DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on November 09, 2008, 08:44:21 PM
-
I guess we will know in a little while.
Barack Obama's designated chief of staff -- responding to Republicans' concerns that his tough, partisan approach might run at odds with Barack Obama's administration -- said it's up to the new president to set a bipartisan "tone."
Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, appearing Sunday on ABC News' This Week, dismissed such charges by saying Obama will maintain his pledge to govern in a bipartisan manner.
Last week, the Republican National Committee put out a press release calling Obama's choice of Emanuel, "Obama's Broken Promise" because the Illinois politician has a reputation for being "hyper-partisan."
And Republican House leader John Boehner called Emanuel "an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center."
Emanuel responded to the GOP's criticisms, saying, "President-elect Obama is very clear... that we have to govern in a bipartisan fashion."
"The challenges are big enough that there's going to be an ability for people of both parties, as well as independents, to contribute ideas to help meet the challenges on health care, energy, tax reform, education," he said.
"That is the tone. That is the policy. And that is exactly how we're going to go forward," he added.
Emanuel was a political and policy aide in Bill Clinton's White House. Leaving that, he turned to investment banking, then won a Chicago-area House seat six years ago. In Congress, he moved quickly into the leadership. As chairman of the Democratic campaign committee in 2006, he played an instrumental role in restoring his party to power after 12 years in the minority.
Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of Obama's transition team, also defended Emanuel from charges that he will act as a "hyper-partisan" chief of staff.
"Tone starts at the top, and I think that President-elect Obama has made it clear that he wants an administration that is--that reaches out, that's bipartisan, that works in a collegial way," Jarrett said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press.
"There's no one who can hit the ground running faster than Rahm Emanuel. He embraces President-elect Obama's philosophy. He's going to do an outstanding job," she said.
In offering the post of White House chief of staff to Emanuel, Obama turned to a fellow Chicago politician with a far different style from his own, a man known for his bluntness as well as his single-minded determination.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/rahm-emanuel-obama-responsible-setting-bipartisan-tone/ (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/rahm-emanuel-obama-responsible-setting-bipartisan-tone/)
-
I am sure we will, Plane. Myself, considering the alternatives, I am hoping for a miracle.
While I hold the big tax and spend platform of the DNC, I am very impressed at the 'get it done' plan that Obama and his team launched. It was really quite miraculous to see dialed out and disengaged Americans mobilized in such a manner. IF he can do that with all of the problems in this country we may catch a break. I hope he is able to get the economy moving quickly because I am sure that those that brung him will quickly turn if he does not.
-
The limit of what a president can do to benefit the economy may be reached already.
Another stimulus package might happen very soon , but if it seems as if the US treasury is willing to print our way out of the problem the stimulus will arrive in highly deflated dollars.
Does the Obama Economic plan seem smart and confidence building to the money men of the world?
Or the public's of trhe world ant their economies?
The confidence people have in the future is one important factor , it needs to be a factor greater than one for progress to happen.
-
>In offering the post of White House chief of staff to Emanuel, Obama turned to a fellow Chicago politician with a far different style from his own, a man known for his bluntness as well as his single-minded determination.<
Opposites attract as they say and the good cop /bad cop is known to work. Rove with Bush was twice as partisan and they were both bad cops.
-
Opposites attract as they say and the good cop /bad cop is known to work. Rove with Bush was twice as partisan and they were both bad cops.
=======================
Please keep in mind that good cop/bad cop is not a managerial style: it is a method for interrogating suspects of a crime, which is soething entirely different.
-
Opposites attract as they say and the good cop /bad cop is known to work. Rove with Bush was twice as partisan and they were both bad cops.
=======================
Please keep in mind that good cop/bad cop is not a managerial style: it is a method for interrogating suspects of a crime, which is soething entirely different.
Actually, I have seen the technique used in both business and politic albeit without that name.
-
Rahm Emanuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel) will be the Chief of Staff
And John Podesta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta) will be the Transition Head
Apparently Obama is big on recycling.
-
Rahm Emanuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel) will be the Chief of Staff
And John Podesta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta) will be the Transition Head
Apparently Obama is big on recycling.
Y'all just cannot be satisfied. You blast O's lack of experience, but blast his chosing experienced folks to help. Nothing pleases you hypocrits who had no problem with the Bushidiot just reshuffling his daddies flunkies.
-
Nothing pleases you hypocrits who had no problem with the Bushidiot just reshuffling his daddies flunkies.
Perhaps you don't understand the change in dynamics.
You people blasted Bush for recycling his daddies cronies and yet the first two noteworthy appointments from your agent of change are recycles from Clinton. Perhaps it is you who is the hypocrite.
