Jesus fucking Christ. Cabinet positions are NOT a reward.

[Occam Bandage]

Cabinet members are among the most powerful, influential, responsible persons on Earth. They effectively can direct and enact policy. They set oversight procedures; they set hiring guidelines; they direct billions of dollars annually. The Secretary of State is America's face to the world. The Secretary of Defense can single-handedly shape the nature of the American military. The Secretary of the Treasury has his fingers wrapped around the beating heart of the American economy.

Few decisions in the Obama administration will be approached more gravely than the appointment of Cabinet members. There should be--and will be--only one consideration for any given post: whether the person is the absolute most qualified, best-suited person in America to lead that facet of the American government.

No individual person or identity group is "owed" a cabinet position. No individual person or identity group "deserves" a cabinet position. There is no moral imperative to thank John Kerry or Howard Dean for their support by offering them control of entire divisions of the government. It is utterly short-sighted to propose rewarding or punishing Hillary Clinton by offering or withholding a cabinet position on the basis of her actions during various stages of campaign. It is as preposterous as it is cynical to claim that Obama must appoint a certain number of blacks, Jews, Hispanics, far-left-wingers, gays, and women to his cabinet as rewards for electoral support.

Cabinet positions are not a reward. They are not a consolation prize for past discrimination. They are governance embodied, and I hope to see Obama appoint whoever he sees as the absolute best shepherds of American policy, with absolutely no positive or negative regard to the sea of special interests screaming for their rewards.

[LaurenG]

1. Yeah, I have to go with you on this.

K and R

[racaulk]

2. Exactly right.

Thank you! :thumbsup:

K&R

[stray cat]

3. I've been surprised at the number who want the positions filled as a reward

I've seen how well that worked with Bush for the last 8 years. I want excellence for a change.

[bridgit]

4. agreed...

[BlueStateGirl]

5. Exactly. n/t

[Jackeens]

6. Hear, hear, couldn't agree more!

[Egnever]

7. K&R

I absolutely agree. Sometimes the difference between equaly qualified candidates though is the "reward".

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

8. K&R.

[Quixote1818]

9. True, but there will be an attempt to make it look like America

If no women are put into the cabinet people will go nuts, if no Hispanics are put into posts eyebrows will be raised.

[Jennicut]

10. Totally with you on this. Pick the best person, not the best "supporter"

[MercutioATC]

11. You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie.

THAT'S what treating Federal appointments like rewards gets you.

[Sensitivity]

12. Totally irrellevant comment, SINCE EVERY ONE RUMORED CONSIDERED FOR CABINET IS OVER-QUALIFIED

Obviously the challenge is building an effective governing team at this point in the context of
relative over-qualification of all the applicants.

[Quixote1818]

14. I agree.nt

[Occam Bandage]

18. Qualifications aren't just a matter of resume. I agree that their likely

effectiveness as a member of a cohesive Executive branch is paramount.

[stray cat]

23. Qualified anyway - overqualified implies they are too competent for the menial position

[Posteritatis]

37. I question the concept of being overqualified for a cabinet position (nt)

[karynnj]

69. Thank you

[JohnnyLib2]

13. K & R and I bet that's how he sees it, too.

:thumbsup:

[elocs]

15. Well, actually they can be if the bottom line criteria are experience and qualifications.

Let's say that both A and B are equally qualified and have similar experience, but A has been exceptionally loyal to Obama or has done something to help him, or at least not to hurt or hinder his initial candidacy (while B maybe was a strong supporter of another Democratic candidate). In that case it is very likely that A will be rewarded with a cabinet position. There are no absolute cut and dried answers here and it is very possible that a cabinet position may go to GASP! a Republican!.

[AlbertCat]

112. Bingo! Total agreement here.

And no one anybody has SPECULATED maybe, perhaps, could be considered has a whiff of nepotism or JUST reward and nothing else associated with them.

