Plan B Forum

so....

what do you think of trump s cabinet nominations so far?

I m interested in your opinion on this.

Ooh ooh can I play?

Let's just start with Bannon and Flynn.

Bannon led a very racist fake news organization called Breitbart. Even the Anti-Defamation League, which often (in my view) is too quick to defend the indefensible, thinks they are a bunch of racists. He was of course troll-in-chief for Trump, so I suppose it is a award for loyalty. So Trump, despite his promises to do things very differently in WDC is treading a very well-worn path.


Flynn - I can do no better than quote the Wikipedia article "In a private email which was leaked online, Colin Powell said that he had heard in the DIA (apparently from later DIA director Vincent R. Stewart) that Flynn got fired because he was "Abusive with staff, didn’t listen, worked against policy, bad management, etc."[31] According to the New York Times, Flynn exhibited a loose relationship with facts, leading his subordinates to refer to Flynn's repeated dubious assertions as "Flynn facts".[32]". Actually his loose relationship with facts may enable him to fit right in, because I think facts will be as hen's teeth in Trump's Washington.

ooooh, I m sorry andy.....

neither of those two are cabinet nominations....

please play again.....

(my wording was no accident )

Well wes, since you didn't ding me with some silly Youtube video , I'll answer your question. (I wanted to post about this anyway.)

Here's my take on Trump's major picks so far, both cabinet positions and other important senior picks...

(I'm sure my perspective on this will be quite different from my liberal and Democratic friends here who I was allied with in opposition to Trump's election. I'm not going to be unhappy every time Trump picks somebody who wouldn't have be chosen by a Democratic President )

In the spirit of the season, I'll start with the "nice" list first, and then move on to the "naughty":

Approve Of:

James Mattis- Sec. of Defense:

The retired general appears to be an excellent pick, who despite his nickname ("Mad Dog") is well respected by defense experts on both sides of the aisle. He's considered to be thoughtful, very well read, and most importantly for me he's no fool about Vladimir Putin. (Liberals should like the fact that he's also an opponent of enhanced interrogation)

Nikki Haley- UN Ambassador:

Probably my favorite pick so far. No, she doesn't have formal foreign policy experience, but others have held this job who came to it without a long diplomatic resume and done well. She's very bright and capable, and also she wasn't a Trump suck-up during the campaign.

Elaine Chao- Sec. Of Transportation:

Elaine (who is also Mitch McConnell's wife) did a serious-minded and professional job as Labor Secretary in the Bush Administration. She's not any kind of an ideologue, and if Trump is serious about doing something on infrastructure, she's probably the kind of hard working person to put together a serious plan.

Mike Pompeo- CIA Director:

He's a defense hawk, (another one who has no illusions about Putin) and a hardcore conservative, but very bright (1st in his class at West Point; Harvard Law) and well schooled in intelligence issues as a high ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He also must be pretty good at working with others, given the praise his selection received from the liberal Democratic Ranking Member of the committee, Adam Schiff:

"Mike is very bright and hard-working and will devote himself to helping the agency develop the best possible intelligence for policy makers," Schiff said

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1e405610 ... ongressman

Reince Priebus- Chief Of Staff:

I'm not the biggest member of the Reince fan club, but he's a rational realist who knows well most of the political players. He tried his best to steer Trump away from his most outrageous statements and actions during the campaign. There are a lot worse choices he could have made for this position.


Wait and see:

Betsy DeVos- Sec. Of Education:

I've already posted about her. Unlike some, I'm not automatically turned off by her lack of approval from the Public Education Lobby, and I support a school voucher system. In the 40 plus years of it's existence, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the DOE has done absolutely nothing to improve the quality of education in this country. (Which is why I have long supported abolishing it.) It's hard to see how a pair of fresh eyes with a fresh approach could make this record any worse.


Tom Price- Sec. Of HHS:

A physician as well as a Congressman, Price is regarded as someone who has really thought seriously about creating alternatives to Obamacare. It remains to be seen what he will ultimately come up with, so I'm reserving judgement.


