Why this new meme about "Most Qualified People?"

[Truth2Tell]

What's with this new meme on DU about "competence" only when it comes to Obama appointments?

Ability, qualifications and experience only," as one OP scolds? This thing is everywhere I turn on this board.

Forget ideology. Forget values. Forget loyalty. Forget commitment to the agenda on which the new President ran. What's up with this?

Could it be that Obama is almost certainly going to appoint some right-wing Dems and/or Republicans to his cabinet and therefore the establishment apologists need a rationalization?

Is the excuse for shunning the liberal/populist majority of the nation going to be that Obama is simply choosing the "most qualified" people and behaving in a so-called "post-partisan" way?

Will the apologists now lecture liberals that no one "deserves" a cabinet post and that they should be driven by competence and not "politics", when in fact the RW choices will be made for reasons equally or more political?

Is this what we are seeing?

:shrug:

[MadBadger]

1. For me, Qualifications include all of what you said.

[Truth2Tell]

3. not everyone around here seems to agree tho

You'd think Obama was looking to hire plumbers or accountants rather than make political appointments.

[TexasObserver]

2. The only really important requirement is that Obama picks them.

After that is the ability to get approved by the Senate.

No one is owed a position UNLESS they were promised it by Obama during the campaign, as a quid pro quo for something he wanted. Although that never technically happens (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), because that would be illegal.

[niceypoo]

35. Going by the 'qualifications are the most important requirement' measure...

...Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, Rice and Wolfowitz were all excellent picks.

Think, people, think!

[TexasObserver]

72. Right!

"Most Qualified" is very subjective term, since those who use it usually have their own definition in mind.

[last1standing]

4. It's a way to shut down any criticism of Obama.

Apparently, if you don't support every move and every suggestion he makes, you need to be called an ideologue or a troll. To even state that Obama should make a certain type of appointment will get you a dozen posters willing to throw everything progressives are supposed to stand for under the bus. It becomes all about 'the smartest motherfuckers in the room' and the belief that there are unique individuals able to perform magical tasks if only we leave President Obama free to make his appointments without our input.

To all of that, I say bullshit. I didn't vote for Obama or the Democratic party just to see my basic human rights ignored, again. I'm going to stand up tall and shout loudly to make certain I'm heard. I want my rights just as everyone else got theirs and no insults from the Obama Worship Choir is going to stop me from saying so.

And for all you worshipers who are about to alert my post, I support Obama and fully expect him to do the right thing. My problem is with you, not him.

[cali]

8. oh bullshit. I'm so sick of that whiny meme. "Anyone who disagrees

with me is trying to shut me down". Hardly. Get over your precious little self. And whether you like it or not, Obama is going to make appointments without any input from the general public. If you don't like that concept, you probably shouldn't vote for anyone who doesn't promise to enlist public opinion on his/her appointments. Being elected is what earned him the right to make appointments without the general public weighing in.

And what on earth makes you think that directing Obama's appointments is some basic human right?

And no, I doubt anyone would bother alerting on your pathetic little post.

Now just write me off as an Obama worshipper.

[crispini]

10. yay!

:applause:

[Alter Ego]

21. Uh...what Cali said.

Seriously, how is it you always manage to write more or less what I'm thinking?

[last1standing]

34. I already have.

You're one of the worst for slamming anyone who doesn't think and say exactly what you want them to so no one really takes you seriously.

[cali]

36. lol. no one takes me seriously? that must be why several people

on this thread alone have heartily endorsed what I had to say.

And I don't fucking whine or EVER accuse people of trying to shut me up. I just fight back and express what I believe.

[JuniperLea]

65. You may be a lot of things, cali...

But you aren't weak... and I've never, ever seen anyone shut you up!

:rofl:

I tend to take you seriously, even when I think you're full of poo:)

[cali]

66. I have a certain grudging fondness and respect for you

too.

Don't quite know how it happened.

:hi:

[JuniperLea]

68. Oh, good GOD!

I know how you feel. Beats the hell out of me how that happened... I'm not going to question it too much:)

:hi:

[last1standing]

74. You flatter yourself quite well, I'll give you that.

But that's really about it. Your attempts to bully others into submission might impress the weak minded but no one else.

[cali]

79. do you do anything besides petulance?

Anything at all?

[last1standing]

83. Do you anything but bully others?

If you do, I haven't seen it. So am I your new project to chase off or is this just a little fun for you before heading to real game?