[Uzybone]

16. K&R

Totally agree

[JCMach1]

17. Exactly, if Obama followed this theory OPRAH would be VP

[pokercat999]

88. Would that be cool or what? She would solve the auto

industry crisis by giving every American a new car, and she could probably afford it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Check with Wikipedia: Spoils System

You can thank Andrew Jackson -- the first Democrat elected president -- for making the spoils system into the fundamental system of the Executive Branch. Basically:

In the politics of the United States, a spoils system is an informal practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its voters as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party—as opposed to a system of awarding offices on the basis of some measure of merit independent of political activity.

The term was derived from the phrase "'to the victor go the spoils."

Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system">Spoils System

[Posteritatis]

35. You can thank Andrew Jackson for a lot of things

Including the saying, "the Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it," which the outgoing president seems to have taken a liking to.

No, there's some precedents to which I'll happily say "fuck that," and just about anything pertaining to Jackson goes on the list of those. Just because the guy had a (D) after his name when elected nearly two centuries ago - when the Democratic Party was just a little different from the present day - doesn't mean something's good on account of being connected to him.

[knowledgeispwr]

20. Agree. K&R. eom

[GodlessBiker]

21. I agree with your first sentence, and I'm willing to discuss the second.

[Occam Bandage]

36. Second sentence of the subject, or of the body text?

[GodlessBiker]

40. The subject. I think that if you have equally qualified individuals, granting a position to someone

who has helped you and who you can trust is fine.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Seriously. Whatever happened to wanting the smartest person in the room for the job?

[moodforaday]

45. What happened is that

being smart is not sufficient. Cheney is smart. You need a person who will pursue the kind of policies you want pursued. This qualification has become very unpopular here lately.

[DrToast]

24. Maybe, but he REALLY owes Tina Fey...

Secretary of Sexy Mamas, perhaps?

[grantcart]

25. Fortunately our President Elect agrees.

[TexasObserver]

26. Co-sign. They're the president's subordinates, and he picks them for his reasons.

[Tigress DEM]

27. Right, but IF the person has QUALIFICATIONS AND has busted butt to get PREZ Obama elected, why not?

AND a person's behaviour during the campaign is relevant in as much as it shows if they will actually work with the President or against him.

AND diversity is a good thing. IF you have two equally qualified candidates and one can represent groups that don't get a lot of representation in the governing body, it's a good thing.

You can darn sure bet that ANYONE Obama picks will be more qualified than anyone *ush ever picked.

BUT you are RIGHT ---- QUALIFICATIONS first, considerations second.

[Abacus]

28. Nonsense. As a 9th generation German/English/Irish/French-American citizen I demand representation!

Obama damn well better put a 9th gen'er GEIF on his cabinet.

[Captain Hilts]

29. I agree. nt

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

30. Exactly -- cronyism and loyalty aren't the same thing, although many people on DU seem to think so

[Blue Meany]

31. Agreed and I think Kerry would be a bad choice for SOS but

he might do well as Attorney General, since he is a former prosecutor.

[yardwork]

32. Me too post.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Occam Bandage]

34. Jesus fucking Christ. DU donations are NOT a reward. nt

[JohnnyLib2]

38. GB's thinking is much too rigid. No Cabinet post for him.

[blondeatlast]

46. Give it credit; he's goal-oriented. nt

[Jim Sagle]

79. Yeah, but he seems almost robotic.

;)

[Just-plain-Kathy]

76. Using that term once was bad enough, but twice? ...I'm not the most religious person,

...but that's offensive.

[Occam Bandage]

80. The first was in earnest, the second in mockery of my OP.

[blondeatlast]

119. I am a very spiritual Christian and I think Jesus has bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

Geez, I'm not the least bit offended.

[hvn_nbr_2]

39. Rewards are ambassadorships to Baldoricretistan. Cabinet posts are...

for people who effectively administer the law and the president's agenda.

[firedupdem]

41. k&r

Very well said and true. Thanks for spelling it out! I want the best and the brightest!

[tekisui]

42. Nuff said.

[moodforaday]

43. So there is no such thing as

quid pro quo in politics? Never has been, never will?

