President Obama!

[MuppetQuilter]

Obama has turned to a lot of experienced democrats for the transition. Clinton dems are about the only ones with executive office experience-- Carter's administration was rather famously ineffective, not to mention just plain being old at this point. But Obama appears to have learned an important lesson from the Carter administration: you will not succeed at bringing change to Washington by alienating and attacking everyone in Washington.

Obama needs a team that can work with Congress. He needs people with experience. He needs people who will hit the ground running-- particularly through transition.

While he is certainly using a lot of people who worked in the Clinton administration, don't forget that his model is not Clinton's first 18 months in office but Reagan's. Reagan put to together a strong team of intelligent people, he encouraged debate, and he used people who knew what they were doing. That allowed Reagan to accomplish a lot in his first 18 months (something we can't say about Clinton). That's what Obama is looking to do. He can't waste 6 weeks of transition with people getting the hang of the job. He needs people who can do the job and do it well from day one.

We may see his personnel choices change a bit as time goes on but right now he is looking for people who know how to play the game because this isn't a violent overthrow of the government-- he wants to reform from within and the only way you succeed at that is if you are a part of the inside.

 

[Teheheman]

It would be kind of interesting to see what Republicans Obama wants to be in his cabinet. He said there would be at LEAST one. I'm rooting for somebody who's more in the middle, and somebody who would can work with everybody. Now, that doesn't mean that Democrats can't work with Republicans, but it's getting to that point that you're either a Republican or Democrat and if you're either one, you gotta work with your own clique'. Hopefully, Obama can change that feeling and have everybody working on the same level as well as Republicans working WITH him rather than AGAINST him and visa-versa.

Daniel

 

[MuppetsRule]

Obama has turned to a lot of experienced democrats for the transition. Clinton dems are about the only ones with executive office experience-- Carter's administration was rather famously ineffective, not to mention just plain being old at this point. But Obama appears to have learned an important lesson from the Carter administration: you will not succeed at bringing change to Washington by alienating and attacking everyone in Washington.

Obama needs a team that can work with Congress. He needs people with experience. He needs people who will hit the ground running-- particularly through transition.

While he is certainly using a lot of people who worked in the Clinton administration, don't forget that his model is not Clinton's first 18 months in office but Reagan's. Reagan put to together a strong team of intelligent people, he encouraged debate, and he used people who knew what they were doing. That allowed Reagan to accomplish a lot in his first 18 months (something we can't say about Clinton). That's what Obama is looking to do. He can't waste 6 weeks of transition with people getting the hang of the job. He needs people who can do the job and do it well from day one.

We may see his personnel choices change a bit as time goes on but right now he is looking for people who know how to play the game because this isn't a violent overthrow of the government-- he wants to reform from within and the only way you succeed at that is if you are a part of the inside.

Very good points MuppetQuilter. If I remember correctly Reagan was also considered a very good communicator and made the country feel good about themselves again after some very rough years under Carter. Very similar to what is happening with Obama. The parties may be reversed but the similarities are uncanny.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I'm rooting for somebody who's more in the middle, and somebody who would can work with everybody. Now, that doesn't mean that Democrats can't work with Republicans, but it's getting to that point that you're either a Republican or Democrat and if you're either one, you gotta work with your own clique'.

That's my big problem with the two party system. History has shown time and again that the parties are more concerned with staying in power and beating each other, than they are with serving the country.

 

[Ilikemuppets]

That's my big problem with the two party system. History has shown time and again that the parties are more concerned with staying in power and beating each other, than they are with serving the country.

I couldn't agree more!

This is like the stock market crash of 87 in reverse. Back then is was President Reagan putting very few restrictions on big companies and lenders put in simple words, and there were a lot of crooked people put there. This time is was congress putting to many restrictions on company's and forcing lenders to loan to people who can't pay them back witch was basically free money, witch contributed to this economy falling under. I mean you have 50,000 people losing their jobs in one company. This is mad! But you shouldn't put too little or too many restrictions on company's or there will be some kind of loophole or some stumbling block in their way. Either way has shown you lose. I always say there has to be a happy medium and not go to there extremes.

 

[MuppetQuilter]

I couldn't agree more!

This is like the stock market crash of 87 in reverse. Back then is was President Reagan putting very few restrictions on big companies and lenders put in simple words, and there were a lot of crooked people put there. This time is was congress putting to many restrictions on company's and forcing lenders to loan to people who can't pay them back witch was basically free money, witch contributed to this economy falling under. I mean you have 50,000 people losing their jobs in one company. This is mad! But you shouldn't put too little or too many restrictions on company's or there will be some kind of loophole or some stumbling block in their way. Either way has shown you lose. I always say there has to be a happy medium and not go to there extremes.