What is especially interesting is that as you blast Lieberman for being a pro-Zionist tool, Emanuel actually volunteered a a civilian member of the IDF during the First Gulf War.
-
I am all for letting every president pick their own staff. Approval of the Secretaries depends on Congress, and that is subject to more review.
-
I am all for letting every president pick their own staff. Approval of the Secretaries depends on Congress, and that is subject to more review.
Staff is the President's prerogative.
But in these two postings i don't see the change advertised.
Emanuel even voted for the Iraq War.
-
The limit of what a president can do to benefit the economy may be reached already.
Another stimulus package might happen very soon , but if it seems as if the US treasury is willing to print our way out of the problem the stimulus will arrive in highly deflated dollars.
Does the Obama Economic plan seem smart and confidence building to the money men of the world?
Or the public's of trhe world ant their economies?
The confidence people have in the future is one important factor , it needs to be a factor greater than one for progress to happen.
While we need the appearance of 'big steps' to return confidence to the money "people" of the world... we both know this will happen correctly with a series of small steps.
-
I am all for letting every president pick their own staff. Approval of the Secretaries depends on Congress, and that is subject to more review.
Looking for a figure head, heh?
The President has to have his men... that's what makes up our lovely triangle.
-
Nothing pleases you hypocrits who had no problem with the Bushidiot just reshuffling his daddies flunkies.
Perhaps you don't understand the change in dynamics.
You people blasted Bush for recycling his daddies cronies and yet the first two noteworthy appointments from your agent of change are recycles from Clinton. Perhaps it is you who is the hypocrite.
What is especially interesting is that as you blast Lieberman for being a pro-Zionist tool, Emanuel actually volunteered a a civilian member of the IDF during the First Gulf War.
The Bushidiot also claimed he would bring back integrity to the Whitehouse and certainly lied about that.
(http://fixco1.com/bushcrony.html)
You are basing what O would do based on only two choices . We have seen 8 years of Bushlies.
For a con to accuse another of not understanding the dynamics of change is too sill for words. Y'all hate change . It is your very definition .
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
con?serv?a?tive? ?[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Besides, you have me mixed up with the couple of other sane ones in here. I am not anti- Israel . I just dont think we should be theit lackey.
-
Looking for a figure head, heh?
The President has to have his men... that's what makes up our lovely triangle.
====================================
I am not looking for anything. I don't think the president's chief of staff is ever a figurehead or a figure head. He is simply a guy who
organizes the agenda in a workable order for maximum results.
Any president should be able to select his staff without much quibbling from the press, at least until the staff DOES something.
I am not sure what you mean by "our lovely triangle".
-
You are basing what O would do based on only two choices . We have seen 8 years of Bushlies.
Then Obama is 0 for 2 in the change department.
And that was his promise.
-
Then Obama is 0 for 2 in the change department.
And that was his promise.
================================
Picking a staff is not something Obama meant when he referred to being for change.
If he did it walking backwards, or in Pig Latin, would that make you happy?
-
Read my lips , no old policys.
-
Should the Repbublicans cause the same trouble for BHO that the Democrats in Congress caused for GWB when he was trying to appoint his cabinet , almost a year went past before Bush had every slot filled , why? , too many cronys and partizens , the Dem minority raised sand over each name as if their carreer depended on it.
-
Picking a staff is not something Obama meant when he referred to being for change.
source?
-
Read my lips , no old policys.
What policies are you referring to?
I fail to see any merit in any of this bitching. It's pettiness above and beyond any call of usefulness.
-
Read my lips , no old policys.
What policies are you referring to?
I fail to see any merit in any of this bitching. It's pettiness above and beyond any call of usefulness.
From your point of view , what sort of Change was BHO talking about?
-
From your point of view , what sort of Change was BHO talking about?
==============================
Not mongering any wars.
Not giving special breaks for the superrich.
Not appointing incompetent buffoons with good connections, to office, like FEMA director Brown.
Not giving contracts to companies without competitive bidding, as Juniorbush did with Halliburton and other companies.
Not appointing rightwing jerks like Scalia Alito and Rberts to the Supreme Court.
Acting to restore the middle class to its previous status with regard to income.
Certainly, any president has a right to appoint his own personal staff. I don;t see any motive for bitching about this at all.
-
From your point of view , what sort of Change was BHO talking about?
==============================
Not mongering any wars.
Not giving special breaks for the superrich.
Not appointing incompetent buffoons with good connections, to office, like FEMA director Brown.
Not giving contracts to companies without competitive bidding, as Juniorbush did with Halliburton and other companies.
Not appointing rightwing jerks like Scalia Alito and Rberts to the Supreme Court.
Acting to restore the middle class to its previous status with regard to income.
