whoever and whatever works best with an eye to unintended consequences 
bho hiring policy
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
perhaps i should have said, 'hire the best available'...period
Yeah, I was thinking about that. The Larry Summers appointment as Director of the National Economic Council really pissed a lot of people off but he is certainly qualified for the position. Then I got to thinking, just what does the National Economic Council do and who is there now. What did Obama appoint Summers to?
It turns out that the guy currently holding the position is named Keith Hennessey. I never heard of him and I doubt any of you have either. His blurb on the White House website isn't very revealing. It turns out that the guy isn't an economist. He doesn't appear to have any financial background at all. In fact, his entire career appears to have been spent working for Senate Republicans, most recently, Senator Lott. Oh, and he wrote a thesis shitbagging the Clinton healthcare reform plans.
So, Obama nominates an eminently qualified economist with more credentials than you can shake a stick at whereas Bush hired some Senate Republican staffer no one ever heard of who isn't even an economist.
Quite telling.
cawacko
Well-known member
Interesting that you feel you must judge Obama, predicted by some to be the best President ever against Bush who some believe to be the worst President ever. Does that come from a place of insecurity about Obama or is that just a partisan response when people on your own 'team' are criticizing your own player?
If you want to compare apples to apples Lawrence Lindsey was Bush's first National Economic Council appointment and he has a PhD in economics from Harvard. If I may quote you Lindsey is, "an eminently qualified economist with more credentials than you can shake a stick at".
Seriously? You're losing it man. You're clearly trying hard, but you are seriously losing it. Take a break. Relax. Head on out to Sausalito. Go to Horizons for brunch. Have a Bloody Mary or four. Make a day of it.
Edit: Wait a minute, isn't Lindsey the guy that got shit-canned for stating that the Iraq War would cost $200 billion because the Bush Administration thought that such an estimate was obscenely high? Christ on a crucifix! Try to come up with a better example next time.
Last edited:
cawacko
Well-known member
Really? How's my comparison bad? I admit I'm not all that familar with the position. I looked up a gentleman you may be familiar with Mr. Gene Sperling. He held the same position the last five years of the Clinton Administration. This is a gentleman with had no economic degree yet like Mr. Hennessey had done previous economic work.
Hey I read this board and read the what the locals in San Francisco have to say. Some are upset that Obama is not selecting individuals they believe to be more liberal to his cabinet. Just my opinion but to make the claim that Obama's appointment is better than Bush's appointment probably doesn't do much appeasing to those folks.
DH, did you know that under his tenure at Harvard, women weren't promoted at the rates they were before he took over?
I don't know if in his new position he will be overseeing an actual department, but let's imagine that he is, or at some point, will be. Certainly if he is moved to treasury sect, something that is not a remote possibility, he would be in charge of an entire department with many women, whose job it is...to do math.
On another front, Obama doesn't get a pass on black issues just because he's black. that would be like saying it's ok that sarah palin charges women for their own rape kits, because she's a woman. And I think that a man who expressed the opinion that we should toxic dump on Africans, is going to be suspect as to his racial feelings. I'll tell you, I never met a white male sexist who wasn't a racist as well...and vs versa.
I think that it's a bit unrealistic to expect people to be happy about his appointment. And I'm sorry, but there's no way he's the only qualified person.
Here, I found the exact figures:
Harvard's president, they say, was legitimizing discrimination. Pointing out that the number of women receiving tenure each year at Harvard had dropped precipitously since Summers became president -- down to 4 of the past 32 offers -- the National Organization for Women has called for Summers's resignation. Once again, conservatives have defended him, saying that the blunt-speaking president offended only the forces of political correctness.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/lawrence_of_absurdia_1/
Harvard's president, they say, was legitimizing discrimination. Pointing out that the number of women receiving tenure each year at Harvard had dropped precipitously since Summers became president -- down to 4 of the past 32 offers -- the National Organization for Women has called for Summers's resignation. Once again, conservatives have defended him, saying that the blunt-speaking president offended only the forces of political correctness.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/lawrence_of_absurdia_1/
There's a place between hysterics, and honest debate and criticism. Maybe you can't criticize someone without becoming hysterical, men can be like that, but I can.
Sexism does not become acceptable just because a democrat, or someone appointed by a democrat, is doing it.
I notice that many of the men who seemed to have no problem recognizing sexism when it reared its head in the Republican party, are not only blind to it now, but resent my bringing it up. So, did they recognize it back then - or were they just happy to use the women to get what they wanted?
