Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Jonathan Sadow Wrote:By all accounts, Obama is something of a self-absorbed egotist, and these type of people tend only to listen to people who agree with them.

That last bit is completely at odds with everything I've read about him.

Yeah, that struck me as a really odd impression, too. I think I'm going to vomit if I have to hear about "Team of Rivals" one more time. Everything I've read indicates he's the type of guy who makes a point of soliciting opinions from those who disagree.
It's the Bush administration that has a reputation for firing people for dissent. You know, when they do crazy things like suggest we won't be greeted as liberators or that we will need more troops for the occupation.
An interesting development over the past 8 years is how W and the Neocons have driven many of the realist camp (ironically most closely associated with Bush I) out of the Republican party, with many of them either explicitly or tacitly endorsing Obama. I.e. Scowcroft, Powell, Susan Eisenhower, Hagel are the ones that come to mind.

Actually, the self-absorbed egotist is an impression I get of Obama, more from reading the books than anything else. Just a lot of the things were written in ways that remind me of the way other people I have known have expressed themselves, and the other people that come to mind were invariably self-absorbed egomaniacs. I find it a pretty extreme statement of ego that he wrote two autobiographies before one major piece of legislation. I also thought the Nuremberg-esque scenes at Mile High and election night in Chicago spoke to pretty egotistical tendencies. I'm sure there are alternative possible explanations for each of these, and for now I'll hope that the alternative explanations are the correct ones. But the self-absorbed egotist impression is not without substantial support.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the fact that you haven't read anything about him that mentions this. I've yet to read anything about him that was written from anything other than a fawning (no mention of any defects, including egomania) or hateful (accusing him of much worse) perspective. I'd actually like to read something that I thought was a balanced account, but so far I haven't seen one.

My guess is that the first time he takes on Reed and Pelosi, some of the far-left media that heretofore have been interested in nothing but fawning over him will suddenly decide that perhaps some of the alternative possibilities are worth following up on. We just might find out the truth about a lot of things that have been heretofore glossed over, and we might not like some of what we find out.

I agree that the major failing of the republicans during the Shrub era has been the elimination of anyone who did not hold tight to the neocon agenda. I don't recall sensing that Shrub himself was a neocon when he was governor, but I do think there were hints that he allowed himself to be led around by Bullock or whomever, and that should have been a warning sign, particularly once he put Cheney in the VP slot. I wonder how the last eight years would have gone had he put someone like Christine Whitman or Tommy Thompson or Bill Weld into that slot. My guess is that he'd have won the 2000 election with any of them, since he won with Cheney, and there is little doubt that any of the three would have expanded the voting support base much wider than Cheney did. I'm doubting that there's any state he carried in 2000 because Cheney was on the ticket, and I'm guessing that he'd have done much better in a bunch of them (including Florida) with someone else.

Alternatively, I wonder how the last eight years would have gone if the republicans in congress had properly exercised their obligation to impose accountability on the presidency, instead of caving in to almost every demand of the Shrub administration. Suppose congress had functioned as I believe it is supposed to, with the republican leadership crafting policies with input from--and support of--a significant number of centrist democrats and passing them on to the president with a sufficient majority of support to override a veto. Much has been made of the fact that until late in his second term, Shrub never used a veto. The reason IMO is that congress never exercised any independent thought.

The republicans are paying the price for their arrogance and hubris now--as well they should. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the rest of us are going to pay a heavy price too before all is said and done. I'd like to think the we don't deserve what I think is about to happen--but then again, maybe we do.

*sigh* Why?

Also, what exactly is the definition of a neocon (other than 'boogeyman')?

As to the topic of the thread- I am pleased with the announced and rumored cabinet appointments. I am a republican that voted for McCain but I am giving President-Elect Obama the benefit of the doubt, and so far I can't find anything to get too riled up about.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I get a somewhat different impression. At one point, I did some work trying to help the homeless, many of whom were street hustlers selling drugs to get by. To me, he reminds me ever so much of a street hustler in the middle of pulling a con job, and if so he may have just pulled off the ultimate con. I hope not, but that's the image that I simply can't get out of my mind.

At this point I remain open-minded and hopeful. But I also plan to keep my options open.

Props for walking the walk.

Street hustler, Harvard Law Review president, state senator, constitutional law prof, Senator, president-elect.

One of these things is not like the others.

Wait, I'm having a vision (he is the Messiah, right?), Obama is SHAFT!

Shaft poster

He's a baaaadddd Mother F#%$#!

Hezbollah better step off.

Righteous baby.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

Jonathan Sadow Wrote:In the end, I think a lot of these Cabinet and other executive-level picks are going to turn out to be window dressing. By all accounts, Obama is something of a self-absorbed egotist, and these type of people tend only to listen to people who agree with them. Sooner or later, a number of these picks are going to find that, unless they tell Obama what he wants to hear, they're being ignored. I expect within a couple of years that we'll start to see a number of resignations from these high posts. The reasons given ostensibly will be because the person involved has some outside opportunity too good to pass up or some unspecified personal reason, but insiders will know better.

