How important are cabinet choices for Prez candidates?

[NorthSideSox72]

Now that the VP's appear to be in place, I wanted to throw this topic out for discussion.

 

I was out last night with a friend, who supports Obama. But he also said that he is very concerned about who he picks for his cabinet and/or inner circle - this being very important for Obama because of his inexperience.

 

So here are some questions to consider...

 

--When is it appropriate to build, and announce, their cabinets?

 

--Would cabinet choices effect your vote, potentially?

 

--For Obama, with his lack of experience, how important are these choices and their resumes?

 

--For McCain, with the supposed aisle-crossing abilities he is trumpeting, how important are their political leanings?

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Cabinet > VP

[DABearSoX]

I may be wrong but aren't the cabinet choices made after the election?

 

If so the VP choice has to be more important at this point in time.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I may be wrong but aren't the cabinet choices made after the election?

 

If so the VP choice has to be more important at this point in time.

Typically yes. But there has been an argument made in recent elections that the candidates should announce their cabinet before we elect them so we know the full package.

[lostfan]

If Obama wins I hope he has people in his Cabinet with strong intelligence community credentials.

[bmags]

considering Bush's cabinet was one of the worst parts about him, I agree the cabinet is very important. Why I'm not worried about Obama's cabinet? He's surrounded himself with a hell of a campaign staff and picked a great VP, and frankly the Democrats have more exciting good names out there to choose from than McCain does. Who'll be in his cabinet? More Bush people? I wouldn't mind if Gates stayed but please no more of this crap. No more Mukasey.

[lostfan]

considering Bush's cabinet was one of the worst parts about him, I agree the cabinet is very important. Why I'm not worried about Obama's cabinet? He's surrounded himself with a hell of a campaign staff and picked a great VP, and frankly the Democrats have more exciting good names out there to choose from than McCain does. Who'll be in his cabinet? More Bush people? I wouldn't mind if Gates stayed but please no more of this crap. No more Mukasey.

I think Gates is awesome, and reading history books lately has reinforced that belief. Infinitely better than the cranky old arrogant bastard he replaced.

[bmags]

I think Gates is awesome, and reading history books lately has reinforced that belief. Infinitely better than the cranky old arrogant bastard he replaced.

 

I don't even mind if Gates stays on for Obama, and from what I hear he'd be game for that too. Apparently back before Clinton took over he reauditioned.

[lostfan]

I don't even mind if Gates stays on for Obama, and from what I hear he'd be game for that too. Apparently back before Clinton took over he reauditioned.

Actually the "tradition" of getting rid of otherwise qualified appointees nominated by the previous party in power started with Carter, who replaced Bush as DCI simply because he was a Republican. So if Obama did win, and kept Gates on, it would not be unprecedented, in fact I'd applaud it loudly. That is a mold that really needs to be broken.

[Balta1701]

Typically yes. But there has been an argument made in recent elections that the candidates should announce their cabinet before we elect them so we know the full package.

The problem is...by most readings, it's actually illegal for a president to name his cabinet before the election in any official way, because the Law prohibits people from offering up their support for a candidate in exchange for anything tangible, like a position in the government. You can endorse someone, and you can casually let it leak out that you'll appoint Colin Powell as SecState as happened in 2000, but there can't be an official statement of that.

[GoSox05]

I think this election the names that are talked about for supreme court will be a big issue as well.

[DukeNukeEm]

Cabinet > VP

More or less.

 

Of course it depends on how you use them. If you're like Nixon or LBJ and just let them tear each other apart and get some sick sociopathic pleasure out of it then they really dont mean that much. But a Bill Clinton, JFK or (occasionally) Ronald Reagan makes very good use of their staff.

[lostfan]

More or less.

 

Of course it depends on how you use them. If you're like Nixon or LBJ and just let them tear each other apart and get some sick sociopathic pleasure out of it then they really dont mean that much. But a Bill Clinton, JFK or (occasionally) Ronald Reagan makes very good use of their staff.

In JFK's case he made it a point to lean on his staff in areas he knew he was weak in.

[bmags]

In JFK's case he made it a point to lean on his staff in areas he knew he was weak in.

 

I also like that he took in Neustadt after the publishing of his book describing the new american presidency.

[jackie hayes]

The problem is...by most readings, it's actually illegal for a president to name his cabinet before the election in any official way, because the Law prohibits people from offering up their support for a candidate in exchange for anything tangible, like a position in the government. You can endorse someone, and you can casually let it leak out that you'll appoint Colin Powell as SecState as happened in 2000, but there can't be an official statement of that.

The other problem is that cabinet officials typically resign when the President wants them to do so. Although O'Neill was a good choice for Treasury, when he started doing those things that made him a good choice, he was summarily dismissed. Because the President can not commit to keeping any particular cabinet member, I don't think an announcement is meaningful, legal or not.

