Why Wait on Cabinet?

[KantoSooner]

I've been thinking of late; what would happen if a presidential candidate were to name either his entire cabinet or significant members of it prior to election?
I know the conventional wisdom would be to counsel that a candidate needs to hold his cards and keep that potential ammo for when it's absolutely needed, but I wonder...
What would a campaign look like if a candidate like a Romney, for instance, just started naming his cabinet-in-waiting, perhaps one name a week...and those people started campaigning as surrogates...just as an incumbent's sitting cabinet does?
It might be an interesting tactic.

[StoopTroup]

Because many of them are politicians? Many of them might be leaving their open Office for an attack by the opposing Party? Maybe they feel it prudent not to leave their constiuents high and dry before the Party's Candidate was even elected?

[SoonerProphet]

Because many of them are politicians? Many of them might be leaving their open Office for an attack by the opposing Party? Maybe they feel it prudent not to leave their constiuents high and dry before the Party's Candidate was even elected?

they can also be in a numerous other fields that could put would be cabinet members in a difficult spot regarding current employment.

[KantoSooner]

Those are good points.

[cleller]

What would happen if Obama decided to pick a bunch of rich white guys?

[Chuck Bao]

At first brush, I love that idea, Kanto. I would love to see a very clear indication of policy with the selection of the senior administration appointed to carry it out.

Four years ago, I would have had immediate reservations about voting for President Obama if I saw that he would appoint a Wall Street insider, help-out-my-club-buddies-first cad, **** for brains and architect of the "tough love" response to the '97 Asian economic crisis that unnecessarily wiped out the wealth of a few hundred million people, Mr. Timothy Franz Geithner, as Treasury Secretary.

On second thought, I do not want politicians campaigning for cabinet spots. Sometimes some very hard decisions need to be made without the thought of political action groups and election poll numbers. The buck stops with the President and he must bear ultimate responsibility and that vote takes place every 4 years.

I sincerely hope that Geithner will not stay on in the next administration or I may have to rethink my current planned vote for President Obama.

[badger]

Cabinet positions are ivory back scratchers.

No need to give voters a reason to vote for the other guy.

Distribute your back scratchings after the election... and give the future cushy cabinet job seekers a reason to keep scratching yours right up till the election.

[KantoSooner]

Pretty much completely disagree, Badgie. Ambassadorships? Cushy, in many cases. And cheap, too! Apparently under $100K pretty much ensures you a small country posting if you want one. (If I find that much cash lying around mi casa, I'll have to put in for somewhere sweet, like maybe Samoa). But cabinet positions are not only killing grinds of jobs, but can make or break a presidency. Those are working positions, full-on. Not that people don't want them, but a high degree of academic as well as administrative ability is required.

[Chuck Bao]

Pretty much completely disagree, Badgie. Ambassadorships? Cushy, in many cases. And cheap, too! Apparently under $100K pretty much ensures you a small country posting if you want one. (If I find that much cash lying around mi casa, I'll have to put in for somewhere sweet, like maybe Samoa). But cabinet positions are not only killing grinds of jobs, but can make or break a presidency. Those are working positions, full-on. Not that people don't want them, but a high degree of academic as well as administrative ability is required.

Kanto, that is exactly right. An administration needs the key ministerial posts outside of politics. To President Obama's credit, he did appoint Robert Gates as Defense Secretary. In my opinion, that appointment has served our country well.

[KantoSooner]

I'd be very interested to see John Huntsman as Secy State. Wouldn't it be odd for an American chief diplomat to speak a foreign language and have actual knowledge of the culture and politics of other major international players?

[Chuck Bao]

I'd be very interested to see John Huntsman as Secy State. Wouldn't it be odd for an American chief diplomat to speak a foreign language and have actual knowledge of the culture and politics of other major international players?

Yes, it would. And, no it wouldn't. Can you imagine the backlash if the chief American foreign representative did speak English and did not get that sound byte on US TV with or without caption?

The best use of foreign language award so far as to go to Madeleine Albright and her choice use of the Spanish word "cojones". That didn't need a caption.