It really doesn't matter. I don't need your permission, or any man's, to speak my mind. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. It really added something.
C
Cancel3
Guest
You mean sexual discrimination is wrong regardless of the political party affiliation?
What a concept.
It seems to me as if there are some people who are basically saying - shut up. No criticism! Be quiet!
And isn't that exactly what Republicans, some of whom are on this board, did with bush? Why would that be an admirable trait in anyone just because the President changes?
And I'll tell you something - I donated money to that guy. He really won me over, and I donated to him on three occassions. I certainly wouldn't trade him for McCain, but I will damned well feel free to criticize him any time I want to. I'm not goosestepping behind anybody.
I don't have much problem with rational criticism of appointments. I would only point out that it's now being said that Summers' comments cost him the top job, and were the reason that Obama put him in a more behind-the-scenes kind of role. It's possible that Obama valued his economic input too much, at a time when economic issues rule, to not have him involved at all. I wouldn't say that the list of potential candidates for the economic team was huge.
I know, and I hope he stays there and that in that position he is not in charge of a department full of people.
But I still don't like the appointment and I think some of the responses to any criticism of Obama, or even expressions of concern, is childishness. (not you, or Dh either) I doubt any of us want to model ourselves after Bush acolytes. They set the standard for idiocy.
I'm never going to like Summers, or really believe, deep down, that there was no one else. I guess because he seems to be pulling from the Rubinites, and I have to figure there are really smart economists out there who aren't beholden to Rubin.
Some interesting speculation in that article that I posted that a lot of people at Harvard began to suspect that Summers has aspbergers syndrome. Not that it matters, but it was interesting.
Yeah, I know what you mean about Rubin. It's funny; I used to think Rubin was one of the best Treasury Secretary's of all time. I understand the issues with his brand of economics now.
But it has also occurred to me that there may not be a cookie cutter economic philosophy that can be applied to every period in history. In other words, Rubinomics MAY have been the best philosophy in the '90's, and contributed to the huge boom in tech start-ups and other business growth.
Now, it's clear that more regulation was needed since at least 2001, and probably a little earlier than that. But that same regulation may have stifled growth a few years earlier than that; it's the debt & credit crunch that has hurt us since the 90's.
Maybe, I don't know enough about economics to say. I do know from two decades of observation that if you do the opposite of what conservative ideology tells you to - whether it be D or R conservatism - you can't go wrong in the long run.
One other thing, buried in that article is a mention that Al Gore was so insulted by Summer's African memo that he refused to have him at treasury, back when Clinton wanted to make him treasury sect. I really miss that. I hate this bs "Pc police" stuff, which has been used to gloss over sexism, racism, and just plain nastiness.
I wish there was still someone in DC willing to, with real honest to God outrage, say, I don't want that shit here, take it some place else. I don't care how mad your skills are. I think that was cool.
One other thing, buried in that article is a mention that Al Gore was so insulted by Summer's African memo that he refused to have him at treasury, back when Clinton wanted to make him treasury sect. I really miss that. I hate this bs "Pc police" stuff, which has been used to gloss over sexism, racism, and just plain nastiness.
I wish there was still someone in DC willing to, with real honest to God outrage, say, I don't want that shit here, take it some place else. I don't care how mad your skills are. I think that was cool.
I know what you mean; there is something to be said for setting that kind of tone in an admin.
That's not Obama; good or bad, I think he sees more shades of gray, and can even be somewhat Machiavellian in his politics. Above all, he is the most pragmatic politician that has ascended to the Presidency in my lifetime. He will jettison someone if absolutely necessary politically, but if it's politically feasible, he'll keep them around; this was a perfect example, where he realized he couldn't put him in charge of Treasury, but is able to have him on staff anyway, without much political damage.
That's not Obama; good or bad, I think he sees more shades of gray, and can even be somewhat Machiavellian in his politics. Above all, he is the most pragmatic politician that has ascended to the Presidency in my lifetime. He will jettison someone if absolutely necessary politically, but if it's politically feasible, he'll keep them around; this was a perfect example, where he realized he couldn't put him in charge of Treasury, but is able to have him on staff anyway, without much political damage.
That's true. And maybe he will end up being one of our most effective and greatest presidents because of that. I do hope so.
I'm off to physical therapy and then Vermont - Happy Thankgiving Onceler! See you guys next week.
