The former, but politics is of course the art of the possible.
Ooo, also a good idea: Michèle Flournoy - Wikipedia
I’d be happy with any of those three. I met Yates and heard her speak not long after Trump fired her, and was very impressed.
I don’t know if Biden would do it, but I’d like to avoid the time-honored tradition of rewarding campaign supporters or primary rivals and see him promote from within the ranks of the civil service. Or if nothing else, choose accomplished private sector professionals who possess some knowledge of the relationship between the private and public sector economies.
We need competence, but we also need to find a way to reach out across the aisle in terms of gaining some support for an agenda. I don’t mean crossing the aisle in Washington - that won’t happen unless voters give Sens McConnell and Graham their marching orders to do it. And that is where surrogates can come into play. His surrogates and vanquished foes alike can provide other forms of support, particularly on messaging and outreach and potentially persuading persuadable independent voters, which is going to be critical.
And people who supported Biden are going to have to grow up and realize that even though we won the election, we don’t have a mandate. We have to build that, and that will mean taking what we can get now rather than holding out for perfection. I hope that this election was proof positive that doubling and tripling down on party purity won’t work. Doing that this time would have resulted in 4 more years - hell, who knows, maybe 40 more years - of Trump-like insanity.
I had a long back-and-forth in the Election Day thread about the limitations of attempting to staff the Administration through Acting Secretaries. The relevant statute is the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. I won’t repeat all the points I made here, but the only person mentioned in this thread so far who would be eligible to be appointed as an Acting Secretary under that law is Dr. Fauci.
The idea isn’t to make the temporary appointments indefinite appointments who implement policies that may get reversed in the courts anyway; it’s to put pressure on the Senate to get nominations confirmed. Would McConnell and Graham feel the pressure? No, they just won another six years in office. There are 34 senate seats up for grabs, including seats in North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Notice how Pat Toomey is ostensibly rejecting the idea that there is vote fraud in PA. Biden must reckon with the fact that to win the political battle, he’ll have to wage information warfare first.
Biden should have an agenda, but the tactics need to take into account that there will be resistance. One advantage of having an old geezer like Biden in this position is that he is a realist who knows how Washington works and what he’s likely in for. I think he’s intellectually ready for this challenge. I just hope that, tactically, he has the right plan to put some pressure on the Senate in terms of how his agenda is rolled out and executed.
The first reaction to McConnell holding up a confirmation? Go right after those 2022 senators without sparing a single nanosecond. Flood the fucking phone lines and email.
I think you’re vastly overestimating the political efficacy of targeting Senators over stalling appointments. The Republicans stonewalled a Supreme Court nominee and paid no price politically. Do you think voters are going to get up in arms over the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development?
Sure, blocking one justice - that’s a calculated gamble that paid dividends. But preventing an entire cabinet from serving? For how long is that going to last? I agree McConnell can slow the process down, shoot down a few nominees here and there, but I don’t think he can complete shutter the process with regard to all nominations. That would be an achievement even for Mitch.
I actually think that Mitch has a fairly weak hand to play on Cabinet appointments. I don’t think he sees denying Biden Cabinet Secretaries as a goal in and of itself – he’s not a “troll the libs” type. He could try to use the threat of not moving nominees to get Biden to appoint people he wants, but there’s a risk in that. Mitch’s goal for the next four years is to make the Biden Administration an unmitigated failure, and lay that failure squarely on the Democrats’ doorstep. If the Cabinet includes some Republicans or Republican-backed officials, it muddles that strategy.
And ultimately, does McConnell really care who’s the Secretary of Agriculture for the next four years? Cabinet Secretaries are important, but they can’t rewrite federal law. I could see him targeting a couple of the “big” nominations like State or AG to make a show for the base that he’s claimed a couple of scalps. But mass holding up of nominees would be a bad look and unnecessary when he had other points of leverage (e.g. the budget) he can use.
I should note that the above analysis does NOT apply to judges. I fully expect that Mitch will allow no judicial nominees to move forward. Maaaybe a couple of district court judges.
