It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


President-Elect Obama's Cabinet

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 12:35 PM
There are many people on the left who are upset that President-Elect Obama only picked one liberal for his cabinet (Secretary of Labor). Most of his picks are Centrist, with a few Center/Left and a few Center/right choices. There are those who are complaining not enough women, or Southerners, or (put interest group here) were not chosen. The Rev Rick Warren is drawing a lot of fire, even though he will only talk for a minute, giving a brief prayer.
The first question a candidate asks after the election is "What do we do now?" the immortal line from the movie "The Candidate". Sen Obama started immediately on getting his cabinet together to tackle the problems our country faces. The persons on the Cabinet are there to carry out his policies, and also give advice on what is the way to go about it. They may disagree and with good reason. A good leader listens to what those disagreements are and how to solve them. The President is not just the President of the Democrats, but also to the Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, etc. He has to do what is best for the country, and not give the special interests what they want. That is what he did campaign against, was the Washington as usual. Just because they are left leaning, they are still special interest groups.
As for Rev Rick Warner, it is good to get everyone into the fold, even people you disagree with. They are still citizens, and should be part of the solutions, not the problems.

My point is, if people are complaining, the President is doing his job right.

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 02:11 PM
I applaud Obama's choice for Secretary of Labor. It's been a long time since a pro-labor person has been in that post (see my signature).

As far as his mainly centrist cabinet, I have few arguments with it. I think he doesn't want to surround himself with "yes people"--which IMO Bush did--but rather wants a vigorous debate so he can hear all sides before making a decision.

I understand that he has read, and is impressed by, the recently released "Team of Rivals" (I believe the author is historian Doris Kearns Goodwin) about Lincoln's cabinet. He deliberately chose people who disareeed with him or were out-and-out enemies, for the reasons I outlined above.

I am aware that leftists will find him too conservative and right-wingers will find him too liberal. I think the truth is if he leans even further to the left than he already is he could lose the support of Congress and a majority of the American people. He has to accomplish as much as he can with those constraints on him.

I may be perhaps not critical enough because I still have the impression that he has a first-rate mind and I can trust his judgment. I'm sure he will do things I don't agree with in the future--I don't expect anybody to be a carbon copy of me.
I might have chosen a few cabinet members differently but I support his goal of achieving a balanced viewpoint.

posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by Sestias

The main problem with President Bush is that he was a figurehead. He let two very strong willed people run the country (Cheney and Rummy). We have seen the problems with not having a goal in mind other than tax cuts. I always factor in 911 and the problems associated with that, especially the economic mess. It did not help the economy when the airlines were shut down for a week, and people canceled trips both to and from the US.
I hope President Obama will have a major plan after the economy gets going so the country does not stall like it did. The President has to also be realistic as to what can pass and how much it will cost. The "blue dog" Democrats have to go along with him, so he will have to govern moderately.
I also think the most liberal person who ran for President was John Edwards. Hilary Clinton was moving toward being more moderate, and Barack Obama was a moderate when he gave the speech in 2004. It is also interesting a President can run the country from the far right, but if they move to the left, they are criticized for being too liberal. The last liberal we had in office was FDR. While LBJ passed many social policies, his main reasons were dubious at best.
I do hope for the best, as I did for all Presidents when they take office. It is a very difficult job, and not everyone will be pleased.

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 11:02 PM
The economy has gone down the tubes. Whoever was the president would no doubt be blamed for it; it would happen if it were McCain, too. The economy will of necessity be Obama's first priority.

He has an ambitious plan, not seen since Roosevelt, to infuse huge amounts of money into the economy to stimulate it. In another thread I pointed out that Bill Clinton and many other economists also share this view. Unfortunately, his plan, even if it works, will take some time before it is really effective. It took about 10 years to see the results of Roosevelt's solution. People will be calling for Obama's impeachment after a few months. Some already are, and he hasn't even begun yet.

I admit to being a liberal, and therefore optimistic about Obama's potential-- if he ever gets to realize it. We've tried Bush's way. While I agreed with Bush and Paulson on the need for a bailout, I believed there was a need for strict oversight, which hasn't happened, at least not for the Wall Street firms.

I think you're right about the Blue Dogs. My congressman is one and he voted against the bailout every time it came up for a vote. He was up for re-election last November and many of his constitutents were against it. The Blue Dogs will likely go with the Republicans on a number of issues.

Obama is faced with the difficult task of implementing some radical solutions while still attempting to govern from the center.

posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by kidflash2008

One of the main problems is people want a quick solution to a problem that needs a long time fix. The era of the sound bite and MTV type 30 second stories does not help the situation. The reality is it will take years to get out of this mess. I don't think just throwing money into it will fix it either. One of the problems with FDR was he only through money into the problems but did not address the need for the private sector to start hiring again. It took World War II to start the private sector back up.
President Elect Obama needs to be realistic with people, and tell them the truth. So far, he has stated it will take time and not all the people will be happy with what he does.
I don't like the idea of printing money, as it makes the dollar less even more. It is time to get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back to a gold standard. Get us off of fiat, and start to get people to start saving. Spending and using credit is what has made the problems worse. It is time to get back to our thrifty ways before the 1920s, when people only bought the extras if they had the money.

posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by kidflash2008

The idea of returning to the gold standard was popular in the 1970's, when there was so much inflation. Right now we're actually experiencing deflation so it wouldn't be as useful. In addition, if all our currency was backed by gold there would be virtually no possibility of stimulating the economy because the world's reserves of gold are limited. During the Great Depression, people stopped spending and took a lot of money out of circulation, which began a downward spiral that deepened the depression.

In the 1980's many people rushed to buy gold because they thought it would always increase in value. Turns out that if they had invested in almost anything else it would have yielded more returns. While more and more gold is in fact being mined, the amount that is actually in circulation doesn't vary that much.

posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by Sestias

The more money that is printed, it will lose its value. I see what you are saying about the Great Depression, and FDR did the illegal act of outlawing gold ownership (many people hoarded their gold coins). The price of gold went up from $20 an ounce to $35 an ounce, and FDR paid $25 an ounce for gold.
It is true that gold is limited, but that would keep the dollar at a stable value. I for one would love to have real money, and not the fiat that is printed by the Federal Reserve.

I also think the Big Three car makers should file for bankruptcy. They need to get rid of half of their dealerships, and under currant guidelines, have to pay out a lot of money to close them. Bankruptcy would allow them to shudder the ones they don't need and become more efficient.

The things I propose are controversial, but they would work if given the time.

new topics


log in