Certainly, any president has a right to appoint his own personal staff. I don;t see any motive for bitching about this at all.
I suppose you can do these things with President Clintons staff.
-
I suppose you can do these things with President Clintons staff.
==============================================
Why do you want Obama to have Clinton's staff, or not have it? Is he not justified to hiring any non-felons he wishes? Why should he follow your suggestions? Shouldn't you be harping on Sarah Palin getting back to routing corruption in Alaska, or returning her fancy duds?
-
I suppose you can do these things with President Clintons staff.
==============================================
Why do you want Obama to have Clinton's staff, or not have it? Is he not justified to hiring any non-felons he wishes? Why should he follow your suggestions? Shouldn't you be harping on Sarah Palin getting back to routing corruption in Alaska, or returning her fancy duds?
I think he can have felons too if he wishes, G. Gordon Libby and Bill Ayers could advise him well on the affairs of the fringes.
Why not?
What I am thinking about is the Democratic effort to prevent Bush from appointing his own choices , I actually do not expect the Republican Minority to be that stodgy and obstructionist.
-
>What I am thinking about is the Democratic effort to prevent Bush from appointing his own choices , I actually do not expect the Republican Minority to be that stodgy and obstructionist.< You must be kidding - Stodgy and obstructionist was the very definition of the GRand old Pervs that controlled the Congress under Clinton.
STRANGE BEDFELLOW
Advise and Consent (Also Obstruct, Delay, and Stymie)
What's still wrong with the appointments process.
By David Plotz
Posted Saturday, March 20, 1999, at 3:30 AM ET
Five months ago, the U.S. Sentencing Commission achieved something remarkable. Chairman Richard Conaboy resigned, leaving the seven-member commission with exactly zero members. Since then, President Clinton has nominated no one to fill the empty seats. The commission still has more than 100 employees, $9 million to spend, and no authority at all over federal sentencing policy.
Nor has the president nominated anyone to replace China Ambassador Jim Sasser, who returns home in May. According to MSNBC and the New York Times, at least six gray eminences, including former Rep. Lee Hamilton, former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman John Shalikashvili, have turned down the job. The president did manage to send the Senate Richard Holbrooke's nomination as U.N. ambassador in February, eight months after the previous U.N. delegate left and eight months after Clinton announced he would nominate Holbrooke. Not that Holbrooke will be taking office any time soon: Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., refuses to schedule a confirmation hearing for him till the administration agrees to Helms' U.N. reform package.
Holbrooke, at least, will get a hearing someday. In February, the president again nominated Bill Lann Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights, a nomination the Senate has refused to consider for the past two years. Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says he won't hold any hearing on Lee's nomination.
The appointments process is a perennial source of indignation for goo-goos. Even so, it seems particularly grim these days. There are different explanations for the various holdups above--the sentencing commission is empty because Democratic and Republican senators failed for months to compromise on a slate of nominees; Holbrooke's nomination was delayed by an almost-but-not-entirely meritless ethics charge; the Beijing job is difficult to fill because no one wants to defend Clinton's China policy to Senate Republicans, etc.--but together they suggest a process that is astonishingly screwed up.
The time it takes presidents to confirm nominees has soared in recent years: On average, it took Clinton more than eight and a half months to confirm his initial appointees, up from five months for Ronald Reagan and less than three for John Kennedy. According to ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., it now takes more than 260 days for the Senate to confirm a federal judicial nominee, up from 183 days in 1996 and only 86 days in 1994. One judge waited more than three years for confirmation. It takes eight to 10 months for the average ambassadorial nomination to be approved. The administration is overflowing with unconfirmed "acting" officials. A 1998 survey found that "acting" officials hold about 20 percent of jobs reserved for presidential appointees.
Some of this mess is to be expected. Filling positions is always a hassle during the last years of a two-term presidency: No one wants to chuck a good career for a lame-duck job. And a divided government inevitably slows confirmations: Republican senators are more skeptical of Clinton appointees than Democrats are.
But the screwiness of the process runs deeper, and almost everyone in Washington deserves a share of the blame. Clinton, especially early in his term, has taken endless months to nominate candidates for critical executive branch and judicial openings. The confirmation process has become massively politicized. "Elections no longer settle anything," says Colby College Professor G. Calvin Mackenzie, the leading authority on the appointments process. "What used to be the norm--that the president wins the election and appoints his people--is no longer. Now the losing party continues to fight through the appointments process."