Steven Mnuchin- Sec. Of Treasury:

Looks like the typical wealthy Wall Street type who usually gets this job. We'll just have to see how he performs.


Wilbur Ross- Sec. Of Commerce:

See description of Mnuchin.


Disapprove:

Jeff Sessions- Attorney General:

Sessions was by far the biggest, unquestioning, suck-up supporter on The Hill that Trump had. I strongly disapprove of having highly politicized people in this job. (I know it's hard to imagine a more politicized AG then Eric Holder, but that doesn't make it right.) Also, Sessions does not give the impression of being the brightest bulb on the tree. (If there was a 60 vote threshold needed for confirmation he might be in trouble, but thanks to Harry Reid cabinet officer appointments can no longer be filibustered.)


Mike Flynn- National Security Advisor:

While I consider Sessions the worst cabinet pick so far, this is probably the worst major appointment overall. On paper he's qualified, (his last government job was as Director of the DIA) but since leaving government he's compiled a very disturbing record. He's an advocate of the cozy up to Putin strategy, (he's also made repeated appearances on state-controlled Russian Television) and his consulting business has a big contract with the government of the Turkish autocrat leader Erdoğan. (what happened to the "no lobbyist" rule?) I'm very concerned to have someone with his views and disposition as Trump's NSA. Hopefully the solid picks at Defense and CIA will help to reduce his influence.

KT McFarland- Deputy Nat'l Security Advisor:

She's got some good stuff on her resume, (if you go back far enough) but she's another Putin praiser. 'nuff said.


Steve Bannon- chief White House strategist:

I don't know what Bannon's actual views are, but I do know that he's an advocate of stirring up some of the ugliest and most toxic impulses in society to exploit them politically, and he's perfectly happy to make common cause with racists and anti-semites. He's a poisonous presence and should have no role in anyone's White House.

*********************************************************************************

Since I'm on a roll, I guess I might as well opine on the potential Secretary of State picks...I'm going to list them in the order I would like to see them chosen:


1. Mitt Romney-

(I've talked about why I would think this would be an excellent pick for Trump before, so I'm not going to go into detail again.)

2. Bob Corker-

The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he would be a very solid pick, and would definitely make my "Approve of" list. Very knowledgeable, thoughtful, and well qualified. Not a Putin fan, and he also wasn't a Trump suck-up. (He took himself out of the running for the VP slot.)

3.David Petraeus:

I've got very mixed feelings about Petraeus. He's an extremely bright guy who did a very stupid thing, and it seems a little early for his political rehabilitation. (Afterall, he's still on probation)

But on the other hand, anybody who can get Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders and Shia militia commanders to fight on the same side clearly has phenomenal diplomatic skills...

4. Nearly anyone else on the planet-

(When I try to think of possible choices even worse then this next possible choice, I come up with Edward Snowden and a handful of other similar possibilities...)


5.Rudy Giuliani-

Giuliani would be an absolutely horrendous choice for numerous reasons. (Lack of qualifications, stability, temperament, etc) His selection would send a terrible signal. If he's picked he will easily displace even Sessions as the worst cabinet choice.


Overall on his picks, at the moment I would give Trump a low C. (Which I have to say is certainly higher than I expected to be giving him at this point)

If he picks either Romney or Corker for SOS, I'll raise him to a solid C.

If he picks Giuliani, he'll drop to a D (maybe a D-; Rudy would be a pretty awful pick...)

You're right Wes - I didn't realize you wanted us to take you literally. You need to warn us when you do this because otherwise we will be suspicious that you are an imposter.

The only two cabinet post The Donald needs are Secretary of State for Bread and Secretary of State for Circuses. And as The Donald made a heck of a career purveying both to the people, maybe he could do it himself.

There is (and maybe I don't need to develop this point) a horrid symmetry between the Roman Empire that Juvenal was commenting about around AD 100 and the USA of almost two millennia later. Juvenal was saying that the citizenry of Rome was no longer interested in the larger goals of the Empire (civilization, learning, etc) but could be diverted by satisfying their most shallow needs. Juvenal was despairing. Things moved more slowly in those days: and if memory serves it was 400 years or so to Donald J Nero.


