1) The current and not surprising high-level rumor is that Robert Gates will stay on as Defense Secretary. The NYT has the story.
Gates will be the first Defense Secretary to be retained from an administration of a another party. LBJ and Ford retained theirs but they both were filling in at Pres, so this is very different. Two interesting points from the NYT article 1) advisors to Obama were concerned about how this move would be perceived by his base and 2) an argument can be made that this further reinforces the negative stereotype of the wimpy Democrat that can't be trusted with the nation's security.
Personally I hate the pick. It's literally the opposite of change. Perhaps they're keeping him on in order to blame him later if (more likely, when) the final outcome in Iraq is bad. We're going to have to get into this in depth, likely when it's formally announced after the holiday.
2) Obama held his third press conference in a row today and announced that former Fed chairman, the dude before Greenspan, will head up the newly-created Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
Austan Goolsbee will lead up the staff of the board as well as be a nominee to Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. Goolsbee is a University of Chicago economist (the 4 scariest words in the English language according to Megnanimous) and is a centrist according to what little I've read about him. I will have more on Goolsbee in my forever forthcoming new Who's Who.
3) One of the themes we have been riffing on for the past couple of weeks is what the Obama appointments mean in terms of the way he will lead and the policies he will enact. At the Volcker/Goolsbee press conference today (full transcript here), Obama was asked about being the torchbearer for "change" while making retread appointments:
When it comes to the people that we've pulled together -- because I know this has been sort of conventional wisdom floating around Washington -- that, well, you know, there's a recycling of people who were in the Clinton administration, although Paul dates before that, the last Democratic administration that we had was the Clinton administration. And so it would be surprising if I selected a Treasury secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration because that would mean that the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever. And I suspect that you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever.
What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand where the -- the vision for change comes from first and foremost. It comes from me. That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing it. I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of ways.
And that's the kind of discussion that we're going to want. We want ideas from everybody. But what I don't want to do is to somehow suggest that because you served in the last Democratic administration that you're somehow barred from serving again, because we need people who are going to be able to hit the ground running.
Posts
5 comments:
3) on the topic of Obama's appointments and how he will lead, has anyone actually read the Lincoln Biography Team of Rivals? I think someone asked this question a few weeks ago but I don't recall an answer. Homework/Blogwork? I chatted with some folks this weekend who had read it and said it was clear what an influential book it has been on Obama, not only in his team of rival appointees, but also his general comportment. That at least sparks my curiosity.
Also - y'all realize that the "But understand where the -- the vision for change comes from first and foremost. It comes from me. That's my job..." portion of Obama's response is totally his more eloquent version of "i'm the decider." good stuff.
I don't necessarily think keeping Gates on for a year would be a bad thing. He's been running the show for a couple of years and knows the game. How involved has he been with the recent reduction of troops plan? The real question will be with how he can deal with the idea of ending a war instead of trying to run one. His record seems to show that he can work with everybody, which is something that Obama's administration shouldn't shy from. Although most of you guys know more about it that I do. This is just my two cents
I've read Team of Rivals. I think Fletch has too. It's a very good read, the beginning is slow as she lays out the Stanton, Chase and Seward backgrounds, but then it picks up pretty quick. If he follows it closely as his leadership guide, I feel bad for Biden. The role of the VP back then was marginal. Hamlin and Johnson were basically picked to help in the election and had no power in decision making. That doesn't sound like what Biden is all about.
Seward was pretty confrontational at the beginning (he thought he'd run for Pres 4 years later as two-term Presidents were rare at that time), but then settled into his role later on (probably giving up that further aspiration), and became Lincoln's chief confidant by the end of it. Could Hilary be like that? I guess. But then Seward wasn't married to Bill Clinton. The Bubba factor will be the most interesting part of that relationship.
One thing that is different in their styles of leadership is Lincoln tended to give a long leash to his subordinates. His generals especially would screw up and screw up and he'd stick with them. The North was supposed to make quick work of the South, but there was some pretty bad military moves at the beginning that made the war a grinder. Contrast that to what little we've seen of Obama's leadership, mainly from the campaign. His no-drama mantra meant a tight leash on surrogates and subordinates. If they screwed up, they were let go. Susan Powers resignation after calling Hillary a monster is a good example. He sort of loosely stuck by Wright at the beginning of that controversy but it didn't take long before he threw him under the bus. Now, mind you, being CandC of a divided nation at war is completely different than CEO of a campaign. But it's really the only leadership comparison we have to go on.
I guess I would say that the team of rivals works as long as the team accepts their roles and executes the policy decisions of the President with unwavering loyalty. Dissent and debate during deliberations, but faithful execution once a decision has been made. I think Obama was able to follow that style in his campaign, and hopefully it translates to the cabinet.
Err..By (artist) Susan Powers I meant (Pulitzer prize winning author) Samantha Power. Both not to be confused with Susan Powter, author of "Stop the Insanity". Though, in these crazy times, that is a good enough mantra to run with.
Actually Samantha Power is in the news today for advising Obama on the national security transition. Making for delicious juiciness in Hillary "Monster" Clinton getting the State gig.
Post a Comment