skippy the bush kangaroo

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

depth takes a holiday

now that he's elected, apparently the obama administration doesn't feel the need to be overly competent.

witness some of the selections for top positions in the government. specifically, gov. bill richardson of new mexico, who removed himself from consideration as commerce secretary. it seems bill is the target of a grand jury investigation, but nobody bothered to tell the vetting committee:

mr richardson, a former presidential candidate who was energy secretary and united nations ambassador in the clinton administration, cited "untenable delays" to his senate confirmation resulting from a grand jury investigation into a california-based company that donated funds to his election campaign in new mexico.

although mr richardson expressed confidence the probe would ultimately clear his name, he said it could drag on for weeks or even months.

the company, cdr financial products, is under investigation for possible "pay-for-play" dealings in which it donated $100,000 (£69,000) in campaign funds to mr richardson's new mexico gubernatorial re-election campaign, allegedly in exchange for a $1.5m contract in the state.

mr richardson, who was mr obama's most senior hispanic appointment, said in a statement: "given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, i could not in good conscience ask the president-elect and his administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done."
whoops. but at least his appointment, however moot, kind of made sense. more so than leon panetta for director of the cia:

just talked with dianne feinstein outside the senate chamber about her qualms with the leon panetta nomination. the incoming senate intelligence committee chairman said that both president-elect obama and vice president-elect biden called her after the fact to discuss the surprise choice of panetta, who has no direct intelligence agency experience and whose nomination came as unwelcome news to feinstein when it broke yesterday.

"i understand their thinking" in choosing panetta, feinstein explained, describing herself as "very respectful of the president's authority ... this is the man [obama has chosen]."

i asked feinstein whether her reticence about panetta's lack of ties to the cia would be mitigated by having steven kappes, her preferred choice for cia director, stay on as the agency's no 2. "i believe very strongly" that kappes should stay, feinstein said, adding that panetta's standing would be "very much enhanced" were kappes to stay his deputy.
sure, panetta was bill clinton's chief of staff, but does he know how to use a shoe phone?

president-elect barack obama's transition team -- overhyped as overachieving, probably to its own detriment -- has made some mistakes.

first, by underestimating the potential problems for new mexico gov. bill richardson's confirmation, given a grand jury investigation into his gubernatorial office.

next, by failing to consult -- or even alert -- incoming senate intelligence committee chairman sen. dianne feinstein about the notion of appointing former clinton white house chief of staff leon panetta as cia director.

one source close to the transition admits it was just a blunder. the folks who did the picking somehow did not manage to inform the folks who would have done the due diligence on capitol hill. it's a mistake, for which they have apologized. and it's one for which they will no doubt continue to pay…

but feinstein is a grownup who is not just sulking about congressional prerogatives -- she truly believes that an intelligence professional is what is required for the job.

herein lies a true substantive difference: while all democrats agree the agency needs to be reformed, they differ on how best to do it. is an intelligence professional the best way to go -- someone who understands the inexact science of the collection of intelligence?

or, in order to achieve reform, is it best to bring in an independent figure -- known as a good manager and decision-maker -- to change what has become an often intractable and inflexible bureaucracy?
uh...no? sure, it's nice to be organized, but you might want to hire someone who actually knows the intelligence millieu.

oh well, at least obama's not hiring tv personalities. oh, wait....

president-elect barack obama has offered the job of surgeon general to dr. sanjay gupta, the neurosurgeon and correspondent for cnn and cbs, according to two sources with knowledge of the situation.

gupta has told administration officials that he wants the job, and the final vetting process is under way. he has asked for a few days to figure out the financial and logistical details of moving his family from atlanta to washington but is expected to accept the offer.

when reached for comment today, gupta did not deny the account but declined to comment.
it could be worse, we suppose...obama could have picked wolf blitzer as sec. of defense.

Photobucket
dr. sanjay gupta, forgetting to drain the swamp

addendum: speaking of journalists who should be on obama's cabinet, dr. paul krugman (excellent choice for sec. of treasury, ioho) agrees w/us about gupta, but for different reasons.
posted by skippy at 5:25 PM |

5 Comments:

oh, who reads all the way through those 63-question thingies, anyway?
commented by Blogger hipparchia, 8:48 PM PST  
Bill Richardson is a decent man and it's a shame he had to withdraw his name from nomination. As for Leon Panetta at CIA, I have no objections, and consider Dianne Feinstein's pique to be a bonus. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, however, is a terrible pick for Surgeon General, a corporate shill is not what we need in that position.
commented by OpenID Mahakal / מהכאל, 8:53 PM PST  
Panetta is a good pick. Feinstein had no trouble with inexperienced morons for Bush, but Panetta's chief disqualification is that he does not approve of torture, which Feinstein signed off on without demur, and he's made it clear he thinks the people who made the state that tortures suspects for information should be looked at for possible violations of the law. Don't take Feinstein's word for things. She's just another pol and she's looking to cover her own ass on the Panetta nomination.
commented by Blogger DBK, 7:46 AM PST  
Panetta is solid, much more so than that Bush toad Feinstein. Bill Richardson would've been an okay choice prior to the Illinois debacle that's playing out. And I don't know what your beef is with Gupta, but the appointment makes sense. The Surgeon General is a spokesman role -- they don't make policy. Gupta is well-known, generally respected and qualified. While I generally think Krugman is a brilliant man, IMO he's wrong here. As a SG, Gupta would have little to no policy input and would be a mouthpiece, something CNN has prepared him for very well.
commented by Anonymous sean, 10:03 AM PST  
Panetta is a good choice for more reasons than I can stand to hunt and peck about..
And IF they aren't looking closely....maybe I can score a job there !!!!!
commented by Blogger Essaress ; Prior of the F.C.F.J.,, 10:41 AM PST  

Add a comment