And while the following is true:

There should be--and will be--only one consideration for any given post: whether the person is the absolute most qualified, best-suited person in America to lead that facet of the American government.

...it is also incomplete. Go for "the most qualified, best-suited person" to implement the kind of policy the President and the party want implemented.

[Occam Bandage]

54. Recognition and approval are not the same thing.

Moreover, I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together could figure out that "best-suited" does not mean "best-suited to undermine, impede, and otherwise harm the goals of the Obama administration."

[KittyWampus]

44. THANK YOU. And simply comparing Hillary's record of accomplishments to other individuals

yields pretty straight forward results.

[karynnj]

67. That's true - they completely pale next to Kerry's

Give me one major piece of legislation that she was one of the say 3 people who did the most on it. (Kerry has S-CHIP - third to Kennedy and Hatch), the Affordable Housing Fund (his), Kerry/Feingold, many small business bills, the Kerry/Smith provision in the Banking bill that gives states money to re-negotiate mortgages. (I know Kerry was there longer - but by the time he was there as long as HRC, he had already exposed the Contra gun and drug running and had investigated BCCI - leading to the close of OBL's bank. Those things alone are more than HRC's Senate accomplishments.)

Then look at diplomatic pluses-
Kerry proposed the method for war crimes tribunals in Cambodia - that the UN also used in Sierra Leone
Kerry's 1971 testimony
Kerry's chairing of MIA/POW where he negotiated more concessions than anyone thought possible
24 years on the SFRC
Kerry was called PM Brown's closest American friend
Kerry stood against the illegal funding of the Contras - a big plus in South America

That said I hope he stays in the Senate. He is an honest independent voice and he is very well positioned to become a Senate power house - something HRC lacks the seniority to do.

[blondeatlast]

47. Someone had to say it. Geeez...

:thumbsup:

[nichomachus]

48. Well, they are -- just a lttle -- you're not going to reward your enemies.

[Occam Bandage]

55. Not exactly true. Many Presidents have appointed political rivals to cabinet spots. nt

[Rowdyboy]

49. Thank you for stating the truth....Jebus, people have some strange ideas about....

how government works, especially in a serious administration. This is going to be the heaviest cabinet since Kennedy's.

[Veruca Salt]

50. Thank you! But I did ultimatly take back thinking this way...

when I realized how delicious it would be to have PIE fill all the cabinet positions.

[Brazenly Liberal]

51. Is this an issue?

I haven't heard anything coming out of the Obama campaign about using cabinet assignments as a reward. What meager news has leaked has involved eminently qualified individuals.

As a matter of fact, I've seen quite a few presidential elections come and go and while cabinet slots are, contrary to your position, routinely doled out as rewards, the Obama bunch so far seem much less inclined to do so than other administrations have been.

So what brought this on?

[Occam Bandage]

52. What brought this on is not anything the Obama campaign has said,

but rather what people here have been saying. Seems half the people here are OMG OUTRAGED that Obama might hypothetically not appoint a person or member of a group that he "owes."

[Brazenly Liberal]

61. Ah, I see.

Thanks for the explanation. It all makes sense now.

I agree with you.

[Occam Bandage]

63. No worries. Glad to help, etc, etc.

[CTyankee]

113. Really? I haven't seen many who think a "group" is automatically "owed" anything,

regardless of qualifications. I have seen some people arguing their own hypothetical hobby horse against a hypothetical "underqualified" candidates who "whine." Code words and blanket assumptions abound...

[beachmom]

116. No, that's not it. It is the way John Kerry has been treated.

Sorry, you can't understand the difference. Read the articles of the leaks; they don't just prop up Clinton, they belittle John Kerry.

[blm]

58. Those trying to pre-empt Obama tapping Kerry for SoS are using 2 approaches - one that Obama 'owes'

Kerry and that is the only reason why he'd tap him....and two, that Kerry is 'pushing heavily' to get the position, which would make Kerry appear to be craven and overbearing when that is exactly what he is NOT.

