent female governors thought to be prospects for the job, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, indicated they would not come to Washington.

Damn, I really wanted Granholm to leave.

Thank God. We were hearing rumors that South Philly Congressman Bob Brady might get it. He'd be perfect for the job (the guy is all labor, all the time), however, he's not the brightest bulb out there (and remember that I don't throw around the "dumb" accusation a lot). He only recently became interested in his job as Congressman. He's known as being more in tune with Philly politics, as Chairman of the city Dems, than anything related to Congess. Even his biggest fans joke about that. Now he's head of the powerful House Administration committee so being there actually matters now. He'd still be far better suited as a local elected official though.

I would have found it amusing if Brady was elevated to the Cabinet but also pissed off that Obama would pick someone like that.

:)

:(

A labor secretary that enforces labor laws? Whoda thunk it?

Obama finally made his token liberal pick. While much of the rest of his cabinet will do more harm than good, I can still hope that Solis will be the Frances Perkins of our time.

So, Duncan, with his desire to set up a "gay" highschool in Chicago (where gay students would be encouraged to attend to find a more welcoming high school than they would otherwise find), would be not-a-liberal on the education executive scale?  Oh wait, he closed schools that were failing in cooperation with the teachers unions so now he's a Republican, NVM


Honestly, it's that sort of attitude that ruined Republicans.  Even if you want a candidate like Obama to govern from the left, you have to let him publicly appoint moderates.  Otherwise, he will have his political capital hurt and he will be less effective in pushing whatever agenda he has (left or not).  So appointing a bunch of liberals would make it harder for Obama to pass liberal policies, kind of ironic, huh?  I don't think Republicans face the same scrutiny.

Let's see. Obama appointed some Iran-contra terrorist to the Dept of Defense. He also appointed another Republican to Transportation. Even the CW says Republicans suck at Transportation. He appointed some environment hater to Interior. Duncan has never been a teacher, but maybe he's OK. Chu is OK even though he's probably not a liberal. But Obama has made some terrible choices.

Well, you're saying there are no liberal choices, and I think that's not necessarily true.  Duncan has a history of success in Chicago and has positive relations with Teacher's Unions.  I mean, pretty much the premise behind all of Obama's choices is that they're designed to be competent and relatively inoffensive to the vast majority of the country.  I believe Gates isn't even registered Republican (although many news stories refer to him as such).

Salazar hates the environment?  He opposes ANWR but that's all I know.

It seems pretty crazy to assume every center-left appointment he makes "hates" the leftist cause at hand.  Obama's got two concerns that are relevant to you: political capital and reelection.  If you want to see progressive causes advanced, you have to let Obama not piss of 80% of the country with his cabinet appointments and to let him make cabinet appointments that help him.  If Obama appointed a bunch of leftist candidates for various positions, then he'd be less able to make progressive advances on the issues.   You're completely focused on the symbolism but not reality.

Besides, on your biggest criticism, Gates, Gates has proved to be an incredible able administrator and only is going to have the job for what, one year, in transition?  Not a big deal.

Gates is a master terrorist. Oh, I only just learned that Obama showed how strong Democrats are on national security by picking a Republican as an NSA advisor. The Republican party is batsh**t crazy. Why do they get 3 spots to the 1 liberal spot? Salazar might as well count as a 4th Republican, he's total deadwood. Gee, I'll sure be glad that ANWR is undeveloped when the rancher has his way with the 49 other states. I understand that any Democrat was going to pick moderates like Clinton and Richardson, but his Cabinet as a whole is terrible.

how is that in any way responsive to my post?

You know, you are a lot more conservative than me, so of course you don't care that Obama is center-right.  Obama showed that he put politics above choosing the best person for the job.

But, like the points I made....?

The point is that Obama can't run everything by himself. These people will have a lot of influence over this government. And quite, frankly, a lot of them suck.  Robert Gates is the most absurd, but Obama made no shortage of other sh**tty choices.

I'm saying that appointing someone to the right of Kucinich allows for more of Kucinich's ideas to be materialized (in more ways than one if your read my post) and that you are exaggerating your claims.

"To the right of Kucinch"? Begone, troll.

What?  How is that trollish?  It's an intentional exaggeration to make a point.

Appointing an outstanding liberal, even for a position that I agree with (and I would have most certainly preferred a more liberal person than Salazar for Interior), might not always be the best way to accomplish liberal aims.  That makes me trollish when you're the one resorting to insults and two-sentence insults?  Please

I don't see why you need to refuse to answer my points and instead rely on ad hominems and homeless-guy-esque ramblings tangent to the subject I'm trying to address!

Lunar: I think this might actually be surprisingly a good thing for these reasons:

A: x-y-z
B: c-d-e

Jfern

Yarr, I *hate* people like "y" we're just going to have to agree to disagree

Lunar: ?

Obviously the political views of cabinet members matters. Obama should not have picked 3 Republicans. Robert Gates was the CIA director involved in the Iran-contra scandal. Epic fail for "change" there.  Salazar is specifically terrible on environmental issues. Sure, Chu is decent, but the Secretary of Interior has influence on the environment, too.

Here are some cabinet positions with someone who would have been much better

Defense: Kerry
National Security: Clark or Clarke
Interior: Grijalva

Besides the 4 I have mentioned, there are some others that I'm not trilled with, like Vilsack, but I recognize that there need to be some moderates. Maybe Obama is a superhuman who can micromanage the Departments of Defense and other Departments with sh**tty secretaries, but I doubt it.




Let's face it, Obama screwed liberals. Not a good sign. What the hell was he thinking when he named Robert Gates? Defense isn't exactly a small Department, you know.


Anyways, my unhappiness is that I know that Obama will disappoint. Bill Clinton's 3rd way bullsh**t set us back many years. We need real change, not someone who looks at exactly which way the wind is currently blowing. Bill Clinton moved so far to the right that George W Bush seemed like an acceptable choice for President to enough people that he was able to steal it.  I am not an ideologue, but we can not compromise just for the sake of compromising. We must compromise in order to what is best for this country. Clinton failed there.

LOL at calling Lunar a troll.