Obama disappoints the nutroots by appointing grown-ups to important positions:
Mr Obama has moved quickly in the last 48 hours to get his cabinet team in place, unveiling a raft of heavyweight appointments, in addition to Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.
But his preference for General James Jones, a former Nato commander who backed John McCain, as his National Security Adviser and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a supporter of the war, to run the Homeland Security department has dismayed many of his earliest supporters.
The likelihood that Mr Obama will retain George W Bush’s Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, has reinforced the notion that he will not aggressively pursue the radical withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq over the next 16 months and engagement with rogue states that he has pledged.
Chris Bowers of the influential OpenLeft.com blog complained: “That is, over all, a centre-right foreign policy team. I feel incredibly frustrated. Progressives are being entirely left out of Obama’s major appointments so far.”
The president-elect seems to understand that what happens in Iraq after 20 January 2009 will be far more important to world security – not to mention his own reputation – than seeing the whole thing fall to shambles in order to disgrace George W. Bush.
Good.
The defeat-at-any-cost crew has more than merely an emotional stake in this process:
A Democratic foreign policy expert told one Washington website: “They were the ones courageous enough to stand up early against Iraq, which is why many supported Obama in the first place.” Their fear, he added, is that they will not now secure the mid-level posts which will enable them to reach the top of the Washington career ladder in future.
That’s good too.
I’m not smart enought to know exactly what has gone on in Obama’s head and whether he will prove to be a far left liberal or more of a centrist. I keep in mind that although the Electoral College looked like a landslide, the popular vote was not… and if he is truly going to be the President for all of us, he needs to keep center.
That said, I had someone say to me after he won, “Oh! He’ll get us out of Iraq now!” I smiled sweetly and said, “Not so much. He has been officially briefed on ALL our Country’s secrets, stuff he was rather clueless about. Trust me… he’s not pulling us anytime soon.”
The great education of President Elect Obama has begun. It will be interesting to see what he does with it. He’s a smart man. Let’s hope he is wise as well.
Although comments are moderated, they do not necessarily reflect the views of NumbersUSA or its staff. Post a new comment.George4045 of AZ
Fri, 11/21/2008 – 10:01pm
Re: Napolitano Should Bring Arizona Mandatory E-Verify To Nation
I worked as a Federal Law Enforcement Officer in Southern Arizona during the entire time Janet Napolitano was U.S. Attorney for Southern Arizona, not to mention several years before and after.It was common knowledge that Attorney General Janet Reno openly solicited persons engaged in alternative lifestyles for promotion in the Department of Justice, especially in the U.S. Attorney corps. (I saw the Reno letter.)It is also common knowledge that Janet Napolitano met that requirement to Janet Reno’s satisfaction and was then made U.S. Attorney for Arizona for that reason.As U.S. Attorney for Southern Arizona she presided over the largest illegal alien and drug smuggling corridor in the world.All one has to do is look at the statistics of her time in office to understand two things, she did not like to prosecute drug smugglers or illegal alien smugglers. Her case prosecution to declination ratio was near zero in these two areas.Her parameters for acceptance of prosecution were constantly changing to prevent cases from meeting thresholds. After a while it was wise to check the parameters again during an 8 hour shift to make sure they had not changed. After a while it became apparent that the smugglers knew the weight or number of aliens threshold had changed before the Agents in the field knew. That fact always puzzled us. She was bad on officer morale and most everyone I knew did not respect her as a prosecutor but did understand that she was a skilled and vendictive partisan politician.As Governor she brought a man out of retirement to be the figurehead for The Arizona Highway Patrol/DPS. She runs the department through surrogates she insisted that he promote who are mostly female. She did the same thing in the Arizona Department of Corrections and that backfired on her when several days were spent negotiating for hostages in the state prison system. She clearly promoted people there that were not qualified for those positions.She has turned the State Game Department into a social service bunny hugging feed the deer to the predators type agency. Sportsmen and hunters in particular are ignored and by the way they pay the bills. The commissioners in particular and personnel staff in general are not merit oriented positions, they are strictly political.That being said, she would fit in nicely at DHS because that is exactly how that agency is run.