[davidpdx]

96. I take you seriously Cali

and would kiss your toes. :yourock:

[Shakespeare]

50. That's one of the dumbest, and simultaneously funniest, things I've read here in awhile.

That would be absurdist-funny, just to be specific.

[Shakespeare]

52. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

61. Two for two so far today.

Spot on here, and your "Clinton martyr complex" quote elsewhere was dead on, too.

[always_saturday]

17. I so agree with you.

[Neshanic]

29. Nicely said!

[bowens43]

5. Yes, qualificatons are the most important thing.

those qualifications would include ideology. values and loyalty.

You are implying that appointing someone who isn't competent would be ok as long as they think as we do. That would spell disaster. Just as it did in the bush administration.

[cali]

6. Could it be you paid zero attention to the platform on which Obama ran?

He's said all along that he'd appoint Repub(s). He almost certainly will apoint centrist and conservative dems- as well as liberals.

This should come as no surprise to anyone- except those that paid no attention.

[BzaDem]

7. Exactly. n/t

[AZBlue]

69. The answer to that would be: YES.

Unfortunately they're not the only one either.

[Lyric]

9. I would think that after people like Mike "Brownie" Brown, competence

would be first and foremost on the list of requirements for an appointment.

Loyalty, ideology, and values are important too, but when it comes down to it: appointed officials take their marching orders from Obama. Their own ideologies aren't going to matter so much when they can't really do anything (ideologically speaking) without clearing it first with The Boss. The ability to DO the job and do it WELL is the most important thing--Obama can keep them marching to his tune on everything else.

I honestly don't understand what all the fuss is about. It's not like these people are going to have incredible power that is beyond Obama's ability to reign in to his agenda.

:shrug:

[crispini]

11. +1

[blondeatlast]

14. What you said, what you said, what you said! Thanks for the sanity. With competent

leaders Obama can count on, they won't need to clear every little issue they face with the boss--and you offer the PERFECT example for demonstration.

:thumbsup:

[Lisa0825]

43. BINGO! nt

[Truth2Tell]

44. I start with the proposition that

there is more than just one capable experienced person available for each position. Then, from within that pool, Obama should choose people by taking into account other factors, like loyalty, ideology and values. I honestly don't see how that is a problem.

I think he should be true the things he promised when he ran. For example, if he promised to roll back Bush admin changes to environmental regulations - he should choose an Interior Secretary who has the same agenda. If he promised a new respect for gays then he should choose a head of the EEOC who isn't a bigot, etc etc etc.

I'm sure Obama could find many very capable, experienced candidates for Treasury on Wall Street. But if they are just the same people who got us into our current mess then he wouldn't be living up to his promises of change, IMO.

I haven't suggested Obama appoint Brownies or disregard capabilities. But neither do I think he should follow the Rumsfeld/Cheney model of experience only.

[Egnever]

51. Seems to me its more like you start from the proposition

That whoever Obama appoints will disappoint you.

Why dont you wait and see what he does before you whine about it?

[Truth2Tell]

56. Who's whining?

I'm discussing the potential Obama appointees that have publicly floated, here and elsewhere. Nothing at all wrong with that. In fact, BEFORE appointments are made is a very good time to express opinions about what they should be.

[Egnever]

58. You are

You are crying about a meme of competency first as if competency means nothing only ideological tilt. Haven't we had enough of that shit the last 8 years? Not only that but you are basing your complaints on things that haven't even happened yet.

[Truth2Tell]

59. My complaints are about things being posted on DU

not about anything done by Obama. So yes, the things I'm complaining about have in fact happened smart guy.

And my complaints aren't about proposing "competence first." If you read my posts you would know I agree with that. My complaint is with those who propose competence ONLY. Big difference.

[Christian30]

12. I have found it to be an unnecessary fight...

Given that Obama ran one of the best campaigns in history, without hiring the usual Democratic suspects, I have full faith that he will appoint highly qualified people to his Cabinet. Further, he's politically smart enough to appoint a Republican or two and some blue dog Dems to minimize criticism that he'll have "the most liberal administration ever."

[Orsino]

13. Of course it's what we're seeing.

The establishment runs on hypocrisy. Obama's victory sent the pundits scrambling for their dictionaries, to make sure the recalled the correct spelling of "qualified." The * apologists may not be sure what the word means, but they're sure it's something Democrats don't have.

[blondeatlast]

15. "Manufactured outrage" = "pundit job security."

Wait until one of these middle age male's SOs doesn't like something about Michelle's ball gown.

