Quote:
Originally Posted by nittanyalum
Aw. *blush* 
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.
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. |
But, I think good lobbyists will find ways to adjust their tactics so as to get an "in" with a Democratic administration. I have friends who lobby for causes that one would qualify as "liberal" or "left-leaning" interests, but who still have gotten a seat at the table for certain decisions. Lobbying does depend a great deal on connections, but strong lobbying organizations are able to work on both sides, and will have no trouble keeping their influence (at least, to some degree) in a new administration.
As far as the change-over; I think you would be right if this were to be a different Republican - to - Republican change-over. But, I think there's a good deal of bad blood built up between McCain and Bush, and between their people. I think, in the (admittedly unlikely) event he were to get elected, that there would be a near-complete house-cleaning, even more so than in the past when one party has retained control. Plus, the Bush name has become such a political liability that it gives extra incentive to clear out anyone with any say, so as to have the complete change that you're referring to.
Again, we won't end up agreeing on this, as it perhaps goes to the heart of one of the reasons why we'll be voting differently in the upcoming election. I'm just saying that there can be an argument made the other way.