November 25, 2008
The Obama Team (1.86 cheers)
I guess people don't come here for their daily rah-rah of accolades for President-elect Obama. (No, they come for Oprahesque condemnations of TV violence...)
But I have been remiss in not giving a moderately full throated salute to his appointments so far:
- Christy Romer gets high marks from Professor Mankiw -- and Larry Kudlow calls her a Republican and closet supply-sider.
- Senator Clinton is a great choice for SecState. I can't believe I am saying this, but she's good. As interesting as it is, I'd hate to see the emoluments clause contretemps derail the appointment.
- Gov. Bill Richardson to Commerce? Awesome. He saw the Clinton free-trading up close, cut taxes as a Governor, and governed NM as a centrist. I don't know if the feds will let him drive 100MPH, but that is such a New Mexico thing, it made me smile (I went to school in Socorro).
- Geithner seems as good as well get at Treasury, and the market gave him a cheer.
I'm least sure about Geithner and can't get too excited about Senator Daschle at HHS. But, comparing to the Communist Shop being set up in the House (Waxman Chair of Energy????) the Obama Cabinet is looking strong, competent and centrist.
Obama Administration Posted by John Kranz at November 25, 2008 5:36 PM
I'll go along with the Clinton appointment. Send her to deal with recalcitrant foreign rulers like Mahmoud Ahmedinijad? Twenty minutes alone with her and her shrieking, and he'd either shoot himself in the head, or plead for mercy and cave in.
I'd pay money to see that.
Posted by: Keith at November 25, 2008 6:36 PMIndeed, I agree with you full heartedly! My greatest fear was that Obama was going to be a plaything for the Senate Democrats, but President Obama is trying pretty hard to prove me wrong.
Methinks we received an inkling of his this attitude back when he chose Rahm as his CoS. The man was known for two things: his partisanship and his fight-to-the-death spirit. In the beginning the first half of the equation bothered me quite a bit. Then a realization came over me as I thought about the man's other characteristic: there was no one left to fight but the Democrats in capitol hill!
~T. Greer, cautiously optimistic about the new administration.
Posted by: T. Greer at November 25, 2008 8:28 PMRomer: I know nothing about her, but Mankiw's link tells us that "Romer and her husband David Romer, also a Berkeley economist, were both campaign economics advisers to Obama." Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt, she's a closet supply-sider, Obama evidently didn't listen to her during his campaign. Why should he now?
Hillary: why do I think life insurance premiums went up or will go up drastically for Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Byrd (and whoever will succeed Byrd as Senate president pro tempore)? This was a shrewd move: it removes her from where she could oppose Obama by stealth. But I'm still scratching my head as to why Hillary accepted a position where she'll be Obama's diplomacy mouthpiece. She can interject her own perspectives, but ultimately she can't cross her new boss.
So much for her desire to serve the people of New York.
Richardson: he's teamed up well with New Mexico Republicans, cutting taxes to lure businesses. But he's now in the happy land of a solid Democrat majority, where he can let his liberal beliefs run wild. Don't count on him to push Obama to continue the Bush tax cuts. They're two peas in a pod, believing that eliminating "tax cuts for the rich" is "saving" that money...for the federal government. He's also proposed such nutty things as a national minimum wage of $40K for teachers. That will completely skew labor markets in lower-wage states like New Mexico and Utah.
Geitner: see my own blog entry on him. He has blood on his hands from this "financial crisis."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 26, 2008 9:44 AMI think he gets 1.86 out of three, Perry. Thomas Frank, the broken Calendar Watch on the WSJ Ed Page is right once a year. And he was right to say that the Democrats can claim a mandate. And because Obama's liberal record and collectivist rhetoric did not hurt, they can claim a leftist mandate.
Missing from my list is Gates. He could have gone to Goolsbee and Rubin for an economic team, General Clark or Chuck Hagel to Defense, Sen. John Kerry at State. They could have been soooooo very much worse. (I suspect you're right on Geithner, but the market's reaction was comforting.)