I give that one at least three days before they find something else to be mildly offende3d enough by to make into a huge controvery.

I'm not exaggerating, either.

[always_saturday]

16. I've been wondering the same thing.

I voted for a DEMOCRATIC president. One who is anti-Iraq war, anti-torture, pro-privacy, pro-human rights, pro-civil rights, pro-women's rights, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. etc. etc.

And I EXPECT an Obama administration that FULLY embraces all those positions.

He can appoint/nominate anyone he chooses, of course. But if he appoints anyone whose position on any of the above makes me the slightest bit uneasy, I WILL express my opinion about it.

And I really don't give a shit if any Obama supporters have a problem with that.

[cali]

19. sigh. another ill informed person. Obama ran on a pro-gay marriage platform?

bzzzt. wrong. He's clearly pro-choice and he's said that one of his first actions will be reversing the bush rule (really the Reagan rule) banning U.S. funds to family planning organizations overseas that provide abortion counseling and services.

He's said that he'll pull U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months. If that's not quick enough for you, you didn't pay attention to what he promised. He's said he'll swiftly shut down Gitmo and work with the Congress to restore Habeas. That's pro-human rights. Bitch if he doesn't do it AFTER he's been sworn in.

And fucking moran who didn't know the platform Obama ran on, and expects a pure progressive agenda, richly deserves their disappointment.

I'm going to relish watching the idiots throw their inane little fits.

[always_saturday]

28. YAWN. Why don't you go burn some incense at your Obama shrine.

[Forkboy]

62. Cali is right.

And your response is pretty weak.

You can call me an Obama worshipper, too. That'll be good for a laugh.

[Binka]

94. Why Not Bring Your Already Delivered Pizza And We Will Burn It AGAIN

The tombstone shrine is always lit.

We smell you dear.

[blondeatlast]

20. Maybe you should wait until it's official, though. All that's been happening is

pundit circle-jerking and I can't stand it.

Maybe you are made of sterner stuff than I, though.

[GarbagemanLB]

26. Alright, so we clearly know you haven't read up on any of Obama's positions...

He isn't pro gay marriage and he voted for the FISA bill. People on this board seem to have this illusion that Obama is a total liberal. He is not.

[jenmito]

60. You voted for the wrong guy then. Obama was never pro-gay marriage. That was Gravel

and Kucinich.

[Danger Mouse]

78. Maybe you would've been better off voting for McKinney.

[KittyWampus]

18. So you'd prefer what? The most Democratic? The most liberal? The prettiest? Best connected?

[Truth2Tell]

45. I would prefer that,

from within the pool of capable, experienced, knowledgeable people that exist for every position, Obama select those who share his values, believe in his agenda, represent his constituents and are ready to loyally fight on behalf of the new paradigm he has promised us.

That's all.

[treestar]

22. Cabinet positions should go to the Democrat Obama thinks will do

the best job.

I don't agree with him on the repuke in the cabinet, but will go along so long as it is a reasonable one.

[CTyankee]

23. It's a way to justify this odd thing that always happens: men get most of the great jobs!

See, this is how it works: we'd love to hire more women if they were only "qualified." But since men have always had more of these jobs than women, they are more "qualified." Therefore, we must hire them.

Nice circular reasoning that ends up at the same place we started...

[Mass]

24. Not thinking that Hillary is the best choice for state does not mean that

we do not want women at strong posts. I think Susan Rice would be terrific. I happen to think Clinton would be more qualified at Defense (though I can understand that nobody is rushing for defense). There are women totally qualified for Treasury and Defense as well.

These women do not have a fan club though, because, contrarily to Hillary or the men that are seen in these high position, they never ran for a political job. They work in the administration or as think tank, or stayed discrete in politics (a major error in a world where name recognition is most important). Sorry, not being in the Hillary fan club does not mean that I do not want women in big jobs.

[CTyankee]

Who said anything about a "Hillary fan club"? If anything, my post has less to do with

Hillary, not more. She is NOT what I had in mind. I'm talking about the women you mentioned. Good, able, talented women who get passed over because they don't have name recognition on a par with the guys.

I am hoping this will not happen with Obama's administration. Personally, I don't give a rip about Hillary being tapped as SOS. If anything, it could be seen as "enough" to pass muster on the gender equity issue and that is insane.

I want to see fresh talent from the ranks of women and I'm somewhat encouraged seeing who is in charge of the process -- lots of women are heading up these committees looking at filling jobs in the federal agencies. I'd just like to see more women appointed to top level, high visibility jobs, to get us out of this circular pattern that has occurred too often in the past, getting us nowhere.