All Cabinet-level appointees are now fair game for a confirmation challenge. The deference the Senate used to grant sub-Cabinet nominees is vanishing, too. Senators have increasingly deployed secret "holds" to delay confirmations, often for reasons having nothing to do with a nominee's qualifications. Helms, for example, held up numerous ambassadorial appointments to pressure Clinton to reorganize the State Department. Committee chairs also refuse to schedule confirmation hearings: Helms (again) derailed William Weld's nomination as ambassador to Mexico by refusing to let Weld testify. The confirmation process is "nasty and brutish without being short," as Anthony Lake quipped after his nomination as CIA director went down in flames.
The number of presidential appointees has multiplied--including judges, there are more than 4,000, five times as many as in Kennedy's time--making it difficult for the Senate to find time to consider everyone. Cumbersome ethics rules have made simply accepting a nomination onerous: Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala had to pay accountants $20,000 just to complete her financial disclosure forms. Nominees usually have to give up their lucrative law practices and businesses as they await confirmation, a sacrifice that leaves them without income for months or years.
It was not always this way. Until the late '60s, the Senate was deferential to the (many fewer) presidential nominees. It did much more consenting than advising. Abe Fortas' 1968 nomination as chief justice of the Supreme Court, which Republicans delayed to death, marked the first sign of change, but Robert Bork's 1987 Supreme Court nomination truly ushered in the era of appointments warfare. Since Bork, partisan interest groups and grandstanding senators have freely challenged even obscure nominees.
You can make a case that the appointments mess is more aesthetic than substantive. The Senate, after all, is apparently nearing a compromise on the sentencing commission, and the president will likely nominate seven new commissioners in the next few weeks. Holbrooke's U.N. nomination may be iced by Helms for a bit longer, but everyone agrees that he will be confirmed. The administration will find a China envoy. Lee has already been serving as acting assistant attorney general for 14 months. If the Senate refuses to hold a confirmation hearing, he will continue in that acting job till the end of Clinton's presidency. These are the exceptions: Most nominees are confirmed smoothly. And whether or not all the right jobs are filled with exactly the right people, the United States still manages to negotiate with China and the United Nations, the civil rights division still manages to file cases, and judges still manage to impose sentences.
But the rising obstructionism does damage government. Presidents, who are elected to remake executive policy, find themselves hamstrung. Career civil servants act in place of unconfirmed presidential appointees. The career folks are unwilling and unable to impose the policy changes the president may want. The president often skirts the law by appointing "acting" officials who "act" for years (such as Lee), depriving the Senate of its constitutional right to approve appointments. The eternal shortage of judges means that some cases are adjudicated peremptorily. The president--and this has been especially true of Clinton--frequently nominates the least offensive nominee rather than the most qualified in order to pacify the Senate. The endless obstacles to confirmation deter the best candidates: According to Mackenzie, the presidential personnel office must frequently offer a job to its fourth or fifth choice because the top candidates don't want to endure the inconvenience.
The goo-goos would cut the number of presidential appointments by a third or more,
-
On average, it took Clinton more than eight and a half months to confirm his initial appointees, up from five months for Ronald Reagan and less than three for John Kennedy. According to ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., it now takes more than 260 days for the Senate to confirm a federal judicial nominee, up from 183 days in 1996 and only 86 days in 1994. One judge waited more than three years for confirmation. It takes eight to 10 months for the average ambassadorial nomination to be approved. The administration is overflowing with unconfirmed "acting" officials. A 1998 survey found that "acting" officials hold about 20 percent of jobs reserved for presidential appointees.
And with a Republican minority almost exactly the same size as the next congress.
Thanks Knute , I am encouraged quite a bit.
-
Not giving contracts to companies without competitive bidding, as Juniorbush did with Halliburton and other companies.
Clinton gave Halliburton the no bid contract. I believe in 98.
-
On average, it took Clinton more than eight and a half months to confirm his initial appointees, up from five months for Ronald Reagan and less than three for John Kennedy. According to ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., it now takes more than 260 days for the Senate to confirm a federal judicial nominee, up from 183 days in 1996 and only 86 days in 1994. One judge waited more than three years for confirmation. It takes eight to 10 months for the average ambassadorial nomination to be approved. The administration is overflowing with unconfirmed "acting" officials. A 1998 survey found that "acting" officials hold about 20 percent of jobs reserved for presidential appointees.
I am glad to have brought some hope into your fear filled life.
And with a Republican minority almost exactly the same size as the next congress.
Thanks Knute , I am encouraged quite a bit.
-
Once more: Congress must approve of Secretarial and Judicial appointments.
The presidnt is free to name anyone to the White House staff he chooses: their appointment is not subject to congressional approval. Congress, for example, did not have to approve of the appointment of Karl Rove. The office itself was created by the president without approval. I am sure that there are some limits to the number of people a president can have on his staff, but I have never seen any info on that. Or perhaps the president could hire the entire State of Delaware as staff, and the only thing preventing it would be sanity and the jealously of Rhode Islanders and whatever you call people from Wyoming. Wyominions? Wyomingers? Wyomeanderthals?