Vieva B.8210 of CO
Fri, 11/21/2008 – 8:16pm
Re: Napolitano Should Bring Arizona Mandatory E-Verify To Nation
In other parts of the country, Phoenix is known as the “kidnap capitol” of America. Mostly illegals are involved. “Judicial Watch” is actively pursuing legal means against Phoenix for its Sanctuary City status. Let’s hope they succeed.I am sure glad Sheriff Joe does his job! So many other officers of the law should take his lead. Some are beginning ‘to get the drift’. Others have their hands tied by Orders of the Cities, for whom they work. How unfortunate, but I think citizens are seeing that they can do much to rid themselves of such problems. They are filing suits against their city councils for spending taxpayer money for employment centers for illegals, and families who have had members killed by illegals, in Sanctuary Cities, are filing suits against those cities. After they have to cough up a few million dollars, councils will think twice about their sanctuary status, and support of illegals.
Tim9959 of AZ
Fri, 11/21/2008 – 7:36pm
Re: Napolitano Should Bring Arizona Mandatory E-Verify To Nation
I forgot to mention that the one good thing for AZ if she is named to any position under Obama: We would get a new governor and be able to get this state back on track. Anything to get rid of her would be a plus.
Tim9959 of AZ
Fri, 11/21/2008 – 7:33pm
Re: Napolitano Should Bring Arizona Mandatory E-Verify To Nation
She is a very bad choice for head of Homeland Security. In AZ she has been one of the major obstacles to getting the illegal immigration situation under control. Recently she is doing everything she can to tie Sheriff Joe’s hands by removing funds wherever possible. When she was up for reelection she gave just a hint of backing off her pro-amnesty stance. Once she got reelected (shame on us for that) she was back to her old ways of being pro-illegal.Lucky for us we have a few on the enforcement side who will do what the people want and enforce the employment ban on hiring illegals. They do not expect any help from her. The result of the new law is many of the illegals are leaving the state and only the businesses that depended upon them have been hurt. Some of the Hispanic areas are obviously less populated than before. I did not realize how many illegals we had in resident. The law has really worked well.So, the message from AZ is: She has been a bad governor and will be a bad Secretary of Homeland Security. It would be a political reward and not a position earned on merit.
What those nutroots on the far left are finally realizing about Their Chosen One is that, above anything else – Obama is a politician. Which as Tom Clancy said in The Hunt for Red October – “…either they are kissing babies or stealing their lollipops.”
Obama is, like all other politicians, already thinking about his legacy after his presidency is over. Hell, he’s been thinking about that since he was in kindergarten.
He will surround himself with people who have the experience he knows he lacks – to ensure he leaves a strong legacy.
I hope it works – for all our sakes.
What irritates me about some of these comments, is that you all would bitch no matter who he picked. And it seems he’s making some decent choices and yet you’re still complaining.
Sounds more like sore losing rather than careful consideration of the pros and cons.
Clearly, he’s a politician… how brilliant to note.
Perhaps we’d like to also consider this point…
that he “surround(s) himself with people who have the experience he knows he lacks…” I’m sorry, but that sounds like exactly what he should be doing.
Let’s look at leadership. A CEO of a corporation does not know every single aspect of the work that his employees does. He’s a manager of people. He’s macro… he’s big picture. The best thing he can do is keep his people happy, negotiate for the greater good and appoint people who know their jobs better than he does while he maintains oversight.
Bringing people together from different parties is going to invoke more debate, but in the end when everyone gets together… the end result should be better than if we’d chosen someone more extreme right or left.
Army Girl: what about what I said sounds like “sore losing”. I’m just stating facts – the facts that the nutroots on the left are indeed complaining about. It’s those on the extreme left who believe Obama will deliver on his promises, conveniently forgetting he is, above all else, a politician.
Direct your irritation where it belongs – not to the comments here.
Okay Army Girl, let’s look at “macro”. Obama got elected by pledging to clean up Washington by flushing out the pros and bringing in fresh meat. Now that he has been elected it seems he’s re-thinking that tactic. Actually his back-pedaling started when he selected Biden. The comments here are far kinder to the O than anything the outraged leveled at W for the last eight. Let’s keep it real shall we? Only time will tell how many promises Obama breaks in the name of politics as usual – hardly the platform of change that got him the job.
ag, I’ll go further than Kris. I suggest you take your irritation elsewhere, before you marginalize yourself out of relevance with your comments.
