Not that I really like either candidate. Gore reminds me of a guy who wants a giant shadow-government, and about the only thing Bush has behind him is a charismatic demeanor.
However–Bush’s proposed Cabinet strikes an interest in me.
Since I’ve been out of the political loop for awhile–I want the other Dopers out there to tell me–is the Cabinet worth the vote? If so–tell me which candidate is the best pick based on your evaluations! The opinions of the Dopers are something I hold in high regard.
There are relatively few cabinet members (excepting perhaps the Secretary of State) who can really have an impact on government. They find themselves acting as the top-dog bureaucrat over a bunch of other bureaucrats. Any bold initiative they come up with obviously has to be approved by the President. And if the President disagrees, they can either quit or follow the boss.
If you’re going to vote on the basis of appointments, better to make a decision on who you’d like to see appointed to the Supreme Court and federal judges. They have lifetime appointments and, outside of impeachment, answer to no one once they’re in office.
I’m referring to his position in the presidential debates–where he kept reiterating the point that he wanted to delegate more money to government programs and expansion. The debates were some time back, and I didn’t take notes, so I have trouble remembering his words exactly.
Good point, Kunilou. For some reason–I didn’t consider the Supreme Court. Those old men on the bench hold a lot of power over our everyday laws.
I guess I’m not understanding–how is that a shadow government? The term is usually used to connote an institutionalized (and secret) alternative to the democratic process, where people can pursue policy goals without being accountable to the public or the other branches of government. You know, like Iran-contra!
Anyway, in the sense you seem to mean it, we’ve had “a giant shadow-government” since Lincoln, at least; probably Jefferson (coughLouisianaPurchasecough).
Now, if you want no further money to government programs and expansions, then I think you want the libertarians–aisle six.
I have to disagree with Kunilou that most appointments (outside of Secretary of State and the Supreme Court) are not worthy of consideration.
I think the people the President chooses to surround himself with are VERY important. These people will have a direct impact on the formation of most policies the President comes up with. Running the government is FAR too big a job for one person. It requires the input of many people to keep track of the minutiae of day-to-day business. How well these people do their job directly relates to how well informed the President is. In many respects these are the people running the show…don’t ignore them.
Andrew Carnegie said he was not a good engineer or accountant. His skill was surrounding himself with people who knew their particular jobs very well. The result was a very successful man.
I do agree that the Supreme Court is the biggy for the next president as well. The choices made by the next president can easily affect 20+ years of the future of the United States. Kinda scary… There should be some law restricting a sitting president from placing more than (say) two Supreme Court justices per presidential term in office. After that, if a position HAS to be filled, perhaps the Senate can take over.
I think it’s extremely important. Take a look at the current economic messes/problems in a variety of the branches off of the executive office. Energy is losing secrets and no REAL plan against the potential disaster if the middle east gets their turbans in a wad. The Depts. of Education and Argriculture’s [5 Billion missing here] books are so mangled they can’t be audited by an outside auditor. The Dept. of Transportation is firmly in control of the recent airline problems…NOT (Have you flown recently?)!!!
Bush has surrounded himself with capable people from both sides of the aisle to get the job done in Texas. He was reelected by a huge margin wasn’t he? Maybe he didn’t do too bad, huh?
I know. However, I believe the Senate has recently overstepped its bounds in the confirmation process. In effect they control the appointments when it should be the president. Prior to the Judge Bork and Judge Thomas hearings the Senate was to look for an obvious flaws in the proposed justice and let him/her move on barring anything overtly bad in their record. Now, if you’re a liberal justice facing a conservative Senate, you may as well not even try to get by the confirmation process. Merely having differing politics is enough to have a nomination shot down which is flat-out wrong.
My comment was off the cuff anyway and not seriously thought out. A lot of the current justices are waiting for the next president before stepping down. I just think it’s scary for any one man (be it Bush, Gore or whoever) to be able to stack the court when it will have such long reaching consequences. How that could be prevented or fixed in a reasonable manner I really have no idea.
