What if the "best qualified" for the job is NOT a Democrat?

[redstate_democrat]

I've skimmed a couple of threads suggesting to people concerned about the representation of women, people of color, and GLBT folks in the Cabinet that they are wrong to suggest that any person from this group "deserves" a spot on the team. Some posters seem to be taking a very narrow view of what makes a great team. Some believe that qualifications, i.e. what's on someone's resume, should be the ONLY factor in determining who gets a spot.

So riddle me this: What if the BEST qualified person in the United States for the position of Treasury Secretary is Candidate A, a supply side University of Chicago, Goldman Sachs ex CEO, REPUBLICAN. This person may have YEARS of experience as an undersecretary at the Treasury Department, years as a CEO at an Investment Bank, perhaps this person has also been a professor at Harvard and Stanford, perhaps they've written several books on economics, so there is no doubt that they are by far the most qualified on paper in the field of economics.

However, their views differ widely from Obama when it comes to economics.

Maybe there is a Democrat, Candidate B, out there who is an economist, perhaps she has never worked at Treasury, but has the education (Harvard, Princeton), named Professorship at Yale, and has written only ONE book. However, her views are in sync with Obama.

According to some here, the fact that Candidate A is more qualified on paper, despite the fact that he is a Republican and doesn't share some any of Obama's views, means he should get the job PERIOD. What if he does share SOME views. Let's give him that. But he's still a Republican.

Shouldn't the fact that Candidate B, who may have less experience, but is a loyal Democrat and shares Obama's views on economics catapult her above Candidate A in the hiring process?

Or does it boil down to strictly what's on paper?

[JI7]

1. part of the qualifications are about their views on the issues

so in this case the Repubican would not fit what we are looking for.

[ToolTex]

3. Exactly my thinking, JI7. A rethug can not be the best qualified for any gov job.

We have had plenty of top qualified NAZIs to last several centuries.

[margotb822]

4. Yes, I agree with you

Especially in an area like economics, which is where Republicans and Democrats have some of their main oppositions, a Republican could not (and probably would not) run a Democratically-principled Treasury.

[redstate_democrat]

8. So the relevant qualifications are altered depending on the situatuon then.

Ok.

[hughee99]

2. IMHO, if a candidate is not willing

to implement the policies decided on by Obama and his advisers (the candidate being one of them) they are not qualified. Either the candidate needs to be able to "sell" their ideas to Obama, or needs to be willing to wholeheartedly implement policies they may have issues with.

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. You know what the best qualification for Treasury Secretary is?

Someone who has the guts to admit that the economic policies of the last 28 years have been FUCKING WRONG to 99.8% of this country.

Find that person, and I don't give a rats ass if they're man or woman, black, white, asian, latino or native american, gay, straight, bisexual, or celibate for life. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, or atheist? Who gives a god damn.

Just as long as they admit what has been done to this country, especially the middle class, and the ability of the USA to actually produce anything of value.

THAT should be the #1 qualification for the job.

[Howzit]

12. I am with Sebastian Doyle - Best answer so far!

Being a Democrat no more qualifies anyone for a job than being a Republican would disqualify them. It has to be based on more than superficial divisive party politics. A good start is to admit that things went wrong a long time ago and that there is plenty of blame to go around.

Only by understanding the problem and dealing with all facets can any headway be made. If one side harps on the faults of the other while concealing their own, this would only deepen the mess.

If the change in government only allows a different set of fat cats to get rich at the expense of the rest, then we have gained nothing.

[AmericanUnity]

6. Read "TEAM OF RIVALS" - Lincoln's inclusion of political rivals for more effective government

[moodforaday]

9. That comparison does not stand

and I don't care if Obama's been reading that book there and backwards. How many lobbyists were there in Lincoln's time? How much money and power did they command? How many of those lobbyists had nightly appearances on TV? What were the laws regarding corporations? (Read Thom Hartmann on that). How many of the biggest corps had a chokehold on TV, radio and print?

I'm with the OP all the way, but even that isn't enough. So many DUers gloat about this candidate or that being "smart" or a "can do" person, without stopping to think what kind of policies these people are likely to pursue in their smart, can-do way.

[Indi Guy]

7. As long as a candidate doesn't hire the Rovian machine...

...I'm all ears.

[Occam Bandage]

10. A person who would work against the policy goals of the Obama administration is not qualified.

I don't think anyone equates "qualifications" with "number of lines on the resume."

[redstate_democrat]

11. Oh really.

That's all I've been reading. Who gets to determine who is the "best qualified"? What experience is "relevant"? Maybe some people think the experience of being gay in America is the "relevant" experience that should be in the White House. Maybe being a woman in America or black in America departs some special experience that is highly "relevant" at the seat of government when policies are being drafted that go to those special circumstances.

The "qualifications" always seem to get adapted or amended when convenient.

In my example, I didn't say that Candidate A would work AGAINST the Obama administration, I simply said that this person holds DIFFERENT views, meaning that although they would carry out the wishes of Obama to the best of his ability, he still would hold views that are opposed to Obama's.

So if special considerations like what types of views someone holds is relevant when discussing qualifications, why not other considerations, like life experiences as a gay person or a woman?

[Indi Guy]

13. I'm troubled by (quoting yourself),"...he still would hold views that are opposed to Obama's."

I know it's difficult to walk that line in conversation (I deal with this conundrum all the time); but how could you have said this better?

[redstate_democrat]

14. I don't know why you're troubled.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

As an employee, you are oftentimes required to do things you may not agree with. Now, apply that situation to the statement I made in Post #11.

[Indi Guy]

17. You referenced "he" - not "he or she"... nt

[Occam Bandage]

19. Because neither being female nor being gay are likely to impact

that person's ability to administer an organization, nor their ability to enact President Obama's policy vision.

[w4rma]

15. If someone is qualified on paper and has right-wing views on the topic, they do not understand the

topic. Therefore, they are not qualified.

[ashling]

16. When it come to Republicans, I am for affirmative action

Whwn it comes to those supply side, tinkle down, market ideolizing, immoral bastards, I believe in affirmative action


AFFIRM THEIR ASSES ON OUT OF HERE !!!

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Supporting the President's agenda is one of the requirements

Usually when someone gripes about a less qualified candidate getting the job is when the President picks somebody who supported them in the primaries over a more qualified person who supported somebody else in the primaries. You can't stick Republicans in key positions if they have extreme ideological differences with you.

It's kind of like when making Supreme Court appointments. Roberts and Alito were both very qualified, but a Democrat would never appoint them because of their ideology.

[dsc]

21. actually that is a very different thing

A cabinet secretaries job is to facilite the President's vision making the secretary's views irrelevent. The court on the otherhand is a call it as you see it arena making the ideology of the person making the calls very important.

[varelse]

20. Integrity and honesty will also be important qualifications

how much can we trust a supply-side ex CEO of Goldman-Sachs who also happens to be REPUBLICAN? Trust is important here also...

[Two Americas]

22. that is a contradiction

To be a Democrat is to be "more competent" or else what is the point?

Politics is not a matter of who is the most talented at getting the job done, rather it is in how we see the job, what we think needs to be done, what we think the job is. Is the Secretary working for the investor class, or for the people? For the speculators, or for the workers? Does he or she see the economy as something that supports the people, or something that the people must support? Is the health of the economy measured by the prosperity of the few, the speculators and investors, or the many, the workers and producers?

It supports the conservatives and their "philosophy" to ignore the goals and focus on the competency of the leaders.

The Bush administration was a spectacular success at advancing the interests of the wealthy and powerful few. That didn't take any great talent or expertise, it took a ruthless and relentless determination to fight for the needs and desires of the wealthy and powerful few.

We need people who will fight just as ruthlessly and relentlessly for the needs of the many, for the working people. That is what being a Democrat is about, not talent or competence - guts and determination are more important than talent, and above that is not how well they can run things, but rather for whom they are running things, not how hard they fight, but rather for whom they will fight.

It is the Republican point of view to say that all we need is someone who is good at running things while ignoring what it is they are running and who benefits by that.

As Kucinich recently said to Kashkari "I have no doubt that you are working hard. My question is, for whom are you working?"

I would rather have a less talented, but determined and courageous, person fighting for the people than a very talented person fighting for Wall Street. That would be the "best qualified" person for the job.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. the whole world loathes Republicant's ....what are you thinking?

a repthug in any position would be a disaster

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. What ElsewheresDaughter just said. Plus they've only proved to be competent

at enriching the super rich. Even rich people are mistaken if they think they would have propsered under a McCain administration. they could not help BUT be disastrous in office, by the mere fact of their being a modern-day Republican.