Wonder how those middle of the roaders who voted against Bush (who was leaving office anyway, duh) by voting for The One, really feel about it now? Just a little tingly in the fourth point of contact now? Maybe Snake will have to explain that one, or even Brad. You figure it out.
Kris- Might I suggest the same to you?
Yes- Time will tell. Let’s at least give it till he gets inaugurated before we foam at the mouth… shall we? He has quite a bit to live up to and I’m not arguing that he’s bit off more than he can chew. And O is about as “fresh meat” as you can get… don’t you think?
Geo- Don’t read them. Last I checked, this wasn’t your blog.
AG: You’re missing your own point… Myself? Better things to do than debate in circles. Peace, out.
Geo6- She did it with the last comment.
Well, leaders are always bound to face the same fate. Questioned about the path they take and the decisions they make (….and that’s a rhyme).
Last evening during a presentation to the American Business Council of Iraq, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari indicated that his government had been in discussions with the incoming administration and had received assurances that no “rash, ill-considered attempts at premature withdrawal” would be forthcoming. That with the framework for a SOFA in place and ready to be ratified by Parliament (no more dicussion of individual points on the table, only ratification), that the Obama Administration would not force the timetable on withdrawing US forces in less than the three years planned.
He was very forthcoming in his assessment of the progress (and occasional lack thereof) that the Iraqi government has made in the realm of security, and promised that all terms of the SOFA would be made public as soon as it is ratified.
Seems a personable gentleman. Very approachable. The food was good.
Hang in there Army Girl. Your points are well taken and logically presented. Proof that you are sentient being is found in the fact several of the correspondents immediately started yowling for your departure and exercised their First Amendment Right to engage in ad hominem attacks.
I mean, how dare you Army Girl, actually suggest that a President Elect cannot really be judged until he is sworn in and has spent some time in office? That kind of thinking will brand you as a History Major and part of the far out starry eyed lefty pot smoking crowd.
Of course, your critics may be on to something. A blog that on its banner highlights that it is: EXPOSING LEFTIST PROPAGANDA *** HIGHLIGHTING UNDER-REPORTED NEWS *** PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS *** has come to the obvious conclusion that:
Why Lex quoted from a British conservative newspaper when information like this is available is beyond me… But then, he also missed that known foaming in the mouth leftist Glenn Greenwald’s comments, which are a tad bit more temperate, and where links to the prominent net roots contributors can be found…
OP, I quoted from a UK paper because I prefer to read my morning news in English. Sadly, so very few outlets that publish in American English are worth reading from these days. Which presumably, is why you’re here.
Which, by the way, you really ought to budget some time to looking up and internalizing the definition of ad hominem. There is a marked tendency among a certain class of people to impose judgments upon others who use Latin terms maladroitly.
Sucks, but there it is.
Bou-
Yeah, Bou. She did. Apparently in her mind only she can dish it out as she wishes…on someone else’ s blog.
Speaking for myself, she is as irrelevant as OP whose comments aren’t worth even a glance.
If our humble host wants to take me to the woodshed for any out- of- line comments on my part, he will.
BTW, How’s the brood?
Personally my politics are somewhat to the right of Attila, but ODS doesn’t seem any more attractive to me that BDS. I was hoping we on the right were better than that. Army Girl has more than earned the right to her opinions, not that she needs any defense from me.
That seems like a bit of an over-the-top response.
Perhaps I can marginzlie myself out of relevance here too. But given how incredibly upset some readers/commentors here were immediately following the election, I would have thought your biggest fear was Obama not placing “grown ups” in these imporant positions. Wouldn’t at least some of his actual appointments tend to point to not the worst case scenario playing out? Isn’t this actually a good thing? Or would it really not matter what he did/didn’t do or who was appointed where?
I don’t think Army Girl was saying much more than that. Is that really heresy?
The point is: get snotty- get ignored. Flit is 180 out on most things in my book but he makes every effort to be a gentleman in the discourse. Others, not so much.
Hmmm. That’s a fair synopsis of the character and administration of George W Bush, ain’t it? Who knows? Senator O may turn out to be somewhat closer to W than their places in the alphabet might indicate, eh?
We should all be so lucky.
Subsunk
OOOOO!!!! Clubbing baby seals! I like! More! More!
OP, your village said it’s missing you.
Byron is performing a service: Now that’s ad hominem.
Let us get it out of the way, once and for all. Not being a Latin scholar, I confess that I turn to the dictionary, one of which says:
Depending on how you define verbal or written intercourse, it may be a conversation, it may be an argument, it may be a debate, it may be a discourse, it may even (gasp) be a rant, a screed, or a polemic. What ever you call it, to prevent meaningless shouting matches, snide innuendos, or degeneration of ideas into slime and mud, reasonable folk establish rules of discourse or debate.
Many moons ago, I proposed that Paul Graham’s rules be considered. He grades the strength of an argument (here taken as scientist or engineer’s might use) from D0 to D5. D0 is a rank insult, D1 is an ad hominem statement which fails to significantly contribute or inform on the topic on hand. Obviously invitations to Army Girl to leave the discussion, such as advanced by geo6 to wit:
would fall into Graham’s D0 or D1 classification. Michelle (com 18) elevates the discourse by asking a series of rhetorical questions, which of course nobody wishes to answer… The comment is cogent, and should be recognized as a Paul Graham D4.
Further insight into this issue of ad hominem statements can be found at logicalfallacies.org which will entertain and instruct all of us on logical discourse. On the left hand side of the Home Page is a Menu, and clicking on Taxonomy identifies a host of different forms of fallacious arguments. Among them is our “darling”, ad hominem. Clicking on the box that contains the dreaded word will give a reasonable discussion as to its validity in any discourse.
One could turn to that fountain head of knowledge, Wikepedia, but I will leave that to others to explore and comment. For those who wallow in the beauty of Latin, a trip to said source should be of interest. In the view of this (cough, cough) scholarly source ad hominem is a catch all phrase for three different types of spurious statements. They are all listed in Latin to help us give a patina of profundity to our retorts.
In my view, to justify the use of the term ad hominem it must meet a two part test. First, it contributes nothing to the discussion. Second, it in some fashion diminishes the character of the person it is directed to. Two simple examples will suffice.
The first expression is neutral, and a polite signal that the individual prefers not to enter into a discussion. The second diminishes the character of an individual, and as such meets the two part criteria of an ad hominem statement.
Now then, within the above framework, is classifying some one’s statement as an ad hominem attack a breach of propriety? Of course not, it is a verbal signal that the respondent has identified a retort as not contributing to the central discussion, and that he or she will not respond in kind. Metaphorically speaking, it is a brief rain cloud that annoys participants at a verbal picnic, but has no real impact on the joy of the communal gathering.
But, the reality of how ad hominem is used in this blog belongs to our webmaster, Lex. I look forward to his direction, as I am puzeled by his com 22.
Get your own blog, brother. PM me if you would like me to step you through it.
Perhaps there, someone who likes purple will read your prose. Me? I scan for length, consider the source, sigh and move on.
– Lewis Carroll, from “Through the Looking Glass”
exemplia gratia: verbal intercourse you!
O.P. – are you for real?
Since I appear to be the original source (#3 above) of this tempest in a teapot I’ll weigh in because Lex is – among many wonderful things – a very gracious and ridiculously tolerant host.
In her comment #4, Army Girl in says the following in response to my comment #3:
O.P., please carefully note the sarcasm and the accusations of being a sore loser. When in fact all that was mentioned in #3, by me, were the facts. Yet AG resorts to definition #2 of ad hominem in your lengthy comment at #23:
Motives: I’m a sore loser.
Character: the sarcastic comment on my intellect.
Indeed, AG provided further ad hominem in her comment #9:
As with everyone else here, I commented on my opinion and made my own observations about the situation. Agree or don’t agree, that’s how it works.
At least keeping it civil would be nice. Lex has a great place here – we should all do our best to disagree as we wish in a factual way, without resorting to lecturing on comportment and manners. I for one would suffer serious withdrawal if Lex decided he’d had enough of all of us.
Lex – hope I haven’t outstayed my welcome on this one. Guiness for strength coming your way to make up for any atonement on my part and for your forbearance.