This is WAAYYYY late, but here is my reaction:
Bad move for Obama, bad move for Janet, entirely good news for the state Republicans.
Obama- In looking at the other cabinet choices, I just don't get this one. It's not that I believe Janet not capable of fulfilling this assignment, it just that it leaves a huge weakness that may come back to haunt him later.
I have never been a fan of the Department of Homeland Security from the start. Adding another layer of bureaucracy to manage the other layers of bureaucracy never seemed like a good idea to me. It just seemed like a position was thrown up after the 911 commission report and we have been trying to figure out things for the Director to do from that point on.
Additionally, because of the constant drumbeat of criticism coming from the Democratic congress and the press, the department has become a political non-entity. They are not allowed to claim the "xxx days and counting since last terrorist attack" title for credit, nor are they really allowed to push through any policy without backlash (see building security fence.) In fact, it seems the only thing they can do is mess with flight regulations (take off your shoes, no liquids, etc.) However, should something go wrong, they will be the first head on the block. At the next successful terrorist attack, and it is coming, the person will receive a lot of scrutiny. Does Napolitano's resume show any qualifications that would withstand this type of examination? What in her past would lead us to believe that she has any understanding of counter-terorism? Any failing on her part will cement Obama as making a rookie choice and horrendous mistake. Picking any of the qualified Democrats with military experience would certainly have provided him with more cover should the unthinkable happen.
Additionally, what expectations have been placed on the position by recent criticism seem like a bad fit for Janet's skill set. Remember that "every cargo container coming into port is to be inspected!" and anything else is a complete failure. What in Janets's past of philanthropic politics would lead us to believe that she has the know how to get something like that done? Janet's MO is to look at all the issues, pick the ones that she can spin to political advantage, and ignore or avoid the rest. There is precious little in DHS that she can do that with. I would suspect that we can expect her to do away with the ridiculous liquid restrictions on airplanes, but that is the only issue I can see her being able to use the playbook.
In a position that needs strong, decisive leadership to have any relevancy, Obama picked a passive-aggressive waffler.
Janet- What was she thinking? I don't get it. Remember how Tom Ridge was the brightest rising star in the Republican universe? Nobody else does either. DHS effectively killed his political career. Obviously Janet is not doing this for a love of the job she is about to undertake, she views it as a stepping stone. But to where? To the senate, the Supreme Court, or Presidential aspirations? None of those become more likely after this appointment.
She effectively has killed any further aspirations in the state. By leaving Arizona to "the Republican wolves," she has shown herself to her Democratic allies to be the self-absorbed egotist that Republicans always thought her to be. What about the CHILDREN, Janet? What will they do now that Republicans plan to randomly set them on fire just to increase CO2 levels? It's almost like all that lip service was just pandering. I have seen enough evidence to convince me that an Arizona senate seat is now out of the question due to the percentage of state Democrats that are now done with her.
There is the line of thinking that things are so bad in the state that she is escaping before the "heat" comes down. I'm not sure that rings true either. Janet would have had a tougher time, true, but the state press is so far in her tank that it embarrasses even Obama. Janet could walk into a mall and gun down 27 people and the newspaper editorials would blame Arizona's lax gun laws without mentioning her involvement. As friendly as the press is to Obama, she won't get that nationally. In fact, she is more likely to be scapegoated in order to deflect criticism from Obama.
So unless there was some downright criminality involved, there would be no reason for Napolitano to be forced out. She had it good here, and would have been even more of a champion to certain people with the resurgence of the Republican legislature.
If the readers have any rational explanations for me, I would be happpy to hear them.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Janet Departs
Posted by JensGuy at 8:12 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/104739.php
For all you lefties that complained about the Mike Brown FEMA mess, why don't you all take a look in the mirror. Nappy campaigned hard for Obama and now look at what he's done: he nominated her and the report cited above says that she's got a dubious track record in terms of disaster preparedness accomplishments.
What kind of research did he do on her qualifications? Not enough, apparently. What does this say about his decision making process?
Change indeed! Politics is politics and y'all got hoodwinked.
I suspect the reasoning is that the current "big" issue facing DHS is how to handle affairs along our Southern border, and she certainly does have experience with that.
If you seethe border as the more pressing concern (and recent debates vis-a-vis immigration point to that), who else are you going to take? The CA and TX govs are both Republicans, and the NM gov is headed to commerce.
This reasoning holds up as long as no terrorist attack occurs on her watch. I do think it would behoove her to bring in a disaster-response expert or two as he chief underlings.
But, really, what experience does Janet have in dealing with border issues? As far as I can tell, her entire policy has been poll driven. She puts the National Guard on the border, but only allows them to change oil. She signs employer sanctions, but takes swipes at it when her liberal base calls foul. She has not been an innovator or provided real leadership of any kind on the issue.
If she was going to take this position, why not instead go for the Secretary of Education which dovetails nicely into her overall narrative? Her political skill set would fit nicely there, and she could tell those angry at her leaving that "this is a once in a lifetime chance to do something for the children of America!"
This has the markings of a disaster.
Post a Comment