Reports: Gates To Stay As Secretary Of Defense
And speaking of the question of whether Robert Gates will remain as Obama's Sec Def, it looks like he's staying:
Sources tell ABC News that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will be staying on in the top Pentagon job, for at least the first year of the Obama administration. "It is a done deal," a source close to the process tells ABC News.
The Politico also reports the same thing.
The Obama transition team isn't confirming the reports, but isn't denying them, either. A Pentagon spokesperson I just reached declined to comment.
Ironically, in one sense the economic meltdown made this key decision easier. Just as it did during the campaign, the relentless focus on the economic crisis has to some degree reduced the intensity of attention being paid to the critical national security decisions that lie ahead.
And so, whatever the substantive merits or demerits of the Gates pick, the meltdown allows for the argument that it makes sense to preserve temporary continuity at the Pentagon in order to enable the incoming President to devote his full attention to the fixing the economy.
I think this was basically cinched a couple weeks ago when the transition team leaked the trial balloon that they were considering Gates and nobody really complained, like we saw happen with some other positions.
November 25, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is it true that we would then have progressives in the cabinet = ZERO and "Surge" Republicans = 1?
Hey, Obama, keep it up and I'm asking for my money back. I know all the time is down the drain. "Change!" Ha!
This bipartisan schtick is for suckers. To Republicans "bipartisan is synonymous with date rape."
But, hey, as long as David Broder is happy. That's the important thing.
November 25, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me how much money you gave Obama and I'll reimburse you myself, you whiny little shit!
I'm so sick of morons like you who think your $100 and 10 hours of volunteering bought you "Obama on a string." If you had paid attention, you would see that Obama is behaving exactly the way he promised--a non-ideologue who picks the best people and ideas, who values results over political grandstanding.
Remember FISA? He does what he thinks is best even if it honks off the netroots. Perhaps you should have walked then.
1. Gates is a Republican.
2. Gates is a damn good Sec of Defense capable of winding this war down at Obama's insistence.
3. #2 makes #1 irrelevant.
November 25, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll have to second'd your comment.
November 25, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll third that. Seems some people don't understand what Obama was saying all along. Plus, there is something to be said for some stability in the leadership that has our troops safety at the top of their priority list. Obama has heard from the brass that Gates is working with them. This is about 2 wars and keeping our troops safe. No time for politics, beautiful dreamers.
November 25, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO, you're "thirding" a comment where the person discusses issues by calling people a "shit" and you've got the gall to claim to be echoing what Obama was "saying all along?"
Really, that's a load.
So, KateO, do you think liberals should be included anywhere in the new government? Because we haven't seen that yet, except for minor positions.
November 25, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's a liberal? What is your litmus test?
November 26, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the vast majority of people find out that "change" was more a marketing ploy than a promise, they will not be happy. Most people who supported him thought Obama would be different. But clearly he is not. Actions like keeping Bush as Defense Secretary will demonstrate to people that he is not different and they will become disillusioned. Obama is a change of face, but not a real and substantive change. He's the insider's outsider, not a reformer nor a "new" type of leader.
November 26, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to write "keeping Bush's Defense Secretary". Sorry for the typo.
November 26, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
+1
I have no probs with Gates staying around for a year or so to help withdraw Iraq. I have trust in Obama's leadership skills and his judgment in picking people who are competent enough to do what he wants to get done, if they don't then he will most likely have them want to spend more time with their family and have them quit. He is building a powerhouse of a team to be with him in the WH and i think he has the leadership to pull us out of the crater that Bush has driven us into.
November 26, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Freerider:
No reason to be insulting about it. You're into hero worship. Got it. No criticism of The Leader will be tolerated. Too bad for you because there's plenty on the way.
See my point to Redneck below for further comment.
p.s. it was a few hundred dollars and a few hundred hours. Don't jump to conclusions when you're in ignorance.
November 25, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freeper doing an impersonation of a "liberal."
Amusing.
November 25, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Like any Obama supporter would ever refer to him derisively as "The Leader." This clown just stumbled over from NoQuarter!
November 25, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Maybe this one is from hillaryis44.org. Sounds like he or she might be one of those posters.
November 25, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
NoQuarterUSA.net is over that way, son.
November 25, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hero worship? OK. If waiting until the guy actually takes office and does something before burning him at the stake is hero worship, I guess you're right.
If Gates had been nominated by a Democrat, there'd wouldn't be any issue here but losers like you are so blinded by ideology that you can't examine his record independently. Even Democrats in the House and Senate have praised him as an effective and competent SOD, 180 degrees from Rumsfeld.
