|
In response to
"I'm *extremely* disappointed if this is true. I guess it was too much to hope for real change and not just the same old people again -- nm"
by
oblique
|
I can get long winded, but the jist of it is this: I understand what you are saying about change. But there are certain positions in certain places,
|
where somewhat of an older, more experienced insider is needed. They can be needed for getting things done, or for simply stability.
I was a fan of Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill. I thought his clear way of speaking was refreshing, But hyde pointed out to me that O'Neil was a disaster in that Treasury can not be too blunt, too direct. Sometimes circumspect speak is needed when the markets hang on every nuance of every word you utter. And that was a fair criticism.
State is another position where I think its imperative that you get a known quantity. State isn't a position for us, its for the rest of the world and they hate uncertainty from the US.
Meanwhile, things like Energy, Interior, Commerce, Labor etc are better for the fresh faces.
But ultimately the Cabinet does not matter as much when it comes to change as their administrative competence does. The change in Washington should come from the White House and not a rogue executive department. So its Obama himself and his senior staff who will set the tone and the direction.
Also, its good sometimes to get people who have been around a while if they will work with you on the direction you want to go. If they agree to follow Obama's lead they can grease the way. Plus Obama is also being looked at suspiciously by a lot of folks. He has to show that he is picking a stable corps of leaders. And then there is the fact that sometimes change comes in steps instead of radical leaps, and those are all points that I could expand on further, but I don't have the time right now.
I hope I'm somewhat clear in my thoughts here.
|
Responses:
|