State: John Kerry. Have him there for a year or two to reassure the world, and push the reset button on the past four years.
Defense: Adm. Bill McRaven
Justice: Sally Yates
Labor: Lee Saunders
Homeland Security: Val Demmings
HHS: Abdul El-Sayed.
Commerce: Cory Booker
Education: Evelyn DeJesus
Transportation: Amy Klobuchar
Treasury: Austan Goolsbee
Energy: Rep. Paul Tonko
Veterans: Tammy Duckworth
HUD: Doug Jones
Interior: Michelle Lujan-Grisham
Agriculture: John Kasich
National Intelligence: Eric Garcetti
EPA: Jay Inslee
UN Ambassador: Pete Buttigieg. Get him some experience on the world stage for a year or two, then move him into state when Kerry re-retires
ETA: Put Susan Rice and Stacy Abrams into senior advisory roles
What exactly did Abrams do that she has this big fan club? State senator in the minority party in GA and lost a Gov. race. Anything else? She was never going to be picked as VP. She might get a job but it’s going to be no higher than 2nd place in a department.
I was thinking along these lines this morning. Without the threat of Mango Mussolini and the Trumpistas* to back him up, Mitch might find it a bit harder to beat his caucus into submission. I’m not expecting any sort of kumbaya — these are Republicans, after all, who tend to react to setbacks like spoiled children who have had their toys taken away — but given Biden’s Senate experience and/or knowledge of buried bodies, he may be able to peel away enough votes to counter Mitch’s more grievous obstruction.
* Someone’s gonna say (or at least think) it: band name!
Once he is named Majority Leader, he has sole discretion over whether and when nominees and legislation come to the Senate for a vote. He may well lose members of his caucus on any particular vote, but he decides whether they get a chance to have that vote in the first place.
Perhaps I misunderstood (wouldn’t be the first time) but I definitely recall reading that issues can be forced to the floor by a majority of the Senate. I stand ready to be corrected if that’s not the case.
Romney may vote for Biden nominees . Also Murkowski from Alaska
There is a process in the House (the discharge petition). While there is a similarly named process in the Senate, it has very little relation to the discharge petition and cannot effectively be used to force the Majority Leader’s hand.
The other option would be to replace the Majority Leader. It would take a majority of the Republican caucus to do so.
Stacey Abrams could run for the House in 2022 and become Speaker. Pelosi plans to step down.
Interesting - why?
I don’t like having career military officers in charge of Defense. Historically (IIRC) it’s usually been career public servants who served in the military as young adults, but did not stay for a career. I think that’s a good precedent that helps cement the perception that our military is controlled by civilians. So I hope Biden doesn’t pick a general or admiral.
Why would House Democrats want to make someone with no experience with the politics or procedures of the House their next Speaker? She may have helped Biden, but Democrats didn’t pick up any seats in Georgia. Is there any evidence that her alleged political wizardry extends beyond the greater Atlanta area?
Count me among those who respect her voter turnout efforts in Georgia but am baffled by the pedestal people are ready to put her on.
First, I think Biden will reward his loyalty. But specifically to this post, he was a Naval officer, he’s a very bright guy (Rhodes Scholar), and his educational background seems pretty solid for this.
From Wiki:
Garcetti was a visiting instructor of international affairs at the University of Southern California and an assistant professor of diplomacy and world affairs at Occidental College.[3] His academic work focused on ethnic conflict and nationalism in Southeast Asia and Northeast Africa. During this time, he published articles and chapters of books on post-conflict societies, Eritrean nationalism, and non-violent action.[15] He has served on the California board of Human Rights Watch.[16]
He met his future wife while they were both studying as Rhodes Scholars[11][12] at The Queen’s College, Oxford.[13] He later studied for a PhD in ethnicity and nationalism at the London School of Economics.[3][14]
I mean I’m not married to the guy as DNI, but it seems like it might be a good fit.
Thanks - didn’t know that about him. A little odd he went into city politics, given that.