The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: NHSparky on August 24, 2009, 08:09:31 AM
-
Obama’s Team Is Lacking Most of Its Top Players
By PETER BAKER
Published: August 23, 2009
(c) NewYorkTimes.com
LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24confirm.html?_r=2&hp)
<excerpt>
WASHINGTON — As President Obama tries to turn around a summer of setbacks, he finds himself still without most of his own team. Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.
Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled — a reflection of a White House that grew more cautious after several nominations blew up last spring, a Senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both.
While career employees or holdovers fill many posts on a temporary basis, Mr. Obama does not have his own people enacting programs central to his mission. He is trying to fix the financial markets but does not have an assistant treasury secretary for financial markets. He is spending more money on transportation than anyone since Dwight D. Eisenhower but does not have his own inspector general watching how the dollars are used. He is fighting two wars but does not have an Army secretary.
He sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Africa to talk about international development but does not have anyone running the Agency for International Development. He has invited major powers to a summit on nuclear nonproliferation but does not have an assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.
“If you’re running G.M. without half your senior executives in place, are you worried? I’d say your stockholders would be going nuts,†said Terry Sullivan, a professor at the University of North Carolina and executive director of the White House Transition Project, a scholarly program that tracks appointments. “The notion of the American will — it’s not being thwarted, but it’s slow to come to fruition.â€
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/24/us/politics/0824-nat-webCONFIRM.jpg)
Gee, who needs actual accountable bureaucrats when you can just throw in a few more "czars"? And as far as vetting? Hey, who knew when you were a criminal and associated with them, that your buds might have more than a few skeletons hiding in their closets?
-
This way he can blame his failures on Bush holdovers. I look at this as just further proof of his inexperience. He jumped into the job, and started pushing his agenda without concern of having his team in place. He was/is far more concerned with appointing "czars' that report directly to him instead of having any sort of chain of command.
-
Actually, further down in the story, it was remarked that many of Bush's appointees hadn't been placed by the same timeframe in 2001, and that in the wake of 9/11, both parties agreed to streamline the process.
So much for streamlining.
-
Also, Gore's shenanigans held everything up for a few months after the election.
-
What?!?!
The Obamessiah doesn't know how to put together a cabinet? This cannot be! :loser: :-) :rotf: :tongue:
-
What?!?!
The Obamessiah doesn't know how to put together a cabinet? This cannot be! :loser: :-) :rotf: :tongue:
Someone forgot to inform him that the job came without instructions.
Hell, the arrogant bastard wouldn't have read'em anyway.
-
Actually, further down in the story, it was remarked that many of Bush's appointees hadn't been placed by the same timeframe in 2001, and that in the wake of 9/11, both parties agreed to streamline the process.
So much for streamlining.
President Bush was not intent on cramming so many programs through at one time.
-
President Bush was not intent on cramming so many programs through at one time.
I think the larger question might be:
"If the job is getting done in some form or fashion, then WHY are so many political appointees needed to freakin' begin with?"
I say if they're not on the job within six months after assuming office, the ******* position gets ****ing shitcanned.
It's about gd time the f'ng government does what private industry has to do - justify why it needs headcount AND KEEP JUSTIFYING IT.
-
Hi,
I see this a bit differently. He appointed his czars and did not point those who might disagree with them or slow down their commie agenda.
regards,
5412
-
I think the larger question might be:
"If the job is getting done in some form or fashion, then WHY are so many political appointees needed to freakin' begin with?"
I say if they're not on the job within six months after assuming office, the ******* position gets ****ing shitcanned.
It's about gd time the f'ng government does what private industry has to do - justify why it needs headcount AND KEEP JUSTIFYING IT.
Good point. I remember a case of a certain presidents wife having a job at a hospital. This was when he was just a senator from Illinois, but when she left the job, they realized it was an unnecessary position and eliminated it.
-
I think the larger question might be:
"If the job is getting done in some form or fashion, then WHY are so many political appointees needed to freakin' begin with?"
I say if they're not on the job within six months after assuming office, the damn position gets ******* shitcanned.
It's about gd time the f'ng government does what private industry has to do - justify why it needs headcount AND KEEP JUSTIFYING IT.
Excellent observation Eupher. Position elimination, then increase the pay grade of the secretary who has probably been doing the job all along. :drunksailor:
-
Actually, further down in the story, it was remarked that many of Bush's appointees hadn't been placed by the same timeframe in 2001, and that in the wake of 9/11, both parties agreed to streamline the process.
So much for streamlining.
Streamlining + Gubmint = oxymoran
-
Just as I thought......there's nobody qualified in that Czar Pool he could draw from? Glenn Beck's got something about the Czars on his show today. Probably more of those pesky facts he'll be boycotted for :-)
-
Hi,
I see this a bit differently. He appointed his czars and did not point those who might disagree with them or slow down their commie agenda.
regards,
5412
I agree....
also....the "czars" do not need anyone's approval to be in a specified position. They are appointed...I mean "annointed".... by Obama, answer to Obama, work for Obama. Giving even more control to Obama and company.
But of course, there won't be any Congressional investigation into this situation either....
-
I agree....
also....the "czars" do not need anyone's approval to be in a specified position. They are appointed...I mean "annointed".... by Obama, answer to Obama, work for Obama. Giving even more control to Obama and company.
But of course, there won't be any Congressional investigation into this situation either....
Proof again the RePubs might as well have been castrated. Can anyone explain to me why in the hell they aren't screaming to high heaven that this is unconstitutional?
-
Proof again the RePubs might as well have been castrated. Can anyone explain to me why in the hell they aren't screaming to high heaven that this is unconstitutional?
Because both sides have been doing it on a regular basis since Nixon and to do so would (rightly) be hypocritical. However, it is only under Obama that the number and scope of them has expanded so greatly.
-
If the Obama team were a baseball team, would they be qualified to play T-ball?
-
Because both sides have been doing it on a regular basis since Nixon and to do so would (rightly) be hypocritical. However, it is only under Obama that the number and scope of them has expanded so greatly.
Seems to be a trait with Zero....
Expand the czars....
Expand the deficit....
Expand government....
Expand taxes....
Expand his ego....
Hell, if his head gets any bigger, his ears won't fit thru the WH gates....
-
If the Obama team were a baseball team, would they be qualified to play T-ball?
He wouldn't even be qualified to play as Bugs Bunny in that old cartoon Baseball Bugs.
-
He is grabbing power with his czars who are not accountable to Congress. There is too much power in the executive branch (guess we can blame Cheney for that).
Good point. I remember a case of a certain presidents wife having a job at a hospital. This was when he was just a senator from Illinois, but when she left the job, they realized it was an unnecessary position and eliminated it.
-
He is grabbing power with his czars who are not accountable to Congress. There is too much power in the executive branch (guess we can blame Cheney for that).
Welcome to CC. Enjoy your (short) stay.
Where the hell did you come up with Cheney? Do you KNOW how to read, or do you just like spouting talking points?
-
He is grabbing power with his czars who are not accountable to Congress. There is too much power in the executive branch (guess we can blame Cheney for that).
Yeah, that damn President Cheney... oh wait, that never happened. WTF are you talking about?