That's one of the craziest things of all. Regardless of where the Secretary of State is giving a speech, the message has to be geared to the lowest common denominator, or US TV audience, besides trying to drum up support for our military's efforts to be the world's policeman.

[badger]

I agree that not all cabinet posts are "ivory backscratchers." Robert Gates staying on as secretary of defense seemed to be a really compromise on both of their parts --- Gates openly said that he felt it was his duty to the country and Obama felt that it was in the best interest of our troops.

However, some of the appointments I've seen over the years seem to be to give people a job with a big ol' title that sounds important so they can continue working in politics at a high level. It is what it is. I'm sure someone out there truly believes Hilary Clinton, a less-than-two-term-senator of a state she barely lived in before "representing," is qualified to be secretary of state, hehe.

[KantoSooner]

1. I am not 'badger bashing'. I love you, Badgie, even though you still won't admit to driving down Boyd at 90 mph with an open bottle of Padron between your knees, yelling, 'Bite me, Texas Scum!'.
2. I think Hillary Clinton is a closet Stalinist in her politics (and that's NOT a good thing) and is, in person, a total bitch. (My mom was part of a group of women who took her souvenir shopping in Tokyo back when she was 1st lady of Arkansas; and she still shivers with revulsion when remembering the experience.)
3. The above being understood, she has been a decent to good Secy State. Give her a solid 'B'. Frankly, we haven't had a truly bad one for a while now. Most have been head and shoulders above their bosses. Hillary has at least 'done the reading' on foreign affairs...which many of our pure-play politicians have not. (and I won't throw any names on the fire here. My point is to give Hillary mild spec for being at least a qualified candidate, not to trash any others.)

[soonercoop1]

Because anything found in their (cabinet) past would effect the election (nominee)...

[OU_Sooners75]

What would it be like if we actually voted for the Vice President instead of the VP being nominated by the candidate?

And while we are at it, why not vote for the cabinet as well?

Why should there be any leaders in the US government that are nominated and not voted in by the people? Sans the SCOTUS justices of course. Don't need politicians in the court rooms.

[SoonerProphet]

Why should there be any leaders in the US government that are nominated and not voted in by the people? Sans the SCOTUS justices of course. Don't need politicians in the court rooms.

the appointments clause of the constitution: [The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[OU_Sooners75]

the appointments clause of the constitution: [The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Thank you captain obvious.

What would this board do with out your obviousness?

[SoonerProphet]

Thank you captain obvious.

What would this board do with out your obviousness?

if it was so obvious then why did you ask such a stupid f*cking question?

[Turd_Ferguson]

if it was so obvious then why did you ask such a stupid f*cking question?Just to see if you would come in here with a stupid ****ing reply...

[SoonerProphet]

Just to see if you would come in here with a stupid ****ing reply...

glad you stepped to the plate then, nice job

[Turd_Ferguson]

glad you stepped to the plate then, nice jobActually, I'm on deck...I was just over here swing'n...

[diverdog]

1. I am not 'badger bashing'. I love you, Badgie, even though you still won't admit to driving down Boyd at 90 mph with an open bottle of Padron between your knees, yelling, 'Bite me, Texas Scum!'.
2. I think Hillary Clinton is a closet Stalinist in her politics (and that's NOT a good thing) and is, in person, a total bitch. (My mom was part of a group of women who took her souvenir shopping in Tokyo back when she was 1st lady of Arkansas; and she still shivers with revulsion when remembering the experience.)
3. The above being understood, she has been a decent to good Secy State. Give her a solid 'B'. Frankly, we haven't had a truly bad one for a while now. Most have been head and shoulders above their bosses. Hillary has at least 'done the reading' on foreign affairs...which many of our pure-play politicians have not. (and I won't throw any names on the fire here. My point is to give Hillary mild spec for being at least a qualified candidate, not to trash any others.)

I really think Hillary came into her own as Sec of State. I think she has done a good job.

[rock on sooner]

What would it be like if we actually voted for the Vice President instead of the VP being nominated by the candidate?