Unless I a mistaken, you are discussing the WH Chief of Staff here, and that is not subject to congressional approval.
Although the approval ties have become too lengthy, this does nt approve of offices that for which approval is not required.
-
Clinton gave Halliburton the no bid contract. I believe in 98.
=============
Not the one for Iraq. I was referring to the no bid contract for Iraq. There could be more than one.
-
Not the one for Iraq. I was referring to the no bid contract for Iraq. There could be more than one.
There could be . But that begs the question, is it good when Clinton does it and bad when Bush does. Because odds are that Obama will do it too, seeing his fondeness for ex Clinton staffers.
Some change, indeed.
-
Let the Infighting Begin
He won by being No Drama Obama. Should he now stir some up?
* By John Heilemann
* Published Nov 9, 2008
The mau-mauing of Barack Obama officially began less than 24 hours after he won the White House, when National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy piped up about the possibility of Obama picking Larry Summers as his Treasury secretary. Gandy told the Huffington Post she had ?mixed feelings? about Summers, saying he ?doesn?t seem to get? the economic implications of gender-based wage disparities. She cited Summers?s incendiary comments as president of Harvard about women?s intrinsic inaptitude for math and science?the ones that helped get him booted?as a cause for concern. And she expressed some displeasure that no female economists are being mentioned as contenders for the Treasury job. ?We?re gonna be forwarding some names to the Obama transition team,? Gandy said. ?It?s important that in this new administration women?s voices are heard and heeded.?
The next day, the HuffPo ran another anti-Summers story, this time revisiting a controversial memo on the economic logic of exporting pollution to the developing world that he wrote (or at least signed his name to) in 1991 at the World Bank?and also suggesting that his having once dated wingnut Laura Ingraham ?could become a source of political embarrassment? to Obama. Soon enough, Summers?s inflammatory tendencies were being invoked all over cable news; in a post whose headline called Summers a ?fat, hated burnout,? Wonkette declared, ?Want change, a fresh start? Hire a notorious ex-Clintonite who masturbates to NAFTA!?
That Obama?s appointments, potential or actual, would inspire caterwauling on the right has always been a given. But judging by the anti-Summers preemptive strike and the murmurs of discontent over Obama?s choice of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, the agita on the left is shaping up to be just as fierce. Traditional liberal interest groups worry that Obama will be too centrist. Newfangled Obamaphiles fear that he?ll succumb to old politics. Both fret that his administration will wind up looking?horrors!?like Clinton III.
Dealing with the expectations and demands of putative allies is among the main challenges facing Obama during his transition from campaigning to governing. Some influential voices are counseling conflict-avoidance: Remember that you won, they say, by being No Drama Obama. But the array of forces now swarming around him, laboring to sink their hooks into his nascent presidency, will make a drama-free entrance all but impossible. How Obama copes will tell us much about how he plans to govern?and leave him either hitting the ground in full stride or staggering out of the gate.
It?s not surprising that Summers should emerge as the transition?s first real flashpoint. With the economy in tatters, Treasury is almost certain to be the first cabinet post that Obama fills. By all accounts, there are four people on the shortlist for the job?Summers, Federal Reserve Bank of New York president Tim Geithner, former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, and New Jersey governor Jon Corzine?but Summers is considered the front-runner, and with good reason. He has done the job before, is trusted by the markets both at home and abroad, has been advising Obama closely for months, and is by common consensus the Democratic Party?s best economic mind.
Yet Summers has more than his share of foes, and not just among feminists. Though he was prescient about the financial crisis, forecasting it last fall, and has lately called for vigorous reregulation of Wall Street, many on the left blame Summers (along with Bob Rubin and Alan Greenspan) for the deregulation that led to the implosion in the first place. And they blame him further for having lured Bill Clinton to the right on economics with the siren song of fiscal rectitude. ?The feelings are strong, they are rooted in ideology, and the deployment of the women argument is, I believe, a Trojan horse for the bigger stuff,? maintains one Summers booster.
The easy, no-drama call for Obama would simply be to bypass Summers in favor of Geithner, a younger man and a fresher face and thus a more vibrant symbol of the change Obama has promised. But tapping Summers would have advantages?not despite but precisely because of the opposition he has stirred up. Obama never really had a Sister Souljah moment during his campaign, and staging one now might serve him well. Picking Summers would send a powerful message that Obama isn?t going to let himself be pushed around, as Clinton was, by the various factions on the left during his transition. That merit matters to him more than ideology or identity politics.