Again, tell me how much you gave to Obama. I'll reimburse you. It'll be worth it to get rid of you-if you ever were an Obama supporter. Anybody who stomps off in a huff over an appointment is either (a) a fool or (b) a panty waste!
November 25, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legitimate criticism is hardly "burning him at the stake". I think you need to calm down. People have a right to criticize Obama's decisions. You have a right to like them. Fine. No need to get all hyperbolic about it.
November 26, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hyperbolic is declaring that Obama is no different from Bush based on a cabinet appointment. Hyperbolic is saying you regret ever supporting him because you don't like who he appointed. Hyperbolic is calling him a turncoat before he makes one single policy decision.
you are the one who needs to calm down and stop the chicken little routine.
November 26, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pay attention to minor details. Obama isn't faking to the left or right....he's charging to the middle.
November 25, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. He's trying to run the whole country for the good of the country. Gee, what a concept.
November 25, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Separate from the debate over Gates, let's keep in mind that "the middle" is not necessarily what's best for the country, or even the way to get things done. Pragmatism is not the same as the middle. One can certainly be progressive *and* pragmatic. Bush changed the country radically (and for the worse, obviously) without building consensus (in the middle or anywhere else) about a darn thing. Let's, um, hope that Obama governs with a more progressive bent than what he suggested during the campaign on many issues. Because escalation in Afghanistan, for example, ain't my idea of change. If he wants Gates to lead that effort, we can and should be very, very disappointed with the nomination and the policy.
November 25, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The middle is "safe" and that is Obama's mantra "play it safe" as he did throughout the campaign. If he plays it safe he will win re-election but he will not go down in history as a great President. The reason for this is that the times demand more than a President who plays it safe and without question our people, who are suffering mightily, need far more than that.
If Washington as a whole is as happy as they seem to be with what Obama is doing I think we all have legitimate grounds for being worried about the situation. The wise heads in Washington after all, are the people who approved the war, did nothing to stop the escalation and continuation of the war, who allowed Bush to nearly bankrupt the nation, and who just recently rewarded the crooks who destroyed the economy with an $850 billion bonus! I don't want that crowd to be happy with what Obama is doing.
November 26, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautifully-stated, Oleeb.
Stop and think, everyone. The feel-good moment that we've all been enjoying certainly does feel good. But, it's time for the critical thinking to kick in. What is it that we want Obama to achieve through his administration? Short-term goals, long-term goals. How are his decisions now going to impact all of that?
Yeah, he's our guy, but he's not golden.
November 26, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point in stating Obama is charging to the middle is that he needs to bring what's left of the GOP into the fold - give them a sense of purpose - that their views are worth being listened too. The last thing he needs is a rebellious minority solely intent on poking sticks thru the spokes in order to hobble his efforts. And once everything is civil, he can steer them where he needs them to create and pass the necessary legislation to get the country out of the muck and mire we're currently stuck in.
November 26, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually thought that was your point and it makes sense. Cosign.
November 26, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
CarolBG, I meant my comment for all those responding to my initial comment, not yours specifically..sorry
November 26, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol, I don't think anyone here is saying that Obama is above criticism, despite some emotional and hyperbolic responses. I think what I, and some others, are reacting to is the fact that the guy hasn't even been sworn in, his hands are tied until January 20 (there really is only one President at a time) and people are already expecting him to fail. I am not at all happy about Clinton as SoS, but he and she must have their reasons. I'm willing to give it a chance. Governing is not the same as campaigning and some people here don't seem to understand the difference.
November 26, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
All points well-taken, Kate. But, I would differ with your point that his hands are tied until Jan 20. Obama, in fact, is taking action right now that is shaping what his policies will be. And we should very well make our voices heard in regards to his decisions.
I don't think that it's helpful for us to be in an attack/defend mode. It's not good to be reactive. But, we should certainly be actively evaluating what he is doing at this point - and not sitting back in a wait and see mode. The decisions that he is making during this transition is shaping his administration and those decisions will determine his policies. He needs to hear what we think about that. Every step of the way.
The people in this forum, for the most part, supported Obama's candidacy. But, there is a pretty broad spectrum of opinion here in regards to what his policies ought to be and how these appointments are impact that. We should be having some open discussion about that.
November 26, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not having a *discussion*. You've rendered the verdict: Obama has betrayed us. His cabinet appointments prove that he will not keep a single one of his campaign promises.
November 26, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? At what point did I say that Obama betrayed us? Or that he would not keep a single campaign promise? Are you confusing me with someone else?