I've got to disagree with you. Congress put some goals and restriction in place for Fannie and Freddie that encouraged them to increase home ownership-- in response to years or pressure. Because Fannie and Freddie wanted to do that you could, I suppose make an argument that Congress aided and abetted but it's more a contributing factor than a direct cause. It was deregulation that allowed banks to loan to anyone. You don't loan $150,000 to someone with no job and no credit history (or $700,000 which is what was happening in California). But when the economy is doing well, banks figured they could make those loans and when a few defaulted they'd still be ahead. But when the economy starts to slow down the number of defaults increases and banks are in a mess- a mess of their own making.

The current Wall Street crisis can be traced back to deregulation and has its roots in the Reagan administration. The banks had no plan for what would happen if housing values dropped. Housing values were going up and up and up so banks made a ton of money, but what goes up must come down and banks had not thought ahead. Unsound lending choices and poor management.

 

[Teheheman]

That's my big problem with the two party system. History has shown time and again that the parties are more concerned with staying in power and beating each other, than they are with serving the country.

I heard that Joe Liebermann lost a seat on some committee as "punishment" for backing John McCain in the election. Why can every party have freedom of speech until you talk bad about their guys? It's NOT just Democrat, it's both parties.

Daniel

 

[MuppetQuilter]

I heard that Joe Liebermann lost a seat on some committee as "punishment" for backing John McCain in the election. Why can every party have freedom of speech until you talk bad about their guys? It's NOT just Democrat, it's both parties.

Daniel

Liebermann left the Democratic party and is now an Independent. He caucuses with the Democrats. So, officially Lierbermann is an independent who sides with the Dems most of the time. Yet not only did he not support the Democratic nominee for the highest office in the land, he was the Republican nominee's first choice for VP. We're not talking about having disagreed with the Dems on one issue or supporting a Republican in a House race. This was the Democratic nominee for VP not that long ago. There was a great deal of pressure for the Democrats to kick him out of the caucus all together. Obama said they should work it out and that's what they did. Liebermann stays in the caucus and kept his chairmanship (which is a big deal). He lost a seat on one committee as a slap on the wrist. The caucus is pretty pointless if they have no ability to encourage members to vote with the caucus.

When Liebermann left the party he would have lost his chairmanship if he hadn't stayed with the caucus. That's a big perk for him. If the Dems are going to give him the chairmanship, aren't they entitled to expect a certain degree of loyalty? He's welcome to support anyone he likes, but the Democratic caucus is also welcome to kick him out. (Of course they don't want to kick him out because they want a filibuster proof majority-- one hand washes the other)

Political parties have always been like this. Look at FDR's presidency. Republicans hated FDR. They hated the New Deal, they hated Social Security.... It was partisan and the two sides were pretty ugly to one another. Look at the fighting between the parties leading up to the Civil War and during Reconstruction.

The parties also lead to active debate. They allow outspoken members of both parties to go further to the left and right than the moderates would consider and that brings up ideas and gets people talking and thinking and the country benefits from that.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I think ideally the two political parties should definitely inspire active debate. My concern is they are the only two voices being heard. And that they're really not all that different from each other at this point. Plus politicans who are too extreme on either side are sometimes too attached to their ideology and aren't as open to new ideas as they could be. Sometimes being moderate means you can be more open to how both sides are right. Generally speaking of course.

 

[Teheheman]

What kills me is that with only 2 parties in Congress, it doesn't let anything get done. Especially if you have a Dem congress and a Republican president, or visa-versa because the president vetos what he doesn't like from the other party, and the Congress doesn't use it's power to over-ride a presidential veto. They don't HAVE to have it pass, they just have to try to override it to show that they're actually DOING something. Yeah, it's great to spark debate in this country, but it's also good to have somebody who's actually working for US rather than people who are so far left or right that they lose track of the American people(who I think are more moderate than politicians wanna believe) I thought that Liebermann was asked to leave the Democratic party because of his views on the war in Iraq. I thought that's why he wasn't a Democrat anymore. I think that this is more about getting back at somebody for whom they supported. If you don't support the party that WE believe in, then you get punished which I don't think is fair but what do I know, maybe you're right. I'll look it up.

Daniel