[Honeycombe8]

53. In politics, cabinet positions are a reward for those who are qualified for those positions.

Welcome to politics 101.

[ZombieHorde]

56. I have always suspected that Jesus was not the Christ...

but I did not know that the two were so intimately involved.

[Occam Bandage]

57. Everything's alright, yes, everything's fine.

[ZombieHorde]

59. I was having a silly time with your OP's subject line. (Jesus fucking Christ)

[Occam Bandage]

60. I know. That was the chorus from the song Everything's Alright from Jesus Christ Superstar,

which Mary Magdalene coos to Jesus while rubbing oil over his body.

[ZombieHorde]

62. My wife keeps telling me that I have to see that movie, but it just collects dust on my shelf.

It does sound hot.

[Undercurrent]

64. Agreed!

Common sense. No tokenism.

Our economy is on the edge of a black hole. We need the most capable people that Obama wants to surround himself with. If one happens to be a "minority" that's icing on the cake.

This is exactly why I supported and voted for Obama. He is the most capable. The fact that he is half black is icing.

[alwysdrunk]

65. Only qualified people are being discussed

No one here has said that Oprah Winfrey or Jay-Z should be considered for positions. We are talking about competent, experienced, qualified Democrats. Loyalty, friendship and shared outlook are not trivial facts.

[Occam Bandage]

66. And I'm not calling any name that's yet been discussed unqualified. nt

[gmoney]

68. Yep... it's called "cronyism" and Bush did it for years...

[RoyGBiv]

70. I agree, to an exent ...

That's the way it should work but not necessarily the way it does work.

Whatever the case, I agree with the premise. It seems James Watt has been trolling lately.

[Truth2Tell]

71. Maybe no "individual" is owed a cabinet post, but

certain constituencies do deserve them - particularly if Obama ran for President by making particular promises or outlining particular priorities - which he did.

I start with the proposition that a long list of highly qualified candidates can be made for every cabinet post. Certainly a baseline level of professionalism, knowledge, experience and competence is called for. No Brownies need apply. But within that range there are certainly more than a few who qualify. And from that group it is OK - in fact it is imperative - that other factors be applied. Two examples:

1. Philosophy/Ideology - if Obama ran on a platform of cleaning up the environment then it stands to reason that he choose a Secretary of Interior who believes the environment needs to be cleaned up. If he ran on a platform of re-visiting NAFTA and other trade deals with an eye for labor, the environment and social justice, then it stands to reason that he appoint a Commerce Secretary who opposes open-ended condition-free trade agreements. Etc etc etc.

2. Loyalty/Reliability. As an employer I've learned from experience that it's often better to hire employees with less knowledge of the particulars of the job, but whom I can be sure will arrive at work and follow direction, rather than the opposite. This is not to say that Obama should follow the Bush model of patronage, but simply acknowledge that accomplishing goals does indeed require loyal, trustworthy and committed troops.

President Obama is about to undertake a reformation of American political orthodoxy on our behalf. So I disagree with the proposition that his cabinet appointments should depend exclusively on resume, or simple measures of professional competence. Rather, he should prioritize choosing a team that shares his values, believes in his agenda, represents his constituents and is ready to loyally fight on behalf of the new paradigm he has promised us.

[Neshanic]

72. No they are made by a perfect combination of cold logic and no emotion..

no triangulation, nor thinking what message it may send. Who would be so freaking stupid to think that the choices made are the result of just one thing, the best person for the job and nothing else. No political ramifications, no posturing, nothing like that.

Thank God we are so sensible we Democrats, full of such vision and perfection.

[Wetzelbill]

73. Yes and no.

They aren't a reward especially for somebody who isn't qualified. However somebody is almost naturally going to pick a person who supports them or has a similar vision for how to work in the world. Obama might not have a moral imperative to give Dean or Kerry, using your examples, a cabinet position, but they are definitely qualified and they share a similar vision. Now take Kerry and Richardson, they are definitely qualified to be Secretary of State and were supporters of Obama during the primary season at some point. (Kerry of course, much earlier.) They are both qualified, share a similar vision, were supporters of Obama and the SOS job might be a good reward for either one of them, but that's a far cry from say hiring Brownie to head up FEMA. I don't care if a well-qualified, competent and intelligent supporter is "rewarded" with one of these positions, they can do the job and do it well. I do care if Obama ended up like Bush and treated government like a playground for his cronies.