November 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in complete agreement with this.
November 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your comment generally, with one exception. The FISA vote was not an example of Obama doing "what he thinks is best even if it honks off the netroots"-- and this is clear since Obama's actions on the FISA vote contradict both what Obama was doing on the same issue just a couple months before, and what Obama claimed to think was best on the issue just a couple months before. Since Obama neatly reversed himself on this single issue after gaining the nomination, either he was lying about what he thought was best before the nomination or he was lying about what he thought was best after. In neither possibility can what he's doing be described as pragmatic, "non-ideological", or doing what he thinks is best, as all three of these descriptors imply actually having some kind of single specific position on an issue and sticking to it.
The FISA vote should never be represented as anything other than a naked political pander and a great failure on Obama's part. Find a better example.
November 25, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA is an example of how Obama didn't cave in to pressure from the left.
November 25, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it is an example of him caving to pressure from the right-- on a long-held policy position no less. If you're trying to argue he sticks to principle and pragmatism in the face of political pressure, this one case demonstrates the opposite of what you're trying to prove.
November 25, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that Obama capitulated. Go back and read what he said about FISA. He disagreed with telecom immunity and wanted to strip it out of the survelliance bill. He said that if that was not possible he would still vote for the bill.
November 25, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did. And several months before that, he said that he disagreed with telecom immunity and wanted to strip it out of the survelliance bill, and said that if that was not possible he would not vote for the bill. After gaining the nomination he caved to the right and reversed himself on this issue.
November 25, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where have you been? So good to see someone who actually has been paying attention. Thank you.
November 25, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was meant for freerider.
November 25, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bow to your great wisdom! ;-)
November 25, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I think you have it all wrong on FISA. He clearly capitulated on the issue. He reneged on his promise to filibuster any bill with telecom amnesty. This reversal was by far the most troubling thing he has done to date, and the cabinet picks pale in comparison, IMO.
In Obama's limited defense, I think his Democratic colleagues made him a fait accompli in the warrantless surveillance bill. He was forced into choosing between honoring a promise important to the left wing of his party, and avoiding a high profile fight opening him to the charge of being soft on terrorism.
The conservative Dem senators who received tons of money from the telecoms wanted the FISA bill, and they basically dared Obama to jeopardize his chances at winning the White House by challenging them. So I ultimately blame Jay Rockefeller and his ilk for sacrificing our civil liberties on the altar of corporate campaign contributions.
November 26, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm Emmanuel was one of the main beneficiaries of the telecom money in exchange for gutting FISA and giving them a get out jail free card. Pelosi and Hoyer were even bigger beneficiaries. It wasn't just "conservative" Democrats involved in selling out on FISA. Nontheless, Obama gained nothing by flip-flopping on the issue. He could have instead demonstrated that he had the guts to stand on a principle and on his word. Seems his word isn't worth a whole lot when it's just the word he gives to the people, in public, and repeatedly over a series of months and weeks. And his flip flop ws not just a disappointment ot the left, most Democrats and most Americans did not favor telecom immunity.
November 26, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did it ever occur to you that unlike the right or the middle/center, the left has been correct on every major issue facing our country for the past 10-15 years? Maybe standing up to the left is popular amongst those inside the beltway, but it isn't very smart if you want to do what's best for the nation.
November 26, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear! Couldn't agree with you more mcc.
November 26, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an abusive comment. You can say what you wish without hurling names about. I hope you get banned.
November 25, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the change you need, not the change you want.
November 25, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diapers?
November 25, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I modified, and expanded upon, my comment, further down this page.
November 25, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are just the sort of perpetual loser true-believing ideologues that have cost us so dearly for 30 long years
The only real difference between this ilk and Bush neo-cons is that the latter have a pair
November 25, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates is in. Brennan is out.
Here's the problem with George W. Bush's Administration. (well, not THE problem...one of many). Donald Rumsfeld was so spectacularly bad as Secretary of Defense that anyone less sneering who managed to stem the apparent losses would look pretty good by comparison.
Would Gates have looked so reasonable if he had followed anyone else?
November 25, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully submit yes. Gates was a member of the bipartisan iraq study group. Their get out of iraq plan was logical and reasonable, which I guarantee gates was on board with.
Also, the way he has handled the military and the warmongers in the king's administration speaks volumes as well.
He is doing a good job. He is following a program at this point that he obviously does not agree with. With a new administration and new program, which I am sure he is on board with, namely get out of iraq asap, he will implement it.