[Mass]

30. In that case, I misunderstood your post, but it is not clear what the OP intended,

and these last few days, many posts for women at important positions were in support of this particular nomination.

We do totally agree.

[CTyankee]

33. I'm pretty old and I've heard this "most qualified" talk forever. Whenever I dug down in that

reasoning, it always seemed to be "concern" that "unqualified" blacks, women, whatever would be chosen just because of their race and gender. It is smug and hypocritical and I absolutely abhor it.

Of course, I could be wrong and that is not what the OP intended. In fact, I hope I AM wrong because I'd like to see all this change...

[cali]

32. self- delete

responded to wrong poster.

:hi:

[blm]

25. Obama can find FULLY QUALIFIED figures on the left AND trust their loyalty = the corpmedia

is manipulating perception, yet again, and Obama will not be showing fortitude and commitment to progressive ideals if he gives in at all to those manipulations.

[cali]

27. uh, Obama did NOT run as a progressive. He's made it quite clear

that he's influenced by the Lincoln approach to assembling a cabinet. He's always preached bi-partisanship. How is that the corpmedia?

[blm]

31. There are a few more progressive figures in the GOP he can tap to fulfill the bi-partisan

aspect, but in the primary he did promise change from the way things were done in the past, and the biggest change would be tapping progressives fully qualified for many of the cabinet positions.

Change from conservative and neocon administrations of the recent past would be.....an administration that leans decidely progressive.

[ieoeja]

55. But that is not the change he promised.

His promised change was away from partisanship/cronyism. He promised to represent all of America, not just one-half of Edwards' "two Americas".

[briv1016]

37. The world is too fucked-up for cronyism.

[Truth2Tell]

46. Who said anything about cronyism?

See my post #45 above.

[briv1016]

49. So you want a bunch of "yes men?"

The point of a cabinet position is to advise the president on things he needs to know. If he just wanted people to tell him what he already believes, why have a cabinet?

[Truth2Tell]

53. I think the point is

to BOTH advise the President AND to carry out his agenda. I want a "yes man" only in the sense that the appointee comes from a starting point of values and ideology that matches what the President believes and what he ran on. Beyond that, I'm not too worried about yes men. Obama seems to discourage yes-manism from his people.

[aein]

38. I thought at first the title was joke, sadly it wasn't

[Eryemil]

39. You can only be disappointed if you actually bought the whole 'Saviour Obama' shtick

Compared to Bush he's a saint but that is not saying much. He is a shrewd politician, an intelligent person and certainly a better human being than most but that also does not mean much if you consider the company.

Yes, it is possible that he might actually be a progressive and simply lied to get elected. I was certainly hoping so but I am not so sure anymore, considering his decisions so far. I am not about to judge him for good either. Not yet.

If we are to take his word to heart he's either a hypocrite willing to say anything to get elected (the lesser of two evils certainly) or just another egotistic bigot. As a gay man I am certainly aware that he is not the best candidate for me. The fact that he's a Democrat does not make me any less suspicious. Darling Bill gave us DOMA and DADT.

[DevonRex]

40. Has everyone gone INSANE? You have IMAGINED a cabinet to criticize...

and you're criticing OTHER people for being IMAGINARY ESTABLISHMENT APOLOGISTS for that IMAGINARY CABINATE.

I can tell you right fucking now that I certainly do NOT see what you're seeing. And if I ever do, I'll seek professional help immediately.

[Truth2Tell]

47. Nothing wrong with responding

to the names that have been floated.

This is an internet discussion board. Speculation and sharing of opinions is allowed. In fact, advise about potential nominations makes more sense before the nominations have been made.

Nice crack about professional help. Makes you sound very mature.

[DevonRex]

67. You're not just speculating about possible appointees and you know it.

You're speculating about SOME peoples' reactions to YOUR reactions to appointments that have not been made. Further, you speculate about the MOTIVES of people who don't like YOUR criticism of appointments that have NOT BEEN MADE.

[Truth2Tell]

70. Yep, I'm speculating about motives.

And I'm free to do that as well. Welcome to America.

[DevonRex]

71. Oh good grief. Motives of imaginary people who have imaginary reactions

to YOUR imaginary reactions to appointments that HAVE NOT BEEN MADE.

When you speculate about the motives of real people who react to YOUR reaction to things that have ALREADY happened, get back to me.

