I like civilian oversight of the military. Generally, it’s a good, even great, principle, and one we should protect. I don’t know why the limit was reduced from 10 years to 7 years, but I didn’t really consider that the death of civilian oversight of the military. I don’t really think reducing it further, from 7 to 4 years, is really the end of civilian oversight of the military either. But overall, let’s call that a point against Mattis.
On the other hand, Mattis has a reputation as someone who is not afraid to say what he thinks, and he is considered very successful in his professional life. I consider both of those things points in his favor.
But none of that has anything to do with whether Mattis is “within normal parameters” or not based on your definition of the phrase. You don’t think he’s opposed to the mission of the DoD, do you?
It’s neither a major issue nor a point either for or against whether Mattis is “within normal parameters” according to Chisquirrel’s definition of the phrase.
“Normal parameters” for a high-level position like this involves:
-Years of experience working closely on the issues that the position will require work on, or else on very closely related issues; and
-No obvious ideological disagreement with the agency’s mission or the laws it enforces.
This isn’t just “people Democrats don’t like.” If a Democrat appointed Elizabeth Warren to be head of the FCC, that’d be someone Democrats didn’t like. If a Democrat appointed Jane Fonda to head the Department of Defense, or Willie Nelson as the head of the DEA, or Chelsea Manning to head up the NSA, that’d be what Trump is engaged in here.
If I’m understanding you right, we’re now down to 2-3 out of ~21 appointments that are not “within normal parameters”. Is that a fair statement, or are there others you think fall into that category?
Let’s talk about Andrew Puzder specifically for a moment, if you don’t mind. Why do you consider him a “foe” of the Department of Labor? I must admit that as I type this, I know precious little about Puzder or his history. If I were asked to guess though, I’d guess that he falls on the pro-business side, as do most Republicans, if you were to place politicians on a spectrum with pro-business on one end and pro-labor on the other end. Is that all it is, that he’s a pro-business Republican? Or has Puzder personally done something to distinguish himself as particularly anti-labor (above and beyond a run-of-the-mill Republican)? If so, what was it?
And the Sandernistas kept attacking Hillary for giving a few speeches to Goldman Sachs, and thus refused to support her… well they got what they deserved.
I’m not going to through every single one, but will just look at two right now: Betsy DeVos, and Scott Pruitt.
DeVos has no real history working within any large educational institution. She has no relevant experience, and she’s unqualified on that count. Her ideological opposition to much of what the DoE is required by law to do is icing on the cake.
Scott Pruitt has no scientific expertise to speak of, and his main qualifications consist of fighting against the laws that the EPA is required to enforce. He has no business heading up the EPA.
Do you argue that either of them have credentials anywhere within the normal credentials for heading up a major agency that administers specific aspects of federal law? Do you argue that neither of them have ideological positions that place them at odds with the missions of the agencies they’ve been tapped for?
Y’know, maybe I should qualify my claim that he’s outside of normal parameters. While we’ve had qualified scientists heading up the EPA for the last 8 years (thanks, Obama!), and even beyond (can’t believe I’m saying it, but thanks, W!), you can go back and look at Reagan’s nominee, Ann Gorsuch Burford. She, like Pruitt, had no environmental or even scientific expertise, and she, like Pruitt, came to the agency hostile to its intentions and did her best to dismantle it. She dragged her feet as much as possible on phasing lead out of commercial products, refused to turn over records to congress, was the first US cabinet member ever cited for Contempt of Congress, and eventually resigned in disgrace.