As a side note, I bet obama met with gates a couple of weeks ago at national airport in dc. Remember the press black-out. I bet that was obama meeting with gates and getting him on board.
I think that he will do a bang-up job and be secretary of defense for quite some time to come.
November 25, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right about Gates. On the other hand, under a different 'program', even Powell might have been effective.
November 25, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but you get the political cover with gates as the hold over from the king on the king's greatest clusterf*ck, among many. I really think that it's a brilliant move.
November 25, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
the political cover is a point a Republican friend of mine made. Both from a troop drawdown perspective and whatever hits the fan in the first months.
That's fine but the guy could have done same as a private citizen. Or on the Defense Policy Board. Or anywhere else like that.
Another big issue out there are the enormous Pentagon budgets. The military-industrial complex is in hog heaven and will be very pleased with Gates. Look for defense/weapons stocks to rise in the morning.
And it's stunning how little involved liberals are with this government!! You're welcome!
November 25, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How so? As in the "Don't blame me, this was Gates' mess" line of thinking?
November 25, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such as "now let's turn to Bush Defense Secrtary Robert Gates for his take on developments in Iraq."
Op-eds, etc. Give him a post and a title and he can help with cover.
Plus, this reinforces the narrative that Democrats can't handle defense.
November 25, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, gates has been putting the brakes on expenditure's as well. It would be good to have him do it, don't you think.
November 25, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mentioning firing top brass who have shown incompetence.
November 25, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he kept us out of Iran!
(At least so far... Holding my breath for another two months!)
November 25, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's stunning to see who buys into the blood and death money of the war machine.
November 25, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a little harsh on Gates. Whether we agree with is philosphy or not I think it's fair to say he is highly competent.
In 2006, right before he took office, Iraq seems like a inferno that at no circumstances can be contained.
November 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq seemed..I mean...
November 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually don't perceive his philosophy as being hardline reactionary republican. I perceive him as being more of a moderate and pragmatist. Also, he is a realist when it comes to foreign policy, which is a good thing. He definitely is not an idealogue.
November 25, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I am harsh. I've said this before, in another context, but it's relevant here. Our expectations about "competence" have taken a beating from the day-to-day revelations about the incompetence of the current administration. That drip-drip-drip wears and erodes expectations for future administrations.
Maybe Gates is competent even without the context provided by Rumsfeld. Both you and Michael seem to think so. I'm not so certain.
November 25, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Gates has an easier job than he would if McCain had won. With Obama, we have a timeline handed to him by the Iraq government, which corresponds with his own. So Gates has a simple job (ok, on paper):, get out of Iraq, but do it in a way that doesn't destroy the country. With McCain it would have been different.
Obama won't be handing him free reins, but fundamentally, he's less micromanaging than the current White House. He's going to give Gates a goal and let him do it. The difference between Rummy and Gates is, I guess, less of competence and more of who sees reality. Rummy was a freaking space cadet.
November 25, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will bet you if mccain won, gates would have bailed. Him staying reveals that he is totally on board with obama's program, which is a good thing. He was never behind staying in iraq forever.
November 25, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would keep in mind that Gates is probably staying on for about year so Obama can get his feet under him and they can have a more smooth transition during a time of war.
November 25, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is actually benefiting from this. Copared to Bush Obama is like a breathe of fresh, completely devoid of bacteria, perfect temperatured air.
November 25, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates will give Obama cover in getting the troops out of Iraq.
November 25, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good decision. I'm sure others noticed as well while while some are quick to criticize Obama's decision they usually turn out to be true.
FISA remains the only decision I'm yet to reconcile.
By the way all the talk about sending the wrong message on national security- Colin Powell endorsed Obama and who knows Gates may endorse him as well.
Obama will very likely be percieved very differently from other dems when it comes to national security.
I just hope the pundits don't start comparing this decision to McNamara.
November 25, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates blocks out any Republican resistance to Obamas plams in Afghanistan and Iraq.
November 25, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it that way because I don't believe there is much resistance in the first place. I don't think it's much political.
I think Obama genuinely feels Gates is competent and it isn't the right time to make a complete pentagon transition.
November 25, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No way. Gates will be seen as a "turncoat." He provides no cover from Republicans and, being a registered independent, they will say he's not even a Republican and Obama still needs to appoint one.
And it may work. Broder must be appeased.
November 25, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all Republicans are the same, and you'll have some like Snowe and Collins in Maine who'll have no problem supporting Obama and Gates. The rest can yell turncoat as much as they want. They'll be irrelevant.