[Texsox]

Actually the "tradition" of getting rid of otherwise qualified appointees nominated by the previous party in power started with Carter, who replaced Bush as DCI simply because he was a Republican. So if Obama did win, and kept Gates on, it would not be unprecedented, in fact I'd applaud it loudly. That is a mold that really needs to be broken.

 

I always assumed that started long before Carter, I could not find any sources, do you have any?While early on there was some carry over, in 1841 there was a 100% turn over of the cabinet. I remember from Civics classes way back before and around Carter's time that it was traditional even for Presidents who are reelected to receive resignations from their cabinets. During Clinton's terms there was considerable debate and comment when Janet Reno did not follow protocol and offer a resignation.

[lostfan]

I always assumed that started long before Carter, I could not find any sources, do you have any?While early on there was some carry over, in 1841 there was a 100% turn over of the cabinet. I remember from Civics classes way back before and around Carter's time that it was traditional even for Presidents who are reelected to receive resignations from their cabinets. During Clinton's terms there was considerable debate and comment when Janet Reno did not follow protocol and offer a resignation.

I think I didn't write that correctly. I meant to talk about just the Director of Central Intelligence, not the Cabinet as a whole. My post seemed to indicate I was talking about more than the DCI.

 

The source is a book I have (For the President's Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush by Christopher Andrew) so I can't give you a link but I'll type out the passage I read that for you:

 

"Carter's choice of DCI set an unhappy precedent. Since the foundation of the CIA, all newly elected presidents except Eisenhower had kept the incumbent DCI in office. (Ike had made Truman's last DCI, Bedell Smith, undersecretary of state.) George Bush tried to persuade Carter to keep him on, at least for a few months, to preserve the principle that the office of DCI was above partisan politics. Carter, however, failed to grasp the importance of the principle, and was anxious to make a visible break with the past."

[Texsox]

I think I didn't write that correctly. I meant to talk about just the Director of Central Intelligence, not the Cabinet as a whole. My post seemed to indicate I was talking about more than the DCI.

 

The source is a book I have (For the President's Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush by Christopher Andrew) so I can't give you a link but I'll type out the passage I read that for you:

 

"Carter's choice of DCI set an unhappy precedent. Since the foundation of the CIA, all newly elected presidents except Eisenhower had kept the incumbent DCI in office. (Ike had made Truman's last DCI, Bedell Smith, undersecretary of state.) George Bush tried to persuade Carter to keep him on, at least for a few months, to preserve the principle that the office of DCI was above partisan politics. Carter, however, failed to grasp the importance of the principle, and was anxious to make a visible break with the past."

 

Interesting, and thank you for the follow up.

 

I guess I'm on the side of a house cleaning. Using this race as an example. Obama has been running on a plank of Bush has this totally f***ed up and he's going to fix it. What message does that send, when if elected, he keeps all the people in place? And to me those types of positions are more important then some cabinet positions. Now when you start wiping out clerical staff and minor players like that, I start to have a problem.

[lostfan]

Interesting, and thank you for the follow up.

 

I guess I'm on the side of a house cleaning. Using this race as an example. Obama has been running on a plank of Bush has this totally f***ed up and he's going to fix it. What message does that send, when if elected, he keeps all the people in place? And to me those types of positions are more important then some cabinet positions. Now when you start wiping out clerical staff and minor players like that, I start to have a problem.

Well you have idiots like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who are gone so Obama wouldn't have to worry about that. It's my own opinion that Gates is highly qualified and should stay though. I could be wrong.

 

As long as Obama doesn't gut the intelligence budget I won't have a problem with how he handles national security. If he goes for Clinton-esque cutbacks it's going to sting and I'll be pissed. If he keeps it strong like Bush has then we'll be ok. Besides talking about ending the war he hasn't indicated in his speeches that he's thinking about cutting it though, although it would be kind of dumb to do that while campaigning.

[Texsox]

Well you have idiots like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who are gone so Obama wouldn't have to worry about that. It's my own opinion that Gates is highly qualified and should stay though. I could be wrong.

 

As long as Obama doesn't gut the intelligence budget I won't have a problem with how he handles national security. If he goes for Clinton-esque cutbacks it's going to sting and I'll be pissed. If he keeps it strong like Bush has then we'll be ok. Besides talking about ending the war he hasn't indicated in his speeches that he's thinking about cutting it though, although it would be kind of dumb to do that while campaigning.

 

I'm a big Gates fan, so I wouldn't mind seeing him around.

[lostfan]

I'm a big Gates fan, so I wouldn't mind seeing him around.

Like I was saying earlier in the thread, in that book I was reading, it seems that Gates has kicked ass for the last 20 or 30 years. Had he been Bush's SECDEF from the get-go (and without Wolfowitz and Pearle around) it probably would've had a much more positive effect on his presidency, and if we still did invade Iraq, we wouldn't have done it with such a f***ed up, half-assed, arrogant strategy that we had to fix a few years later. Our ducks would've been in a row first.

[bmags]

well, you also have jackson firing all of his cabinet because they were spreading rumors that one of the wives was a whore.