ETA - memory is not serving me at all well today. Nero was before Juvenal - 400 years was to the fall of Rome and the rise of Constantinople.

I pretty much agree with what Jim wrote with these provisos. Not sure about Matthis but we might have expected Trump to do a lot worse. Chao is an apparatchik in a very administrative role - build the damn roads and bridges. Hayley is certainly bright and if Trump leaves her alone to get on with things it won't be too bad. We could have had a John Bolton there. I am most concerned about EPA. Not because I do a lot of work for them and my job to some extent depens on there being reasonable regulations (clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, restrictions on dangerous chemicals) but because climate change is now an existential threat to life as we know it.

Even with just a majority vote threshold for confirmation, and the GOP having a 52 seat majority, there's a very good chance that Flynn could not have been confirmed by the Senate to any major executive branch post.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham have already publicly said they would not vote for anyone soft on Putin, so that's two Republican votes he would lose right off the bat...

With his prickly personality he would also probably have come across abysmally in any confirmation hearing, so its easy to see him losing additional Republican votes...(Susan Collins and Jeff Flake come immediately to mind...)

I could see Giuliani running into similar trouble...

I see your point, andy.....

I really don t mind who you comment on in his circle

your point on the shallowness of society is well taken .

I see it slightly differently tho....

the whole kardashianization of society is extremely troubling to me.

the main source of info and opinions today seems to come from comedians and actors. it baffles me.

(I really want to post a steely dan song here...., but I ll refrain , so as not to seem too inane.)

disposable tools seem totally ridiculous to me. yeah they are half the price, but they are still not worth the cost.

political correctness seems shallow beyond reason to me.

it is definitely nice to hear your viewpoint in a semi-serious way.

I agree with you, I just see things differently.

thanks for conversing.....

jim, I read your lists, but I didn t delve into the details yet.

for now, for you and andy, I ll just say that the posts and positions that Flynn and bannon occupy are easily changed, like disposable diapers.

once they have served their purpose, and caught all of the crap, and are well soiled, they can easily be disposed of......

Yes but like disposable diapers (nappies to the Brexiteers and Remainers here) they will end up in a landfill giving off methane. So their poisonous effect will be felt and smelt long after they are gone.k

Dirty diapers don't deserve offices in the West Wing.

the whole kardashianization of society is extremely troubling to me.

the main source of info and opinions today seems to come from comedians and actors. it baffles me.

And the president elect being a reality TV star (and media character before) is just another example of this.

But back to the cabinet--nominating Carson for HUD seems ridiculous; the guy has no experience in the area or in running any agency, and it seems his only qualification is his statement on many federal programs "enhancing dependency", a common republican cry, without any further discussion (or even any evidence he actually understands the problem). It's pretty ridiculous. Not as bad as the Sessions appointment, but pretty bad.

Ordinarily, except for a few senior positions that have some authority on their own (or should have it (like AG), I say let the president appoint whoever (s)he wants, but I do think the president should seek more qualifications than merely mouthing his/her political positions.

Betsy DeVos at Education and Tom Price at HHS are terrible choices, unless your goal is to completely dismantle public education and public health -- which actually is the GOP agenda. And no, that is not hyperbole.

DeVos, a school-voucher activist, can be counted on to divert as much taxpayer funding as she can get away with to private and religious schools, and to slash equal access enforcement and supports for teacher professional development, educational research and curriculum development. To the extent improving public education is essential to improving conditions in inner cities, Trump's choice of DeVos demonstrates his complete abandonment of and indifference to those communities. Not a surprise, but just a mark of how cynical and mendacious he actually is.

Worse still is Price to lead HHS and privateer Seema Verma to head CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). This signals that in addition to destroying Obamacare, the new administration is seeking to cripple Medicare and Medicaid as well. With Price at HHS and Trump's complete disinterest in actual public policy, the way is clear for Paul Ryan to turn Medicare into a "voucher" system, impose barriers to Medicaid access, and cut funding to both programs. Rather than giving us a healthcare system to match the universal care provided by rest of the industrialized world, we'll be going back to quality care for the rich and a big fuck you for everyone else.

I would also bet dollars to donuts on cuts to Social Security and a renewed push to privatize the program by turning over your payroll deductions to the Wall Street friends of the vulture capitalists appointed to Commerce and Treasury.

It's a brave new world of crony capitalism coming right at ya. If you depend on any public services -- from education to health to Social Security -- well, too bad for you, you shoulda been born rich.

ETA:

Oh, and choosing Ben Carson to lead HUD and Nikki Hayley to be UN Ambassador are just bad racist jokes: Neither has any qualifications or background remotely suited for the job, other than Hayley was born to foreigners and Carson is "urban."

We're not even a month past the election and Trump has already demonstrated a singular ineptitude, a frightening ignorance and a complete tone-deafness in foreign relations -- a president's principal job. I can't imagine the post of Secretary of State is going to be appealing to anyone when their daily primary duty will be to walk back whatever idiocy Trump commits the night before.

This is already shaping up to be the worst U.S. administration in history, and that's a pretty low bar.

I guess now anyone is invited to play. I can agree with the general direction of Lord Jim. Trump is gonna be the next president and he should be allowed to pick his cabinet as he desires. Let him suffer the inevitable consequences of his own actions. However, this last one for HUD says lots about the president-elect. Carson during the primary season said he is convinced the earth began about 4000 BC and the pyramids of Egypt were granaries for the famine described in Genesis chapter 41. Lately Carson has said he was unqualified for any cabinet position. So the Donald said this is the man I want for HUD.

Makes me think highly of the British 'permanent under secretary' system.

snailgate.

I think Jim's got a pretty good handle on this, except that I would shift all his evaluations one step downward: i.e., the 5 choices he approves of I would say "Wait and see"; all the rest are "Disapprove" (though some are worse than others). And Romney is the only SoS possibility mentioned so far who doesn't scare me.

Then there's this (from Jim Wright):

• • Trump taps Monsanto CEO for Secretary of Agriculture...
    
    .
    
    .
    
    .
    
    .
    
    .
    
    .
    
    .
    
    .
    
    .
    
    .
    
    Had you going there for a minute, didn't I?
    But such is the state of things, you really couldn't tell, could you?

Econoline wrote:I think Jim's got a pretty good handle on this, except that I would shift all his evaluations one step downward: i.e., the 5 choices he approves of I would say "Wait and see";

As far as Republicans go, Elaine Chao is a pretty unobjectionable appointment, although I'm sure Trump sees it as throwing a bone of appeasement (and familial double-dipping) to Mitch McConnell, rather than as a selection on her own administrative merits. But then, I doubt Trump has any idea or any interest in what the Department of Transportation does.

Just read a rumor that Jon Huntsman is under consideration for Sec. of State. IMHO he would be an excellent choice. (IIRC he even speaks fluent Mandarin, which I'm sure will come in handy.)

Apparently Trump has now picked Ben Carson to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Another abysmal choice.

• • Armstrong Williams, a close friend of Carson who managed the retired neurosurgeon's presidential campaign, told The Hill last month that Carson was not interested in serving as Trump’s secretary of Health and Human Services.
    
    "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency,” Williams said at the time.

Yes and Williams was on NPR this morning denying that he had ever said that. I hope The Hill has it on tape.

Why would Cheeto-Elect care about naming anybody decent to run an agency that benefits primarily poor people many of color?

I have to add the selection of Ben Carson as Secretary of HUD to the "Disapprove" list...

In a moment of blinding clarity, Dr. Carson apparently realized he was completely unqualified for running a major government department when he turned down the HHS position...( A moment of clarity that apparently he did not experience when he was running for POTUS...)

But now it seems that moment of cogent self-awareness has passed, and he has accepted the HUD job...