November 25, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're referring to the shrinking moderate Republican caucus. I'm referring to the majority of Republicans and the leadership.
November 25, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, who cares in the end about the leadership if we can consistently get about four or five Republicans to cross the aisle. The leadership can howl and gnash their teeth, and call on sister Sarah to come save them from the Marxists.
November 25, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol
November 25, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
...she would make a hot nun.
November 26, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about your hero coulter's problem? She can't spout garbage off because her jaw is wired shut. There go her book sales this joyous holiday season. She can't drop any bombs, because she can't open her pie hole. Karma is a funny thing. Too funny.
November 26, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since when did the repugs have leadership? I've always seen their approach to governing as a total clusterfuck.
November 25, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wishful thinking, but not at all true. Nothing will get Republican cooperation. You're fooling yourself.
November 26, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jebus Christ on a Crisp Cracker, what an impressive display of whining. I haven't seen this much hand wringing in years. Almost as bad as reading David Sirota's blog. Waa waa waa waa. Take your money back? Boo fricking hoo. The man hasn't been in office one day. Democrats: never miss an opportunity to blow an election, even one won convincingly.
Look, Gates worked for Republicans. Not all Republicans are created equal. As someone who has pretty good sources in the Nat Sec community, I can tell you ungrateful little twits that one of the only reasons we are not stuck in yet another war with a place called Iran is a guy named Gates said 'not on my watch.' So chill out with the b!tching about selling out to neocons and similar claptrap.
Gates will be at DOD for a year, two tops. The neocons under him will get ferreted out, Danzig will get the deputy slot and probably take over from him when he leaves.
November 25, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet he stays on longer. And I agree with your observations. We're not all whining.
November 25, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should reply directly to the "ungrateful little twits" (like me) rather than lambasting all commenters, the majority of which seem to be pretty favorable.
November 25, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't an ungrateful little twit. You just have a different opinion. By the way, for what it's worth, I am still laughing about the catnip ___. That was hilarious.
November 25, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can't say "orgy"? Am I on report now? My neighbors have been talking, haven't they?
November 25, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can, I guess, I just didn't want your neighbors to know. Too funny. I like a good laugh.
November 25, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh heh, yeah this 'report abuse' stuff kind of freaks me out. Can we blame 'fogu2' and 'tellmemore' for this shit?
November 25, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, that might be considered "otherwise objectionable", and you'd have to serve some time-out.
Every once in awhile, someone would go overboard on the Election Central threads (and, I guess, at the Cafe, but I don't read the comments there as often), but it didn't seem a big enough issue to actually institute this current policy.
On the other hand, if you have a stalker, the "Report Abuse" link could be useful.
November 25, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm on time out? *sigh*
November 25, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duly noted - I didn't mean to lambaste everyone. Just the whiners. Mea culpa. Heh. Y'all know who you are. ; )
Carry on.
November 25, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your points, other than the twit part, seem pretty sound though. It's, again, the fact that Gates seems to be a realist. Attacking Iran would have been a nightmare of nightmares.
November 25, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, I will bet the farm on this one, when the iran bs was coming up either gates told the fools, I will resign or submitted a letter of resignation and would have been kicking and screaming. That's how the brakes were put on and that's called kahones. Gee, it's shocking that there is actually someone who puts america first and his patriotism first. That is another reason why he is agreeing to stay on for the good of the country.
I'm really happy about this development.
November 25, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, bite my ass and call me a cracker. Or some such homey talk. Way to duck valid points with ad hominem.
In politics, when a coalition of people help you get elected it's considered bad form to turn on them and appoint people opposed to their policies. Or exclude them from your government.
This appointment is bad form and it's not in keeping with the change agenda. And it follows a pattern of the stiff-arm we experienced from Clinton toward liberals.
Would Barack Obama be President elect today without liberals? No. Will he make room in his government for liberals? Not so much. Apparently, they are more worried about what the Broders of the world will say. After all, "where else will the liberals go?"
Fired up? Not so much. Maybe I should just invest in weapons stocks and be done with it.
November 25, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Obama hasn't been sworn in, he hasn't done anything except appoint people that you believe will not help implement an agenda that liberals would be happy to see implemented. But what is these non-liberals, under the leadership of Obama, implement said agenda. Will it matter to you that you didn't perceive them as liberals at the time of their appointment?
November 25, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazingly enough, "change" is actually listening to both sides. When's the last time Bush listened to liberals? It's a pretty big change that he's going after good people, and not the ones that get the job just because of whose party dogma they worship.