I don't see SecState as the bad gig some others do around here. Senator Clinton will be extremely visible on a national stage, it was good enough for Jefferson, Monroe, and Dean Acheson. I don't think Senate Leadership looks open for several years. She'd be more Barbara Mikulski than Ted Kennedy. Good gig for her, comforting pick for the nation (if not The Nation).
Posted by: jk at November 26, 2008 11:14 AM@Perry: Something to consider about SecState-
How many Senate majority leaders can you remember? How many have had a serious and recognized impact on the way we conduct our National Affairs? Off the top of your head, can you recall who the Senate majority/minority leaders were 30 years ago? Can you name anything that majority or minority leader actually did?
Now, ask those same questions again- this time with the word "SecState" replacing all references to the Senate.
Posted by: T. Greer at November 26, 2008 12:27 PM~T, Greer, not quite as easily seduced by the word "legacy" as most politicians seem to be.
Your Geithner Post is excellent, Perry -- I had missed that.
Posted by: jk at November 26, 2008 12:46 PM@ JK: Keeping Gates is the one smart thing Obama has done.
Don't be so sure about the market rally "because of Geitner" -- I questioned the news reporting immediately and am still leaning toward a bargain-hunting rally. What kind of confidence could the man really inspire? There are lots of others who can follow the Paulson bailout playbook.
I suppose there were worse picks. Do you remember Bob Rubin's philosophy on achieving zero deficits? He's a deficit hawk, all right, but he wants to raise taxes as much as necessary. Yeah, that sure went well for the country in 1993, and in the early part of this decade for NYC. (That's sarcasm, for anyone who didn't pick up on it.)
It's not much of a mandate when 48% of the voters were against him. But that goes to show the dangerous power of democracy: it only takes 50% plus one.
I don't see that being "visible" is enough for someone like HRC. She doesn't want limelight if that's all there is, so I never thought leading the Senate would satisfy her either. She wants real power, and she's just the kind of vindictive bitch who is already plotting to do what she can to undermine Obama's presidency. As I and others have blogged, she believed this was her crowning. The woman's been stewing since February, wondering what could have happened that some uppity mulatto stole what was rightfully hers. We'll see soon how she uses her cabinet position against her boss.
@ TG: Off the top of my head, only major names like Henry Cabot Lodge, Robert Taft, LBJ, and the recent ones of Robert Byrd, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Bill Frist and Harry Reid.
Secretaries of State: Jefferson, Madison, William Seward, Dean Acheson, and then the more recent ones of Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, the Clinton disaster twins of Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright, and of course Colin Powell and Condi Rice.
So as for me, aside from recent history, I remember only one more Secretary of State than I do Senate majority leaders. It's a "visible" position as the nation's top diplomat, but it's still just a mouthpiece function for the administration. Hillary won't be able to go out of her way to leave a mark on U.S. foreign policy, for however long she lasts. She can be impressive and have accomplishments, but ultimately it's not her agenda.
Some Austrians may remember Lodge like I do, for being a proponent of the gold standard. Most who know about Lodge will probably remember him for being instrumental in keeping us out of the League of Nations. At the time he may not have realized the extent of what he did. The rest that I named were more partisan, but they set the legislative agenda and weren't mere mouthpieces.
I'm not talking about "legacy," though. I think Bill is the one concerned with that, because he's always sought popularity, but it's Hillary who wants raw power.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 26, 2008 2:37 PM@Perry:
I am going to go out on a limb and say you are smarter than most Americans. I will also wager that there are very few people who can recall what Lodge thought about the Gold Standard or the League of Nations.
On the other hand, I know quite a few people who know of George Marshall, and even more importantly, the Marshall Plan.
Likewise, most people credit Kissinger with the development of detente and the recognition of the PRC.
Both of these men transcended the "mouthpeice" label and became powerful men in and of themselves. Likewise, both of their policies shaped American politics and discourse decades after they were gone.