Add to that my own expectation that very little of what Obama is going to do will work, or in the end will be well-accepted by the American public, and you have the makings of a real rats-leaving-a-sinking-ship scenario. If we're still in a recession in four years--and my own expectation is that we'll be in a deepening depression if Obama follows through on his campaign promises--things could get pretty ugly.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What do you guys think of Napolitano for Homeland Security? My first thought was, what? A female short-term governor of a small border state who can "see" a foreign country from her backyard? We have already seen what the democrats think of this. Does the "D" after her name make that much difference?

I have looked into her background, and I think she is probably as good as most of the other appointments. She has executive experience beyond just being governor, which I like, but I was one of the people here who thought executive experience was important, while many Obama supporters were downplaying it.

I'm not against Napolitano, I'm just surprised at the lack of response.

Another thing is that we seem to be getting a third Clinton term when the Dems ran against a third Bush term that was mostly in their imaginations. Personally, I would rather see a true third Clinton term than a first Obama term, but I think the superficial differences will evaporate soon.

I don't get the pick. Napolitano has done some things "tough" on illegal immigration... deploy National Guard to the Mexican border, scream at the Feds for doing nothing on illegal immigration.

She also has flip flopped on the border fence. I don't see how she will fit with Obama's policies and attitudes toward "open immigration."

I bet she lasts about 2 years before she quits.

ausowl Wrote:Street hustler, Harvard Law Review president, state senator, constitutional law prof, Senator, president-elect.

One of these things is not like the others.

Let's just say that I'm not as certain as you are that he hasn't "hustled" his way to all of the above. I'm sorry, but I've yet to see much in the way of substance there. Lots of form, not a lot of substance.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Let's just say that I'm not as certain as you are that he hasn't "hustled" his way to all of the above. I'm sorry, but I've yet to see much in the way of substance there. Lots of form, not a lot of substance.

Interesting perspective (not meant in a snarky way) in that if you replace "Obama" with "GW" your concerns mirror my fears 8 years ago. That in spite of the fact that I felt GWBush's tenure as Gov. went pretty well from my seat on the sidelines (I particularly appreciated the local folks he appointed to the judiciary in Austin).

Check out this article from the WaPost: Top Officers Meet with Obama.

Quote: "Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby."

I know, I know . . . what else would Mullen say for attribution! But still, "non-ideological pragmatist", just sayin' what I've been sayin' for the last 45 days or so.

Liberal Realism - not an oxymoron.

ausowl Wrote:Interesting perspective (not meant in a snarky way) in that if you replace "Obama" with "GW" your concerns mirror my fears 8 years ago. That in spite of the fact that I felt GWBush's tenure as Gov. went pretty well from my seat on the sidelines (I particularly appreciated the local folks he appointed to the judiciary in Austin).

I don't think it's snarky at all. I pretty much have the same concern I had eight years ago, only in a different direction. The Cheney VP choice was always very troubling to me, and I believe those fears have proved to be well grounded.

I think Shrub governed Texas as something of a pragmatist, but got overwhelmed in Washington by the neocons and turned into something of a Trojan horse for them. That's very similar to the fear I now have that Obama will be used the same way by the far left, and it's a bit more troubling to me because Obama's past has been spent on the leftmost fringe rather than the center. He certainly has no history of standing up to Reid or Pelosi.

I don't like any extreme, whether it be neocon or liberal or whatever. I particularly do not think that the current situation is one where it will be helpful for us to be whipsawed from one extreme to another.

If Obama turns out to be a centrist, then I'm all for him. Right now I fear that is, to borrow his own expression, way above his pay grade.

As for any perceptions coming from a meeting or interview, let's wait for actions rather than making decisions based on words. Any good hustler can keep you spellbound until the rubber actually has to meet the road.

She will not be as good as Ridge, the first Secretary but she will probably be better than the present one. I would rather get more help for Texas on Ike recovery than a useless border fence.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What do you guys think of Napolitano for Homeland Security? My first thought was, what? A female short-term governor of a small border state who can "see" a foreign country from her backyard? We have already seen what the democrats think of this. Does the "D" after her name make that much difference?

I have looked into her background, and I think she is probably as good as most of the other appointments. She has executive experience beyond just being governor, which I like, but I was one of the people here who thought executive experience was important, while many Obama supporters were downplaying it.

I'm not against Napolitano, I'm just surprised at the lack of response.

Another thing is that we seem to be getting a third Clinton term when the Dems ran against a third Bush term that was mostly in their imaginations. Personally, I would rather see a true third Clinton term than a first Obama term, but I think the superficial differences will evaporate soon.