Remember FEMA and Katrina? Those people in charge there loved Bush. But could they get the job done?
November 25, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, like I say below, I could live with this if we saw so something counterbalancing all the rightward moves.
So far we've had the Lieberman bailout he brokered, the record Citigroup bailout his new Treasury signed off on, the increasingly possible return of Clinton Triangulation, and a hawk at Secretary of State.
Here's hoping that the new politics President Elect Obama will display also include a rejection of the typical Democratic “scorn the base” approach, used by Clinton and his followers. We can have hope, at least, and perhaps the deeds.
(Stolen from my own pathetic blog!)
November 25, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We seem to have elected Hillary and we got Traitor Joe back too.
November 25, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Early on the campaign trail Obama talked positively about Bush 41's foreign policy.
Josh has been beating the Scowcroft connection with Obama for weeks now. The writing was on the wall.
This is about bringing the Bush 41 Republicans around.
I think most folks are moderately right on FP/defense and moderately left on domestic and social issues - If Obama can claim that ground as the "new" Democratic Party territory, the Republican party is in a world of hurt.
November 25, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign, big time. Bush I's foreign policy was excellent and obama has said as much. Also, it speaks volumes that bush I's foreign policy team has been against the king's foreign policy from virtually day one. This could be an excellent development.
November 25, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you see Bush 41 is an icon of the 20th century, you might call him mid-century modern. He's an accomplished member of the WWII generation and his foreign policy reflected the outcomes of that war.
Now, if you want someone who can craft a foreign policy for the 21st century, well, that would require thinking outside the box of conventional wisdom.
Same old usual suspects. Same old foreign policy that worked 50 years ago. No change. No roadmap to the future.
November 25, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um,you jumped from A to E pretty quickly. Where's B, C, and D?
Talking positively about Bush 41 and gaining the respect of moderate Republicans is a lot different than "No roadmap for the future". You're using a generational fallacy here. What Obama is doing is thinking pragmatically about foreign policy, which reduces the problems idealism brings. If you want to get out of Iraq quickly and correctly, why start over when you can use what's already there? We don't need any billion-dollar mistakes based on idealism again, let alone lives that depend upon what we are doing.
November 25, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And listening to Obama for the entire campaign, there was nothing he said that made think that he wasn't going to approach global issues from a new direction and with a greater emphasis on collaboration and diplomacy.
November 25, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in total agreement. Its' much better to utilize proven talents rather than rely upon unproven newbies.
November 26, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama does stake that claim as you say, it will be the beginning of the end. In other words, it will be an epic political tragedy. This will be Act One of the GOP death blow. Act Two is universal health care. Act Three will be Palin running against Obama in 2012.
November 25, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Bush 41s FP is one of the, if not THE best.....EVER.
November 25, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am willing to give Obama a very, very wide benefit of the doubt on all of his picks, because I simply cannot believe that Obama's goals and directions are going to be subservient to his cabinet appointees'.
Also, coming from a military family, I know well how respected Gates is at DOD.
Rumsfeld he ain't. Hell, Cohen he ain't either.
The man's competent and understated, and he knows his place. You keyboard warriors should relax, let the man do his job, pick his team.
November 25, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. Once Obama steps in the wrong direction, I'll be (or try to be) the first to point it out. But so far what I've seen of his appointees is what I would expect from someone who is going to try to push through some massive overhaul and implement some massive initiatives during a time of economic meltdown and two wars.
November 25, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
November 25, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third again. I AM a military family, and one that is opposed to the war but Gates is our friend. We know that. We didn't know that when Rummy was in place. The Generals can work with Gates. We NEED that stability. Please, let's just be patient so we can bring our troops home. It's not going to be easy. I have a stepson in Kabul and I have faith in Obama. We are just holding our breaths and don't need seismic shifts.
November 25, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you very much for your sacrafice. I wish people would think about that sometimes. I agree with all your posts. Thank you.
November 25, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. We need a realist in charge. George W. was an idealist and look at the mess we are in. I just want a Secretary of Defense who listens to his brass, because they are the ones who know what has to be done and who care more than anyone about their warfighters. I believe that Gates is listening, I really do. I am a tie-dyed liberal and I am just fine with Gates staying on. Just fine. I cannot tell you how painful it is to give one of your own up to leadership that doesn't seem to give a damn about your family's sacrifice. This whining about Obama keeping Gates on ignores the reality of human lives on the line.
November 25, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, I agree and thank you. I actually hope that gates stays on for a long time. He is doing a great job for the country and the military and that is the job of the secretary of defense. It's better to have someone good in the position, than a political hack, which gates sure is not.