[Truth2Tell]

73. My post is in response to REAL posters on DU, but

I won't bother to link, because I get the feeling you don't really want a discussion but just enjoy insulting people. Bu-bye.

[TayTay]

41. 'Most Qualified People" is what the new Prez thinks it is.

This is his Administration. He has the right, and some would say the duty, to fill out his Cabinet with the people who he thinks will do the best job and serve the overall purposes of his Administration.

Most qualified is subjective. The President decides what that phrase means. Then the Senate gets to weigh in and "advise and consent" on what the President proposes.

[SoxFan]

42. That focus on ideology and loyalty worked out real well over the last 8 years, didn't it?

You're doin' a heck of a job, truth2tell

[Truth2Tell]

48. It actually worked out quite well for Bush

and HIS agenda. Now, if Obama actually selects capable people who support HIS agenda, then maybe it will work out for the rest of us this time. Or do you just want another Rumsfeld - tons and tons of resume but damn the values?

[Danger Mouse]

77. How was Brownie good for Bush's agenda? He was a disastrous embarassment.

[Truth2Tell]

81. Do you think Bush actually wanted a functioning FEMA?

And do you think he's capable of embarrassment?

[Danger Mouse]

87. Maybe not Bush, but his administration certainly was.

Katrina was a disaster for them. It laid bare how ridiculously corrupt and incompetent the Bush administration truly was. So no, Brown did not serve Bush well.

[Truth2Tell]

89. Well, it's immaterial anyway.

We are discussing your straw man. I've been very clear this whole thread that competence is a necessary prerequisite and that I'm not suggesting Obama appoint people like Brownie. I simply believe that more than one person is always competent for a post and that other factors need to be used to make a final choice.

[Danger Mouse]

90. We basically agree.

[redstate_democrat]

54. yes this is what you're seeing

There's a lot of Right Wingers on this site masquerading as liberals.

[Life Long Dem]

57. From what I hear, Obama is choosing his cabinet. n/t

[Forkboy]

63. Why I never!

The nerve! :mad:

;)

[JuniperLea]

64. I want Obama to choose his own cabinet...

And I sincerely hope he's not listening to any of "us" right now, because "we" are a bunch of blathering idiots who chose a man to do a job but insist on micro-managing his every stinking move.

:eyes:

[Truth2Tell]

75. "we" are a bunch of blathering idiots

speak for yourself.

All over America political interest groups and individuals of all viewpoints are expressing their views about the potential shape of the new administration. This is a very legitimate part of the democratic process. I hope Obama IS listening - to everyone - and THEN making HIS OWN choices. And my bet is that he is - despite your hope that he's not.

[Danger Mouse]

76. Obama doesn't want to put 'yes-men' in his cabinet...

he wants the best and brightest, but he wants people who won't be afraid to tell them that they disagree. He would still expect, I imagine, his appointees to be loyal.

[Jennicut]

80. Did you listen to any of his speeches as all? He wanted post partisanship

I'm sorry but this "I hate you, no I hate you crap" has to end. Even Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan used to get along and work together. The Repubs started it and we can make this sniping better. If they try any crap, we take away their seat at the table. Simple as that.

[Truth2Tell]

82. "post partisanship"

is dog whistle for capitulation to the right.

[izzybeans]

84. Bush appointed on Ideology, values and loyalty. It's called nepotism and patronage.

[Truth2Tell]

85. ideology, values and loyalty equal nepotism?

Really? Please elaborate.

[izzybeans]

86. Loyalty. Not hard to figure out. right?

I'll take expertise over a horse show manager or another Treasury department employee from Goldman Sachs any day.

[Truth2Tell]

91. The Brownie straw man is really getting tired.

As you are surely aware, my point is that, among the qualified and competent choices, loyalty, values and ideology should play a role.

No one is suggesting that Obama should appoint unqualified people. But I suppose if you can't make an argument against my points, you can always make up imaginary points to argue with.

[gravity]

88. Obama is setting the agenda

and he needs the most qualified people to carry it out. As long as the people he appoints are intelligent, respectful and open to compromise, then there shouldn't be a problem.

[HughMoran]

92. Doggone, you mean he didn't consult with you either?

It's almost like he makes up his own mind or something - weird!

[BobTheSubgenius]

93. Qualification and values are not mutually exclusive.

[nemo137]

95. It's a variation of the "smartest motherfuckers in the room" meme.

Those of us who voted for that idea like the "most qualified person" idea.