Obama clearly understands the importance of transmitting such signals, as evinced by his selection of Emanuel to run his White House?a choice that many on both sides of the aisle found perplexing and even disturbing. Among Republicans, the former Clinton aide and current House Democrat is seen as a ruthless partisan. Within hours of Emanuel?s accepting the job, the GOP put out a statement condemning the appointment as inconsistent with Obama?s pledges of comity and assailing Emanuel as an ?insider who played a lead role in breaking Washington.? And these charges were echoed, if more quietly, on the left. ?Emanuel as an agent of change?? asked David Corn in Mother Jones. ?Maybe not.?
It would be foolish to deny that Emanuel is partisan, to be sure. But above all he is a bone-deep pragmatist?and also a Grade-A pain in the ass, a foulmouthed, ball-busting, pipe-hitting practitioner of realpolitik, the perfect bad cop to balance the soothing, above-the-fray posture that Obama hopes to strike. It would also be nuts to claim that the left has zero reason to distrust Emanuel, whose role in the Clinton administration (on crime, welfare, nafta, and much else) was as a kind of centrist enforcer. Indeed, several sources in the Obamasphere tell me Emanuel?s installment is meant to send a crystalline message to congressional liberals: that the president-elect has no intention of allowing them to set the agenda, let alone roll him as an earlier generation of Capitol Hill pooh-bahs did to Clinton in 1993 and 1994.
Emanuel?s and Summer?s up-close experience of that imbroglio is perceived by many in Obama?s orbit an indisputable advantage. But for other Obamaphiles, it fuels the anxiety that the regimes of the new boss and the old boss will end up resembling one another all too much. It?s easy to trace the origins of this discomfort: Its source is Obama, who spent much of the primaries arguing that it was time to turn the page from the Clintonian ?triangulation and poll-driven politics.? Yet now an array of Clintonites are intimately involved in Obama?s transition, from John Podesta, Clinton?s former chief of staff and now the transition?s co-chairman, to Greg Craig and Jim Steinberg, both former Clinton foreign-policy officials who are said to be the leading two contenders to be Obama?s national-security adviser.
The problems with complaining about the supposed Clintonification of the Obama administration are many. The first and more glaring is that it reflects a woefully inadequate grasp of history and of what?s required to build a presidency from scratch. For the better part of two decades, the Democratic Party, like it or not, was Clinton?s party. A generation of policy and political people earned their stripes in WJC?s administration, and without them, Obama would be at a great disadvantage, if not completely doomed, in trying to enact an agenda of any ambition whatsoever. His own inner circle is startlingly small and his time on the national stage far too brief to have amassed a substantial coterie of seasoned advisers.
Moreover, it?s already evident that Obama has every intention of balancing the Clinton holdovers with his own homegrown true believers. Emanuel is as much an Obama person as a Clinton one?the two men are tight. Obama?s chief strategist, David Axelrod, appears to be headed for a senior position in the White House; so does his communications czar, Robert Gibbs. And everyone in Obama-land assumes that the president-elect will be taking along with him an assortment of members of his Chicago mafia, people like housing-developer Valerie Jarrett and parking-lot magnate Marty Nesbitt, who are among his closest consiglieres and dearest friends. They also expect significant roles for major Washington players, such as former senator Tom Daschle, whom no one in his right mind would describe as Clintonites.
What?s easy to forget is that, in building his administration, the audience that Obama is?or should be?playing to isn?t hard-core, stone-cold Democrats. It?s the broader electorate, much of which has invested great hope in Obama but continues to watch him closely, waiting for proof that his promise of fundamental change isn?t, well, just words. What that audience would regard as more of the same wouldn?t be a handful of Clintonites in high positions but the sight of Obama?s capitulating to the hoary interest-group posse that?s just begun to rear its head, or to the demands of the extant congressional party Establishment. To a striking degree, and by design, Obama?s victory was won independently of these forces. He owes them precious little. And that gives him the freedom to build a government on the singular criteria of its capacity to get shit done.
The heartening thing is that, so far, Obama seems to get this deeply. It?s early days, of course, but both the Emanuel and Podesta appointments reflect clarity of purpose, maturity, and cold-eyed calculation in roughly equal measure. The choice of Summers would demonstrate all these things, too?along with a bracing lack of concern for what the carpers and ankle-biters think. For Obama, the trick will be remembering that change does indeed require change agents, but that agents of change can be found in the unlikeliest of places: the Clinton camp, Old Washington, and even the GOP. In 1992, Clinton promised an administration that looked like America. Obama is promising something much more lofty?transcendence, transfiguration, a new frontier. But a government that actually, you know, works would be a fine place to start.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/52030/ (http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/52030/)
-
Clinton gave a $405 million contract to Hallburton for work in the Balkans.