[scheming daemons]

74. No.... every "group" must be represented..... "groupism" matters more than competence....

His cabinet must be EXACTLY 52% female, since that is the % in the population

His cabinet must be EXACTLY 13% black, since that is the % in the population

His cabinet must be EXACTLY 6% gay, since that is the % in the population

His cabinet must contain EXACTLY 30% people who are under 30 years old, since that is the % in the population



Competence doesn't matter. Every "group" MUST HAVE THEIR QUOTA FILLED.

:sarcasm:

[underdoggie]

92. Forget not the 46% who art Repugnants

And forget not the 46% who art Repugnicraps.

[The Wielding Truth]

75. K&R

[ksimons]

77. big K&R

[LatteLibertine]

78. K&R

The best person should get the job. It definitely shouldn't be people you "owe" or your homies.

[happychatter]

81. one more kick - no text

[niceypoo]

82. All I can say is some people are waaaay overly influenced by pundit media

and their endless speculations.

[jeff30997]

83. Dennis Kucinich

He should get appointed to a post that would put him in charge of investigating the

Bushies crimes.Not necessarily a Cabinet positions but maybe the head of a Committee or

something similar.He's the best-suited person for that job IMHO.

[amyrose2712]

84. Agreed. K&R! n/t

[ExPatLeftist]

85. Spot on.

I thought the same when faced with the illogic of McCain supporters that chanted variations of, "He was a POW, he gave us so much, he deserves the presidency."

Twisted values...

I want an intelligent leader, not a figurehead to kowtow before.

[1corona4u]

86. Exactly.

[frogcycle]

87. Reportedly Clinton told him exactly that

Said he spent too much time during the transition worrying about the demographics and not the talent of the prospects

[Occam Bandage]

101. I'm surprised to hear that, but if it's true, Clinton is right on the mark. nt

[Essene]

89. k&r

[Coexist]

90. K & R!

[Jackeens]

91. Confused about thread title: Is Jesus F Christ looking for a cabinet position too?!

[Occam Bandage]

99. Yes, and he's completely unqualified, despite his Close Personal Relationship with

most every major American politician.

[Mad_Dem_X]

93. Exactly! n/t

[George II]

94. Entirely inappropriate subject line - is that really necessary to get your point across????

[Occam Bandage]

100. You clicked, didn't you?

[AllyCat]

95. Unless you're BFEE. Then conflict of interest is the only litmus test

[iamthebandfanman]

96. exactly. we just had 8 years of 'friends'

and people who were 'owed' in positions of power...

no more cronyism

[varelse]

97. K&R

Agreed - our President Elect must choose the very best person for each position.

[ooglymoogly]

98. * was stupid, Obama is not...

so these dichotomies can go hand in hand. There are excellent choices in all walks of life. But you are right it should not be the first criteria but none the less an important one. When Obama is wracking his brain over several equally competent possibilities the second should then come into play. We are a diverse nation and if at all possible our government should reflect that but cannot nor should it trump the best person for the job.

[Lucky 13]

102. 100% Agree. I trust my President to fill his cabinet with "the smartest motherfuckers in the room"

Now someone post that picture: "Chill the Fuck Out, I got this."

[hiphopnation]

103. excellent post

such respites of lucidity and pragmatism are eagerly kicked and recommended

:kick:

[poetsdream]

104. I totally agree

To quote that great graphic often posted here on DU, for Obama's administration, "I want the smartest motherf*ers in the room" in the cabinet. NO EXCEPTIONS. NO C STUDENTS ALLOWED ON THIS ONE.

I do think there is a place for rewarding people for their support and work during the campaign, but there are enough mid-level positions where they can be placed. But I would still have as my criteria: competence, commitment and a genuine desire to serve people.

