Presidential Cabinet

Perhaps it's my apathy or ignorance...

But isn't the whole idea of a preidental cabinet is to surround yourself with talented, educated and informed people who are there to help you make decisions?

This makes the point of beating to death the "'experience" horse kind of moot.

Granted, Bush *had* these people and decided NOT to listen to them, hence they bailed out.

Clear this up for me.

An intelligent president would do that yes. When any president asks Colin Powell to walk into the UN and present half truths and outright lies about WMD's you can bet that his resignation was on his desk either before or very immediately after the indcident.

No to tangent, but I think General Powell will have a lot to say as soon as President Bush is out of office.

Oliver's Army wrote:Perhaps it's my apathy or ignorance...

But isn't the whole idea of a preidental cabinet is to surround yourself with talented, educated and informed people who are there to help you make decisions?

This makes the point of beating to death the "'experience" horse kind of moot.

Granted, Bush *had* these people and decided NOT to listen to them, hence they bailed out.

Clear this up for me.

Yes and No.

Yes, the cabinet is there to augment and improve the Presidents ability to do any one thing. No one is an expert on everything, hence the cabinet. I view the White House as a corporation... the CEO/Prez give the direction for the company. The VP's/Cabinet specialize in one area and they should be an expert in that field. The Presidential VP.. well.. I still don't know what they do other than break tie's in the Senate and distract Presidential candidates from discussing actual issues.

On the flip side IMO, you wouldn't put someone in charge of a large corporation with little/no experience and then let them pick the VP's. Hence experience being important.

Ultimately I think the parties play as much, if not a bigger role, than anyone on the candidates. I think these two candidates are the best options in a long time to have a President who CAN work with both sides, but I don't see BO doing this if elected simply because I don't think the Dem's will allow him.

i dont agree. i think they will be eager to finally get some worthwhile bills thru, some positive decisions made, and want the good press of cooperating.

i will say i envision a situation after obama is elected and dems rule congress... when its time to look over a potential supreme court justice, nancy could smile and sweetly explain that in the spirit of bipartisanship, requests made many times in the last several years by republicans will now be honored-- the demand of up and down votes

floridafun wrote:i dont agree. i think they will be eager to finally get some worthwhile bills thru, some positive decisions made, and want the good press of cooperating.

i will say i envision a situation after obama is elected and dems rule congress... when its time to look over a potential supreme court justice, nancy could smile and sweetly explain that in the spirit of bipartisanship, requests made many times in the last several years by republicans will now be honored-- the demand of up and down votes

The house doesn't confirm Supreme court justices....the senate does. So Nancy will have no say in the matter.

ooops i knew that...my misspeak LOL! guess i had nancy on my mind

correction---the senate who will heavily outweigh the farright will kindly do up and down votes!

The Dem's spent the last however many years crying about not being able to get a majority and using it as an excuse to not attempt to work with anyone, at least not seriously. If they get power they'll ignore the right, which will lead to countless attacks about how they cried and now are doing the same thing they cried about.

Regardless, if they get power we'll see the biggest nanny state we've ever imagined within 4 years.

Right.... because the republicans are any different when it comes to big government these days.

Jugomugo wrote:Right.... because the republicans are any different when it comes to big government these days.

The Republicans never claimed to be a party about change though... that's the big difference.

cardinal5150 wrote:Regardless, if they get power we'll see the biggest nanny state we've ever imagined within 4 years.

I've noticed the socialist state the currently republican controlled White House is creating by bailing out all these financial institutions with taxpayer money. Of course, just look at Palin, who redistributes wealth from oil to her constituants. When she's in the White House, will she redistribute some of the socialist wealth to everyone?

cardinal5150 wrote:

Jugomugo wrote:Right.... because the republicans are any different when it comes to big government these days.

The Republicans never claimed to be a party about change though... that's the big difference.

McCain is sure as fuck trying hard now to be the candidate of change. He just looks foolish standing there talking about change.

Jugomugo wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:Regardless, if they get power we'll see the biggest nanny state we've ever imagined within 4 years.

I've noticed the socialist state the currently republican controlled White House is creating by bailing out all these financial institutions with taxpayer money. Of course, just look at Palin, who redistributes wealth from oil to her constituants. When she's in the White House, will she redistribute some of the socialist wealth to everyone?

Actually.. only one institution was bailed out.. Bear Sterns. Fannie/Freddie were never really public entities in the first place, they were always under control of the gov't. They were always assumed to be backed by the fed, regardless of what was said.

Lehman and Merrill weren't bailed out, and it appears the fed is basically telling them sorry, figure it out yourself. So basically the fed tried to stop things, realized it won't work if they keep doing it and hence, they stopped. I can't say I was for the Bear Sterns buyout, but I think it prevented a bigger financial drop, even with the current conditions. It was done at a different time where it was probably the best option.

Alaska is in a different position.. very few people, large amounts of money coming in from oil companies. So rather than buy jets and/or other useless things, she gave the money back to the residents. I don't see that happening on a larger scale like Obama wants to do with the fed gov't under McCain/Palin. I can see her going after oil companies, but not to where she's giving us $1200/year.

But I also agree.. we've become a nanny state, which is why I like McCain's message of cutting gov't spending.

Palin is going to go after the Oil Companies huh? McCain just announced the Chairman of his Transition team should he get elected ... he picked THE most powerful lobbyist in Washington DC who lobbies on behalf of the Petroleum Industry.

Yea ... Palin is going to take this on, just like she knows foreign policy because she can see Russia from her front porch.

cardinal5150 wrote:

Jugomugo wrote:Right.... because the republicans are any different when it comes to big government these days.

The Republicans never claimed to be a party about change though... that's the big difference.

Ok, Card. Over in the Barbara Walters thread you said this:

cardinal5150 wrote:What a joke Barbera... both parties are running on the platform of Change/Reform... guess that means she's going to try and rough up BO on her show eh?

Now which is it? Did I read this correctly or did you made to completely opposite statements? Is BO's magic word "Change" and McCain's "Reform"??

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

Jugomugo wrote:Right.... because the republicans are any different when it comes to big government these days.

The Republicans never claimed to be a party about change though... that's the big difference.

Ok, Card. Over in the Barbara Walters thread you said this:

cardinal5150 wrote:What a joke Barbera... both parties are running on the platform of Change/Reform... guess that means she's going to try and rough up BO on her show eh?

Now which is it? Did I read this correctly or did you made to completely opposite statements? Is BO's magic word "Change" and McCain's "Reform"??

I actually thought you'd be able to distinguish the difference between the two... guess not.

The Republican party has not been chanting change change change... John McCain has been running a campaign based on being a conservative ahead of being a Republican, which is why he points out to how he can work with both sides and how he and his running mate take on their own party when necessary.

And the Republicans aren't being projected to win the house and senate, the Dem's are.

Personally, I'd like to vote out every single member and send in new people because I think they've all failed us as a whole. So I'm all for change.. when it actually means change. I just don't believe the Dem's will change much of anything, and BO won't bring about the change he's chanting about because the Dem party will have their priorities first.

i try to watch most of the live feeds/available coverage of all the stumping and george mccains buzzwirds for more than a couple weeks are that he is the candidate who will REALLY change things.

this is from a few months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwWBZESBJDc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4&NR=1

OMG thats great