And while we are at it, why not vote for the cabinet as well?

Why should there be any leaders in the US government that are nominated and not voted in by the people? Sans the SCOTUS justices of course. Don't need politicians in the court rooms.

For not needing politicians in the court rooms, we sure have a bunch of them. Every one of them is vetted
as to their politics. Every time there is some appeals ruling anywhere by a federal judge, it seems that
that judge is always described as "appointed by Pres. So and So. The same is the case at the state
level in every state where I've lived (OK, CO, NV, TX and now IA.)

[OU_Sooners75]

if it was so obvious then why did you ask such a stupid f*cking question?

Pretty simple *********...

I stated something that I feel should be changed....I know you like trying to get in a dick measuring contest...but just stop trying. We all know you have the smallest one around here!

[jkjsooner]

And while we are at it, why not vote for the cabinet as well?

That sounds like complete disaster to me. How would you expect the President to do his job if he had to deal with political fighting within his cabinet? His own cabinet could very well be working against him. Not to mention that we really don't need more politicians. Can you imagine the defense secretary raising money for a reelection campaign?

[hawaii 5-0]

Any guarantee the Presidential hopeful wouldn't pull an end around and change the whole cabinet after the election?

Other used car salesmen do it all the time.


5-0

[StoopTroup]

At first brush, I love that idea, Kanto. I would love to see a very clear indication of policy with the selection of the senior administration appointed to carry it out.

I like the first thought you had here but only because it might be a great strategy for proving to voters that you indeed had a plan for the next four years instead of trying to scare the American Public into voting for the lesser of two evils but the way all those folks would get picked apart just like you did with Tim G. shows how unable we are to forgive mistakes. It would be a disaster unless you put a bunch of Saints in your cabinet and then they probably would be ineffective once you won the Presidency as what's needed right now is a bit of Conservancy as well as some Govt intervention to keep things headed in a positive direction. This urgency to put clones in office that all think alike and can't negoiate is not going to better our Country.

Also Americas position should come way before some Asian's worries about their personal wealth. Hell it ought to come well before most Americans personal wealth. We are who everyone looks for leadership and the example of Democracy. Right now we are doing a lousy job at it.

[SoonerProphet]

Actually, I'm on deck...I was just over here swing'n...

that's the spirit

[SoonerProphet]

Pretty simple *********...

I stated something that I feel should be changed....I know you like trying to get in a dick measuring contest...but just stop trying. We all know you have the smallest one around here!

not a big fan of the constitution eh?

[OU_Sooners75]

That sounds like complete disaster to me. How would you expect the President to do his job if he had to deal with political fighting within his cabinet? His own cabinet could very well be working against him. Not to mention that we really don't need more politicians. Can you imagine the defense secretary raising money for a reelection campaign?

When was the last time the president did his job?

[OU_Sooners75]

not a big fan of the constitution eh?

I love the constitution....especially the part that says I can tell you to take a flying leap and not get in trouble for it...LOL

But in all seriousness...what do we call changes to the constitution? Oh yeah...amendments.

Weird, our constitution allows for it to be changed if need arises.

[StoopTroup]

Any guarantee the Presidential hopeful wouldn't pull an end around and change the whole cabinet after the election?

Other used car salesmen do it all the time.


5-0

That's exactly why it's all a bad idea.

Thank goodness we have liberal and conservative think tanks that can help to put a stop to really bad ideas no matter whether your Barney Frank and your Ted Nugents decide to help Chuck Norris make Texas its own Country if Gays can openly marry and take hunting trips for Honeymoons. :D

[Chuck Bao]

That's exactly why it's all a bad idea.

Thank goodness we have liberal and conservative think tanks that can help to put a stop to really bad ideas no matter whether your Barney Frank and your Ted Nugents decide to help Chuck Norris make Texas its own Country if Gays can openly marry and take hunting trips for Honeymoons. :D

Dood, please don't say that. It gives me the shivers.

[soonercruiser]

What would happen if Obama decided to pick a bunch of rich white guys?

He already did!
He's just taking their money first!