Not necessarily the case here, but when people talk about "not being interested" in political office I can't help but think of this quote.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Gates gone -- Panetta at DOD, Patraeus to CIA
- Thread starter Flying Toaster
- Start date
Not necessarily the case here, but when people talk about "not being interested" in political office I can't help but think of this quote.
Great points, and I don't disagree, but I hardly think that that was part of the President's calculation. It implies a degree of sophistication and cunning that I've not seen this administration demonstrate.
Brett
No comment....
However I would bet they were trying to put someone up (at least for the CIA Director), that would avoid a confirmation fight before the election. I seriously doubt any Republican is going to start a fight over Petraeus.
SEDEF on the other hand I could see a fight over that one. I expect Republicans to start a fight over national security. This guy sat as CoS for President Clinton during the 90's and many news outlets have said his experience dismantling defense during that time as a major strength of his in relation to this new job. We'll see... said the Zen master.
Typically, you don't get confirmation fights over former colleagues. That is one reason why former senators are chosen for tough fills. The true test will come when a recent former senator is chosen for the Supreme Court. Not to thread jack, but Jon Kyle was on Dubbya's short list twice. He is retiring from the senate. If the President is a one termer, look for Kyle to be nominated to the Supremes.
I heard that at least 90% of the cases heard by SCOTUS are abortion related. I think that's common knowledges.
Brett
Random8145
Registered User
Patraeus doesn't strike me as the type who, upon retiring, would become very outspoken and critical of Obama. I think part of his popularity is because he is pretty apolitical. I also don't know if he would run against his former boss (if he intends to run for President someday) because that could be seen as a betrayal.
Shouldn't this one be fairly simple though (for the politicians I mean)? A Republican president will usually nominate a pro-life person (or someone whom they think is a pro-life person) and a Democratic president will nominate a pro-choice person, right?
Shouldn't this one be fairly simple though (for the politicians I mean)? A Republican president will usually nominate a pro-life person (or someone whom they think is a pro-life person) and a Democratic president will nominate a pro-choice person, right?
Don't read the news much, do you? There was a flood of bad press around Porter Goss and his short reign at the CIA and much of the info about him came from sources within the agency. After some initial hesitancy that was voiced about General Hayden not much controversy cropped about his directorship and the same can be said about Panetta. While it is not exactly a ringing endorsement both apparently turned out better than some had feared.
The same label of 'political hack' can be said about many SECDEFs over the years, arguable most and that includes Rumsfeld, but shockingly enough political savvy seems to be an essential part of the job. It is a little surprising to me that so many people forget that Rumsfeld came in with a mandate to significantly change the armed forces and before 9/11 it appeared that it would include cuts, carriers were apparently one asset on the chopping block during some defense planning the spring and summer of 2001. As for labeling him as someone who 'doesn't care about defense', a bit bold when you don't know him personally. Also interesting since he has presided over an agency responsible for killing a large number of terrorists under his tenure.