Bush gave a 7 billion contract to them to rebuild Iraq, $3.5 more billion to put out oil fires and 500 million after Katrina.
We could say that Juniorbush was over 22 times worse than Clinton. In addition, Cheney was president of Halliburton, and still on their payroll when this happened.
I didn't approve of any of this. But Juniorbush and Cheney were far worse.
-
In addition, Cheney was president of Halliburton, and still on their payroll when this happened.
Another urban myth debunked numerous times.
If a no bid contract is a bad thing, it doesn't matter the scale.
Clinton gave Halliburton the no bid contract. Bush renewed and expanded it.
-
In addition, Cheney was president of Halliburton, and still on their payroll when this happened.
Another urban myth debunked numerous times.
If a no bid contract is a bad thing, it doesn't matter the scale.
Clinton gave Halliburton the no bid contract. Bush renewed and expanded it.
It was bad when Bill did it and worse when the bushidiot because of bovious conflict of interest.
-
How many companys are qualified to bid on these giant tasks?
-
How many companys are qualified to bid on these giant tasks?
2 or three. Senator Fiensteins husband owns one and also has no bid contracts.
http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/
-
>>2 or three. Senator Fiensteins husband owns one and also has no bid contracts.<<
No bid contracts are understandable in a war zone. Would it make sense to go through a six month long bid process while our troops and personnel are in harms way?
-
No bid contracts are understandable in a war zone. Would it make sense to go through a six month long bid process while our troops and personnel are in harms way?
=======================
There is no reason a bid process should take six months.
Each company offers a price, and offers reasons why they can do the job best.
Do you take six months to buy anything?
This "harm's way" crap is just that: crap.
-
There is no reason a bid process should take six months.
You've obviously never been involved with government bids.
-
No matter what I have or have not been fa,iliar with, there is still no reason for a bid to take six months.
None.
If yo have a dog that won't hunt, you get another dog. Blathering about "you don't know this dog" is not an adequate response.
-
No matter what I have or have not been fa,iliar with, there is still no reason for a bid to take six months.
None.
It takes companies weeks to just gather the requirements from the government, then they have to spend weeks writing the bids to meet every part of the requirement. After that, the government employees take months reading through thousands of pages of bid documents, evaluating each one to determine the best match.
-
Again, the process sucks. It should be streamlined.
A priority on the list of Changes that need to be made.
-
Again, the process sucks. It should be streamlined.
No bid contracts were an effort to streamline.
They are awarded on a cost plus basis to companies that have performed similar work in the past.
-
>>There is no reason a bid process should take six months. Each company offers a price, and offers reasons why they can do the job best.<<
Would you be happier with three months? Bidding on these projects invovles billions of dollars, thousands of people and untold amounts of equipment which involves hundreds of outside vendors and their vendors. Then there's shipping and the paperwork that goes along with everything else. It takes time to meet all these requirements. A no bid contract takes advantage of a vendor who is in place and ready to do the job. It saves time and money.
>>Do you take six months to buy anything?<<
Stupid question. Of course I do. Do you buy a house in a day? A car? Lease a property for your business?
>>This "harm's way" crap is just that: crap.<<
No, your ignorance is what's crap.
-
>Do you take six months to buy anything?<<
Stupid question. Of course I do. Do you buy a house in a day? A car? Lease a property for your business?
======================================
So, you take SIX MONTHS to buy a car?
It isn't a matter of two choices, six months or one day. That would be simplistic.
-
So, you take SIX MONTHS to buy a car?
I spent nearly 18 months looking for the perfect car on my last purchase.
-
>>So, you take SIX MONTHS to buy a car?<<
Sure do. From the time I start thinking about purchasing one, doing the research, checking prices on the internet, test driving them, sure, it could take six months.
>>It isn't a matter of two choices, six months or one day. That would be simplistic.<<
Actually it's you who's being simplistic. If you impulse buy your car, your home, or billion dollar contracts, then you're something other than simplistic.
-
So, you take SIX MONTHS to buy a car?
I spent nearly 18 months looking for the perfect car on my last purchase.
Ditto......still looking in fact
-
I never buy anything worth more than $5.00 on impulse.
I think that two weeks is enough time to buy any car, and probably select a house as well in most situations.
-
When there are Toyota Priuses on car lots, how can there be any other considerations?
If I had the money or credit, I'd buy two for me and my wife immediately.
How can anything compete with 48mpg in the CITY? What other consideration is there to make?
-
How can anything compete with 48mpg in the CITY? What other consideration is there to make?
Complexity, cost of repair, etc.
Penn Jillette makes a good point on his show about hybrids - his Mini Cooper gets about the same mileage, and it's a more traditional car (therefore less complex and easier to maintain / repair).
-
I would buy a VW Jetta with the new 2.0 Diesel. It will get as good a ileage as a Prius, plus, no batteries, no urea tank, as with the Benz, and it should outlast several Priuses. Considerably more frisky, too.
-
>>What other consideration is there to make?<<
Coolness.
-
How can anything compete with 48mpg in the CITY? What other consideration is there to make?
Complexity, cost of repair, etc.
Penn Jillette makes a good point on his show about hybrids - his Mini Cooper gets about the same mileage, and it's a more traditional car (therefore less complex and easier to maintain / repair).
Penn Jillette tends to tell lies. He did a "Bullsh!t" show that said that Oswald acted alone. So, there you go.
City/Hwy/Combined
1.Toyota Prius 48/45/46 mpg
2.Honda Civic Hybrid 40/45/42 mpg
3.Nissan Altima Hybrid 35/33/34 mpg
4.Toyota Camry Hybrid 33/34/34 mpg
5.Ford Escape Hybrid 2WD (tie)
Mercury Mariner Hybrid 2WD (tie)
Mazda Tribute Hybrid 2WD 34/30/32 mpg
6.Toyota Yaris (manual) 29/36/32 mpg
7.Toyota Corolla 28/37/31 mpg
8.Honda Fit 28/34/31 mpg
9.Nissan Versa (tie)
Scion xD (tie) 27/33/29 mpg
10.Hyundai Accent 27/32/29 mpg
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=434544
The minicooper is one of the higher gas milage vehicles as well. roughly 50 city / 67, it is however, very tiny. For sedan, I'd get a Prius, hands down.
-
>>What other consideration is there to make?<<
Coolness.
"Coolness" and "friskiness" are considerations of the past.
-
The minicooper is one of the higher gas milage vehicles as well. roughly 50 city / 67, it is however, very tiny. For sedan, I'd get a Prius, hands down.
You need to look at the interior dimensions. The Mini Cooper is smaller externally, but then it doesn't require two complete motors and drive trains, either. The interior dimensions are similar between the cars.
-
>>"Coolness" and "friskiness" are considerations of the past.<<
For you maybe. I have money.
8)
-
>>"Coolness" and "friskiness" are considerations of the past.<<
For you maybe. I have money.
8)
A fool and his...
-
Nice to see Brass so open in his desire to take other people's money. I commend you
-
Enjoy your little shitbox.
That is if you can get credit.
::)
-
Enjoy your little shitbox.
That is if you can get credit.
::)
I can feel your love.
-
The minicooper is one of the higher gas milage vehicles as well. roughly 50 city / 67, it is however, very tiny. For sedan, I'd get a Prius, hands down.
================
The Mini gets better mileage than the Minicooper, which is supercharged. None of the car magazines I read indicates anything like 50/67 mpg for either.
A VW Diesel will actually get an honest 45 mpg or better on the highway, and the motor will outlast any gas engine or electric car battery.
-
You want love?
Hug your Obama t-shirt.
-
City/Hwy/Combined
1.Toyota Prius 48/45/46 mpg - $ 22,000.00
2.Honda Civic Hybrid 40/45/42 mpg -$23,550.00
3.Nissan Altima Hybrid 35/33/34 mpg- $24,580.00 (2008) available in only 8 states.
4.Toyota Camry Hybrid 33/34/34 mpg -26,150.00
5.Ford Escape Hybrid 2WD (tie) -$29,305.00 – 33,385.00
Mercury Mariner Hybrid 2WD (tie) -$29,750.00
Mazda Tribute Hybrid 2WD 34/30/32 mpg
6.Toyota Yaris (manual) 29/36/32 mpg -$11,550.00
7.Toyota Corolla 28/37/31 mpg - 15,350.00 – 18,860.00-
8.Honda Fit 28/34/31 mpg- $14,550.00
9.Nissan Versa (tie) - $9,990.00 – 16,210.00
Scion xD (tie) 27/33/29 mpg - $14,550.00 (2008)
10.Hyundai Accent 27/32/29 mpg- $11,070.00 – 15,070.00
I think it is pretty naïve and simplistic to think that people buy any car for one reason.
I have been reading in this club about the wonders and beauty of the Prius.
I would venture a guess that price and ease of financing have every bit as much to do with the purchase as the ‘mileage.’
-
I tend to think that many people buy cars the way they buy clothes: based on style rather than practicality.
Land Rovers get terrible reviews from the car magazines based on their need for frequent and expensive repairs, and yet they continue to sell because they look cool to at least some people.
The salesman can have a lot to do with it as well. They can sell a $50K truck for $40K these days and that sounds like $10 saved to the guy who bought it, even if the new owner really needs something smaller and cheaper to drive.