Quote:
Originally Posted by Senusret I
Dear nittanyalum,
I love you.
Regards,
Senusret I
|
Aw. *blush*
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
So we're going to replace one with another?
No offense intended, NA, I just really don't see a whole lot of difference at this point.
|
Replace one what with another? I'm not saying that it makes a difference what party the administration is, it's the continuity that needs interruption to ensure that a legislative agenda that most Americans don't even know is being enacted without the standard oversight and checks and balances they assume happens for policy to go into effect in this country doesn't continue to go unchecked indefinitely. I am absolutely aware that Democrat administrations entrench their lackeys just as Republican administrations do. I'm not saying it's better or worse. I'm saying it's something that does need airing out on a regular basis, because the deeply rooted ones can really start to stink.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
It seems your issue, as expressed, is more with the results of the process than the process itself. There will be a fresh group of people in the White House, but it will be a group that will bring with it special interests, and a number of lobbyists. I'm almost absolutely sure that Obama, having been in the Senate for a time, has certain lobbyists who will have his ear, as well as certain aides who have been with him for some time and will be rewarded with White House positions.
Some of the aims may be changing, but the process will stay the same, for better or worse. Additionally, I think every President tries to push through changes before they leave office - again, whether we agree with those changes or that legislation is a whole other matter, but the process is one that even the presumptive President Obama will engage in when he eventually leaves office.
And, to be fair, I think there will be a personnel shake-up regardless of who is elected. There's no love lost between McCain and Bush, and most, if not all, of Bush's appointees would find themselves booted out even if a new Republican administration came in. A President is going to want to be surrounded by his own people, the people who helped get him the job, and the people who have his trust.
|
And I disagree on both parts, it is the process itself that bothers me more than who is partaking in the process. We talk about our government being a system of checks and balances, but while everyone's distracted by the stalemates at the legislative and executive level, policies are quietly being put into effect at the agency level without any of the same checks and balances. And the ones leading the agendas are appointees by the administration, regardless of what party that is. I also disagree that a McCain administration would bring on a wholesale shake-up. With how many appointees there are across the bureaucracy, some are likely to be left in place because of (a) the ease of it when there are higher-level appointments to worry about that absolutely will turn over and (b) some of those people will have created their own circle of access and influence -- with lobbyists and organizations that will be on the same page as another Republican administration -- that he would be advised to keep them in place so as not to lose the "power seat" that so-and-so has already made that position into. And that person would likely keep his or her staff in place if they have been effective and loyal. Not saying that there wouldn't be some turnover, but I don't believe it would be as thorough as what would happen with a full-party change at the administration level.