November 25, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expected him to keep Gates. When there are two wars going on it would be foolish to fire everyone who knows anything. Gates is certainly qualified and if he has no trouble working for a new boss then he should stay on.
I hate it when a new boss comes to the office and just assumes that anyone who did a good job for the old boss has to be replaced. I've had it happen to me and it's so annoying. Later I ran into the new guy who told me he just assumed that I wouldn't want to work for him. Yeah, like unemployment is preferable.
November 25, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Deputy Secretary of Defense, Under Secretary and Chairman of Joint Chiefs and the like?
November 25, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mullen stays for now. I think he has to stay for a fixed period and he will follow orders and get with the program. Some of the other appointments are being worked out according to the articles. I will bet that gates keeps some of his people and the king's hacks, the neocons, who were trying to work behind gate's back are out on the street.
November 25, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I see we have a new troll. Like anyone buys that someone who really worked hard to get Obama elected has no faith in his choices at all.
November 25, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates strikes me as a competent guy who is capable of thinking rationally. Unlike his predecessor, he's no partisan whackjob. Considering the fact that he does not have the final say in the administration hierarchy, I actually think he did a relatively good job in holding Bush.
I think the continuity there Greg pointed out is actually one of the keys, given the grave nature of the issues both in and out. I would consider this decision as a longer-than-usual transition process, and I think it is a good decision as such.
November 25, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Obama needs competent people running their respective departments while he focuses on the economy like a laser beam. But i am extremely pleased that liberals and progressive were able to force John Brennan out of the running for the CIA.
November 25, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a moderate Republican so this strategy has no up side for me. It's just a welfare program for war profiteers and mercenaries with our young soldiers paying the price.
Our we still in Iraq? Yes. Are we still wasting $5B a month? Yes.
Nothing changes.
November 25, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is prosing massive spending. I'm hoping he will take the opportunity to link the war to the recession and finally call and end to the ending war in Iraq. $ 5 billion a month is just pathetic.
November 25, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will bet you that we are out of iraq within a year based on the status of forces agreement that was "negotiated." The military, the american people, gates, and obama all want us out of iraq as quickly as possible.
I concur with your sentiments, but let's give it a chance.
November 25, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates is the best man for the job if you want to get the Troops out as soon as possible. Anybody else, assuming you brought somebody in from outside the DOD, would have a learning curve that would take months to get acclimated before they even started considering how to draw down the troop levels. Gates can start on Day One when he officially gets President Obama's marching orders.
Getting the soldiers out safely is a huge undertaking. You just can't say "Planes are leaving from Baghdad Airport every hour on the hour on a first come first served basis". We're talking hundreds of thousands of soldiers, contractors, diplomats and all the equipment and weaponry - I can't even wrap my head around the logistics of it all, and it has to be done as safely and orderly as possible all the while trying to make sure civil war doesn't break out in the areas you leave from.
November 25, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
$5 billion a month is simply insane .Obama is prosing massive spending. I'm hoping he will take the opportunity to link the war to the recession and call for an end to the war in Iraq.
November 25, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about continuity, Howard Fineman says. Realism. Henry Kissinger anyone? Darn, didn't we just elect a moderate Republican? Or perhaps the triumph of estabishment Democrats, as Fineman says. Who can tell the difference!! Rejoice Republicans we have saved you from yourselves. We are you. You are us. Nothing changes.
November 25, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's completely absurd. You need to read Nate Silver's blog today: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obamas-agenda-difference-between.html
Seriously.
November 25, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those were the promises he's already breaking. He's not progressive. He's just another estabishment politician serving the same old interests with the same old policies. That is realism. Nothing changes.
November 25, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I get some cheese with that whine?
November 25, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Those were the promises he's already breaking.>>
By the way, please show me where Obama *promised* to name certain people of certain ideology to his cabinet. I seem to recall he ran on policy proposals which, so far, he hasn't had the opportunity to reneg on.
Folks like you are so invested in misery and grievance, you'll invent it even if it's not there. You're not happy unless you're pissing and moaning. Carry on!
November 25, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord Bluebell. Listen to yourself. You are throwing a tantrum that would embarrass a 4-year-old. Who's your perfect candidate? Jesus?
November 25, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think bluebell would be satisfied with Jesus??? He/She would be complaining about him palling around with sinners and drinking wine instead of water.
These folks love to wallow in their misery and disappointment. It makes them feel *pure.* [rolling eyes.]