Also, I like your use of the word 'shepherd.' What Obama brings back to Washington is the sense of the public official being watchful and protective of the public they serve. The person's sense of public service is as critical as their exceptional skill level. It is time for true leadership and an 'keep your eye on the prize' focus on bringing about the results we desire.

[Ilsa]

105. I largely agree. I tried to explain that about the presidency to my mother-in-law

about John McCain. Just because she feels connected to him over Vietnam (my father-in-law served three tours over there) doesn't mean McSame "deserved" the presidency. It is a job to be filled by the best applicant.

I wouldn't mind seeing some highly qualified individuals of various classes of minority status in those posts to allow them to gain more experience and bring their worldview to the job.

I just don't like the aspect of selecting individuals for the jobs for political purposes.

[Demi_Babe]

106. mouth already...enough!!! :-(

[OwnedByFerrets]

107. K and R

[Buzz Clik]

108. Look, goddammit. I put in about 10 hours on the phone for Obama, and I DESERVE ....

... to be a receptionist for somebody somewhere.

Surely, somebody in the Obama administration can use a 50-something academic with marginal people skills.

[Occam Bandage]

114. If you are anything less than Ambassador to France, it's over between Obama and me.

[blm]

109. Do you know that Bill Clinton tapped Freeh and KEPT Woolsey as a nod to RW and neocons at TNR?

THAT is offensive and proved to be BAD POLITICS as well, not to mention how horrible the consequences for this nation on 9-11 by positioning political Bushmen in places of serious power.

[Castleman]

110. Clinton belongs in the cabinet, and SHOULD be there

GEORGE Clinton that is....Secretary of Funk is a perfect fit!

[dhpgetsit]

111. I agree. And I believe Obama understands that.

Obama is not going to follow the pattern of cronyism that we saw in the Bush administration.

[beachmom]

115. No, they are not owed cabinet positions, but they ARE owed some respect.

The way John Kerry has been flogged in the media the last couple of days is unforgivable. I have no problem with Obama picking someone else for State. But the F***ing leaks that have come out, many traced back to the Obama transition team, is so insulting. Calling Kerry a "lightweight" and that they don't like the contenders so need to find more names is just so crass.

I mean, have you NO CLUE why people are so mad? Read the press and the belittling of John Kerry.

[davidpdx]

117. OB, well put

I think people are getting their panties in a twist over the whole cabinet position process, just as they did for VP. It's deja vu. In the end Obama will pick the best people just as he did for his VP.

[Occam Bandage]

118. Crass bragging:

The first thread containing unnecessary profanity in the subject I've ever had hit the top!

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

120. But what you said, needed saying. You did it very well.

Thank You.

[Jack Rabbit]

121. Well, in reality . . .

It works that way and it always has.

There used to be a perfect cabinet position for a political hack: postmaster general. I wouldn't mind seeing it become a cabinet position again, since as bad as the post office was before 1971, as a semi-private corporation, it has been worse.

Attorney general is another post that has often been a political reward. Robert Kennedy, in addition to being President Kennedy's brother, he was the manager of JFK's successful presidential campaign. He was also, by all accounts, an excellent AG. On the other hand, many AGs who got the office as a political reward were abysmal, and often among the reasons for a poor reputation of the administration of which they were a part as a whole. Such examples were Harry Daugherty (Harding), John Mitchell (Nixon), Edwin Meese (Reagan) and Alberto Gonzales (Bush the Frat Boy).

[rpannier]

122. Disagree in part

Cabinet positions are given to people best qualified to carry out the agenda of the President.

Someone may not be the most qualified person to hold a particular cabinet position, but they may be the person best qualified to assure that the President's program is carried out -- example Joe Kennedy under Franklin Roosevelt.

As to the idea that they should be used to reward or punish backers -- no they shouldn't.
But, it's been pretty much that way since Andrew Jackson.

[Revlon10]

123. kicked and Recommended.

[rtassi]

124. agreed n/t