It is hard to say the same thing about Dole, Byrd, or Ried.
Also worth noting is that SecStates never get blamed for foreign policy failures - that is always placed on the President's shoulders - but often get credit for major policy initiatives done right.
I would not be surprised if Hillary thinks she can get something big (say, Israeli-Palestinian problems) done right.
Posted by: T. Greer at November 26, 2008 3:11 PM~T. Greer, with a view from Washington
George Marshall, and even more importantly, the Marshall Plan.
The plan by which Americans paid taxes to rebuild nations that had been destroying each other for centuries -- and we rebuilt them so the larger ones could descend into socialist paradises. The plan which wouldn't have been necessary for Germany if Morgenthau, Roosevelt and Truman hadn't implemented their plan to deliberately starve Germans.
If we had listened to Patton, we'd have pushed the Russians back, and then Eastern European agriculture could feed the continent while it rebuilt itself.
Likewise, most people credit Kissinger with the development of detente and the recognition of the PRC.
I wouldn't; I'd place it earlier. But for those who give Kissinger credit, they should also give him credit for perpetuating the Cold War for an unnecessary decade or so. Reagan was criticized but later was shown to be right: the Soviets couldn't keep up in a new arms race.
So you see that Kissinger was really the last Secretary of State who might have done anything "memorable," whatever that means, but even so it wasn't "his" agenda. He was the familiar name associated with it, but no administration lets a cabinet official go out on his own. Hillary will have to stay loyal, or else, so I keep wondering: what's her angle?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 28, 2008 12:55 PMPerry, I am not arguing the utility of detente or the Marshall Plan. Rather, what I am arguing is that both Kissinger and Marshall held much more power than your average junior senator does.
The Marshall Plan is named as such because George Marshall was both the architect and key negotiator in the development stage of the plan. Without Kissinger's council, Nixon would never have recognized the People's Republic of China.
Now, this is not saying that every SoS has this amount of command within the administration they belong too. However, I would wager that Hillary thinks she will have similar amount of influence and sway in the new administration as these men did.
And even if she did not get such privilege, she would still have more influence there than in the senate. We have an executive heavy system these days, and by the looks of it, the Senate leadership has decided to give the reigns of Hillary's prize project (healthcare) to Kennedy, there really is very little for Hillary to do in the Congress. Sure, she might have more control over her own agenda, but she will have quite a bit less power overall.
~T. Greer, providing an angle, so to speak.
Posted by: T. Greer at November 29, 2008 12:22 AMPerry, I am not arguing the utility of detente or the Marshall Plan. Rather, what I am arguing is that both Kissinger and Marshall held much more power than your average junior senator does.
Certainly, and they're still rare animals, particularly with how the State Department has evolved in the last few decades.
But Hillary is no average junior senator. From the beginning she wielded far more influence than a lot of senior senators (who, granted, were more concerned about appropriations than agendas).
The Marshall Plan is named as such because George Marshall was both the architect and key negotiator in the development stage of the plan.
I'm not denying he had influence, even great influence, but even the foundation for massive economic aid to rebuild Europe came from several others. And he negotiated but only on what he was permitted to do: he wasn't the chief executive and therefore couldn't speak on his own.
Without Kissinger's council, Nixon would never have recognized the People's Republic of China.
Perhaps, but Nixon would have never done it if he weren't already receptive to the idea. And Kissinger was the one who was there with the ability, but for all we know, he wasn't the only advisor to push him over the edge, so to speak.
Now, this is not saying that every SoS has this amount of command within the administration they belong too. However, I would wager that Hillary thinks she will have similar amount of influence and sway in the new administration as these men did.
That I can certainly buy. But if she thinks she can, she might be as mistaken as when she (and many others) thought the Dem nomination was hers to claim. The Clinton era seems to be over, and I have a feeling Obama (maybe Michelle too) will make it a point to remind her of that.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 1, 2008 4:24 PM | What do you think? [11]