November 25, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell is right to be concerned about this and other appointments. And you are usually more tolerant of other viewpoints, KateO.
November 26, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between "concern" and all out WHINING. He sounds like a kid that got a brand new transformer and BEFORE he even opens the box starts crying and moaning at the fact that may not be the exact toy he wanted.
November 26, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have much tolerance when people presume to know what's best for the troops, and their view appear to be driven purely by political self-centeredness. I have a child fighting a war right now. I want what is best for him and his fellow soldiers, including getting out of Iraq and taking down Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. When people seem to be whining that they are not getting what they want from their candidate I lose patience.
November 26, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've never seen a Democrat B%$#* and moan as much as you bluebell. My goodness the man hasn't even been sworn in and you are blowing your top. Calm the hell down and wait for the POLICY. I am telling you sometimes being a Democrat is embarassing when people like you are in the party.
November 26, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with you! These whiners desperately *want* to be disappointed with Obama; they want him to reneg on every campaign promise he's ever made because the only thing they know how to do is oppose. If he actually brings the troops home, addresses climate change, appoints progressive judges to the SC, fixes healthcare, they won't have anything to whine and carp about and they'll be lost!
I'll put my liberal/progressive credentials against anyone here but I'm old enough to recall how many times liberals blew it by tacking so hard to the left, alienating moderates thumbing their noses at republicans that we got *nothing*!
I want more than bragging rights; I want healthcare. I want to end this stupid war. I want to repeal those draconian restrictions on choice. I want an economic policy that produces jobs and expands the middle class. I want an environmentally friendly energy policy.
If Obama delivers on these things, I don't give a crap about the name of his cabinet officials. But if he renegs on policy, I'll be all over his skinny ass like a pit bull on a poodle.
November 26, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but on one point. I don't want bragging rights. I really don't care. I just want sh*t to finally get down. I don't care if they call me an upside fruitcake or whatever, I can't think of an example. The point is to get sh*t done, big time.
November 26, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's about realism.
Smart move.
November 25, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone think Obama was an ideologue?
November 25, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm watching Keith Olbermann right now and he asked his guest, Chris Hayes, what the main reaction from the Left will be and Chris says the Left is all about the outcome and not so much on who gets us there. From some the comments about Obama's picks - I beg to differ.
November 25, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Upon further reflection, I can see some advantages to this approach for an incoming President during wartime. Especially so if one is inheriting a politically corrupted Pentagon, which seems likely. Obama needs to get control of the military and this may the fastest way to do so.
Of course, it would be best if the party or positions of their Commander-in-Chief didn't affect the willingness of people in the military to adhere to their oaths of enlistment. But Bush and Cheney have been running it for 8 years so ethics may be running low in some quarters.
Hopefully, it wouldn't take Gates more than six months to fully transfer control.
It would be easier to swallow if this type of maneuver, which is getting to be a pattern, were offset with some kind of inclusion of the liberal base of the party in the government. Or if there was a plan to clean up fraud, waste and abuse in war profiteering. Maybe I missed it or there's lots to come.
November 25, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the things you hope for come true. I really do. We are not so far apart on this--you are just more impatient than I am.
November 26, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where are all the Latino's in Obama's cabinet? Other than Richardson rumored to be heading commerce there is really nothing, and Commerce is seen by some as a demotion from the SOS job that should have rightfully been his.
November 25, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see some Latinos. That could work towards shaking up this fossilized world view that we can't shake off. Or how about some Asians in the cabinet?
November 25, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is rumored to be a Latino for Secretary of the Interior (Raul Grijalva).
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/11/21/20081121grijalva-ON.html
Also, the Miami major who is Latino is being vetted for the HUD job.
November 25, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually all the candidates for HUD are Latino.
November 25, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a great posting on all the netroots whiners. http://dagblog.com/blogs/articleman
Articaleman used to post here but now has his own site.
I am glad that Obama is keeping Gates for a while anyway. I was more surprised when Bush picked Gates. Seemed like to smart of a choice for Bush to make on his own.
November 25, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Whiner" is a right-wing Republican talk show word. Nothing changes.
November 25, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've suffered through 8 years of an administration that valued ideology over competence (Monica Goodling, anyone?). At this point, I'm willing to cut Obama some latitude on his appointments.
November 25, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that there is a dichotomy between ideology and competence is false, SC. Of course, we expect Obama to demonstrate more competence in leading this country. We also expect him to be guided by principles - ideally ones that we can identify with. There are many of us out here who aren't seeing that reflected in the administration that he's assembling.
November 26, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink