The WH Transition Thread --- all things Trump to Biden until Inauguration

[The Sybian]

What has he done besides be mayor of a 4th rate city and then decide to try to be president? Any time Buttigieg comes up it seems like the onus is on proving the negative versus anyone defending him saying what makes him qualified for _______.

Yeah, I hear ya. I just have a hard time caring about the Sec of Transportation. Political favors are the norm, and as long as its not the CEO of the largest company regulated by the Agency, I have a hard time caring. Calling up a small city mayor seems weird, but he does have a pretty impressive resume and seems like an incredibly competent guy, so I just don't have the capacity to get worked up over internal party politics that don't come close to violating laws or ethics.

[mister d]

I guess I think an appointment outside of any plausible argument of expertise to a guy who did the president a massive political favor should be questioned regardless of party.

[mister d]

President-elect Joe Biden is expected to nominate former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to be the next secretary of energy, a source familiar with transition discussions tells NPR's Franco Ordoñez.

Granholm will bring experience in promoting clean-energy manufacturing as Biden tries to implement a sweeping $2 trillion climate plan.

Maybe she's good, maybe she's bad, but if nothing else the pick is defensible from a resume standpoint.

[Johnnie]

Dammit, I thought it would be Klobuchar or Beto.

[Steve of phpBB]

What has he done besides be mayor of a 4th rate city and then decide to try to be president? Any time Buttigieg comes up it seems like the onus is on proving the negative versus anyone defending him saying what makes him qualified for _______.

Yeah, I hear ya. I just have a hard time caring about the Sec of Transportation. Political favors are the norm, and as long as its not the CEO of the largest company regulated by the Agency, I have a hard time caring. Calling up a small city mayor seems weird, but he does have a pretty impressive resume and seems like an incredibly competent guy, so I just don't have the capacity to get worked up over internal party politics that don't come close to violating laws or ethics.

Plus, we keep hearing how the Dems need to get younger blood in there, build a bench, etc. Apparently Buttigieg is a decent political talent, so if the Democratic Party needs to build his resume so he's a more viable candidate in 15 years from now, so be it.

Eight years as a mayor of a city that is the center of a 750K-person "combined statistical area" is not "no experience" when it comes to dealing with either administration or the Transportation Department specifically. I mean, I'm sure there is a perfectly qualified high-placed deputy who served during the Obama administration - but every one of those people would come with some kind of baggage also.

Does Buttiegieg have *that much* less experience than Deb Haaland has with the Interior Department, or Elizabeth Warren has with the Treasury Department?

[Steve of phpBB]

In all honesty, I don't know anything about Buttigieg's progressive bona fides on transportation issues, but *if* the statements in this thread are reliable, that's a hopeful sign:



Plus, I've generally found David Roberts, formerly of Grist, then Vox, now Volts, to have a decent perspective:

[mister d]

Why expect expertise when you can instead accept “it probably won’t matter” patronage assignments. A fair counter and one everyone has accepted with a smile the last four years.

[mister d]

(And also how are we comparing Pete’s zero transportation experience with Warren’s legal and political economic experience?)

[mister d]

This is more succinct and also not me:

[Johnnie]

(I like John. Been following his stuff on YouTube for a while. Plus he's a huge board game nut.)

[The Sybian]

Why expect expertise when you can instead accept “it probably won’t matter” patronage assignments. A fair counter and one everyone has accepted with a smile the last four years.

Eh, you aren't necessarily wrong, this is just so low down the offensive meter I can't care. He might be great in the role. I'd bet he will do a good job. Trump nominated CEOs from the largest companies regulated by agencies to head them. Guys who are strong anti-regulation. If Biden put the CEO of Monsanto in at Agriculture, I'd get pissed.

As for Steve's point of building a bench, this is why Pete should be an Ambassador or in a position that could build his resume. This seems like a shitty gift position.

[A_B]

I think cabinet position is gonna build your cred faster than ambassador. I guess it worked for Thomas Jefferson but that was a bit ago.

And I’m willing to give a guy a chance. Get the right people in. Lead. Be the one in front of the camera. It’s fine.

[mister d]

Why expect expertise when you can instead accept “it probably won’t matter” patronage assignments. A fair counter and one everyone has accepted with a smile the last four years.

Eh, you aren't necessarily wrong, this is just so low down the offensive meter I can't care. He might be great in the role. I'd bet he will do a good job. Trump nominated CEOs from the largest companies regulated by agencies to head them. Guys who are strong anti-regulation. If Biden put the CEO of Monsanto in at Agriculture, I'd get pissed.

As for Steve's point of building a bench, this is why Pete should be an Ambassador or in a position that could build his resume. This seems like a shitty gift position.

I guess my question is why is this "give him a chance" and Ben Carson was (correctly) laughable?

[psunate77]

[sancarlos]

I am familiar with Norman Mineta, Bill Clinton’s secretary of transportation. Because he represented San Jose in Congress. Not a much more impressive resumé than mayor Pete has.

[Pruitt]

There'll be a new AG in 36 days.

This gets put in the "Who Cares?" file.

[The Sybian]

Why expect expertise when you can instead accept “it probably won’t matter” patronage assignments. A fair counter and one everyone has accepted with a smile the last four years.

Eh, you aren't necessarily wrong, this is just so low down the offensive meter I can't care. He might be great in the role. I'd bet he will do a good job. Trump nominated CEOs from the largest companies regulated by agencies to head them. Guys who are strong anti-regulation. If Biden put the CEO of Monsanto in at Agriculture, I'd get pissed.

As for Steve's point of building a bench, this is why Pete should be an Ambassador or in a position that could build his resume. This seems like a shitty gift position.

I guess my question is why is this "give him a chance" and Ben Carson was (correctly) laughable?

Pete seems like a highly competent, civic minded person looking to serve the public good while Ben Carson is an absolute moron with no clue how government works and no interest in serving anything other than a bizarrely distorted view of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Ben's performances at debates discussing how he tried to kill a man but stabbed his belt buckle and that Jesus Carson painting still haunt me.

[mister d]

I think I could form a very strong argument that he’s less “civic minded” and more a careerist climber. Part of it hinges on him walking off an election where he has a solid position then getting a political role he has no experience in.

[duff]

I think I could form a very strong argument that he’s less “civic minded” and more a careerist climber. Part of it hinges on him walking off an election where he has a solid position then getting a political role he has no experience in.

You keep saying he has no experience in. He managed what you call a 4th-rate city. That is something. He did better the infrastructure of that city. Want to know how i know? I work there. He may not be the best possible choice, but he is a pretty damn good choice.

You bitch and moan who it shouldn't be, but never do you say who it should be. If there is someone better, put the name out there. Oh no! This is terrible. The government is crumbling because someone was put in a position you don't think they deserve.

[Brontoburglar]

I think I could form a very strong argument that he’s less “civic minded” and more a careerist climber. Part of it hinges on him walking off an election where he has a solid position then getting a political role he has no experience in.

"not winning" is not a solid position

[Nonlinear FC]

He's an up-and-coming star in the party, whether you like him or not. Transportation and improving the infrastructure is one of Biden's key initiatives.

1) The infrastructure is crumbling and needs to be addressed.
2) This is an excellent place for the Feds to pump money into a staggering economy.

Whatever you want to say about the guy, he's incredibly bright. He's also, as duff points out, a guy with executive experience which includes understanding, even in a small scale way, what it takes to (literally) keep the trains running.

I'm not some Mayor Pete mark, and took some shit early on when I criticized his pretty obvious careerist resume. But we could do a lot worse than this guy at Transportation. The usual alternative for this post is someone with annoying industry ties, or a person that literally has ZERO experience.

[mister d]

You bitch and moan who it shouldn't be, but never do you say who it should be. If there is someone better, put the name out there.

Any mayor of a city with multiple different local transit sources versus various bus routes would be more qualified. Any head of a major city's mass transit. Probably any of their direct reports. I imagine dozens of current or past dept of trans employees. Probably some people he knows at Amtrak. Johnnie.

[A_B]

Also, and this was mentioned I believe, so many of those "secondary" cabinet positions (I still consider State, Defense, Treasury, probably AG a cut above in terms of responsibility) are roles where you basically sign off on things that your subordinates are doing all the work on. So getting good people in those spots is jus as important. Then the secretary gets to meet with people all over and propose some ideas that might work, but then it goes to the others to figure out the ways to do it.

I don't think anyone expects Pete to be out pouring concrete for a new interstate in Arkansas.

[mister d]

Maybe just you?

image.png (185.92 KiB) Viewed 301 times

[Nonlinear FC]

Also, and this was mentioned I believe, so many of those "secondary" cabinet positions (I still consider State, Defense, Treasury, probably AG a cut above in terms of responsibility) are roles where you basically sign off on things that your subordinates are doing all the work on. So getting good people in those spots is jus as important. Then the secretary gets to meet with people all over and propose some ideas that might work, but then it goes to the others to figure out the ways to do it.

I don't think anyone expects Pete to be out pouring concrete for a new interstate in Arkansas.

I previously took a shot at his McKinsey background, but it's actually very good training to oversee large scale projects and initiatives. Higher level analysis on an often national/global scale.

Let's put it this way, we had a guy in the previous administration that was put in charge of DOE and had no idea it had anything to do with nuclear energy until someone tapped him on the shoulder and whispered in his ear. We're all still sitting here typing away, nothing cataclysmic happened.

I'm not saying cabinet positions don't matter, but as you say, most of these folks are relying heavily on career Feds with dozens of years of experience. They are going to carry out a vision, but that vision isn't just Mayor Pete scribbling on a whiteboard on his lonesome. It will be derived from experts in the field.

Also, just want to say, this whole - person drops out of race and endorses --> gets as cabinet position. Talk about a dog bites mine story. Tale as old as time.

[P.D.X.]

Also, just want to say, this whole - person drops out of race and endorses --> gets as cabinet position. Talk about a dog bites mine story. Tale as old as time.

We just keep forgetting that Biden isn't the radical government disruptor that he campaigned as. D is doing us a service.

[A_B]

Maybe just you?

image.png

Yes, when we have guys who have to wear visitor hats come to our sites, we usually let them run at least a few hundred tons of coal while they're there. Good point.

[mister d]

We just keep forgetting that Biden isn't the radical government disruptor that he campaigned as. D is doing us a service.

I was told you'd allow me to complain after I helped vote him in. I did my part.

[L-Jam3]

Also, just want to say, this whole - person drops out of race and endorses --> gets as cabinet position. Talk about a dog bites mine story. Tale as old as time.

Ouch. Did you need stitches? Does it still work?

[Nonlinear FC]

Also, just want to say, this whole - person drops out of race and endorses --> gets as cabinet position. Talk about a dog bites mine story. Tale as old as time.

Ouch. Did you need stitches? Does it still work?

I blame it on all of AB's coal bullshit.

[BSF21]

He's an up-and-coming star in the party, whether you like him or not. Transportation and improving the infrastructure is one of Biden's key initiatives.

1) The infrastructure is crumbling and needs to be addressed.
2) This is an excellent place for the Feds to pump money into a staggering economy.

Whatever you want to say about the guy, he's incredibly bright. He's also, as duff points out, a guy with executive experience which includes understanding, even in a small scale way, what it takes to (literally) keep the trains running.

I'm not some Mayor Pete mark, and took some shit early on when I criticized his pretty obvious careerist resume. But we could do a lot worse than this guy at Transportation. The usual alternative for this post is someone with annoying industry ties, or a person that literally has ZERO experience.

Someone has to explain to me how and when the narrative shifts from "under qualified" to "well qualified" to "well he's just a careerist"?

What the hell is a careerist? Someone who varies their knowledge in an attempt to gain better employment? We're demonizing that now, too?

Look I want to live in a better and less late-stage capitalism society too but some of these purity tests have got me puzzled. We're just finishing 4 years of people who have literally committed felonies getting installed in every position of government and now people are mad because South Bend Indiana isn't big enough. People seriously wonder why liberals suck in the midwest.

[Nonlinear FC]

I think that's totally valid, and I got hammered for ripping his McKinsey background when Mayor Pete first emerged. I think it's indicative of something we've talked a lot about on this board over the years, which is the Dems just eat their own almost as part of its DNA.

I think the issue is that politicians try to paint themselves (particularly their background) as some kind of heroic/patriotic/altruistic/whatever narrative. They want to package up what they've done so that they can be more marketable. So a guy like Pete comes along and he starts ticking off boxes... Which, as you say, is totally a reasonable thing to do... But it comes off as rather phony.

I've come around to... Who fucking cares, really? If you are competent AND you are rowing along in the same boat towards a common/shared goal, let's just get it done.

[Brontoburglar]

because a mayor as transportation secretary is like a doctor being put in charge of housing and urban development duh

[mister d]

He's not qualified and everyone jumping through hoops to defend the choice wouldn't do so if it were a Republican.

[Nonlinear FC]

No, that's your optics. Trump's cabinet was a specific "Fuck You" to anyone paying attention. Most every other administration has a number of Mayor Pete scenarios and it's just not that big of deal, regardless of party.

You have a very binary approach to a lot of things. That's not how I look at this, regardless of partisan politics.

[Steve of phpBB]

I think I could form a very strong argument that he’s less “civic minded” and more a careerist climber. Part of it hinges on him walking off an election where he has a solid position then getting a political role he has no experience in.

You keep saying he has no experience in. He managed what you call a 4th-rate city. That is something. He did better the infrastructure of that city. Want to know how i know? I work there. He may not be the best possible choice, but he is a pretty damn good choice.

You bitch and moan who it shouldn't be, but never do you say who it should be. If there is someone better, put the name out there. Oh no! This is terrible. The government is crumbling because someone was put in a position you don't think they deserve.

Plus, if you spend 8 years as mayor of a city that's a hub for nearly 800,000 people, you have transportation experience. You deal with DOT all the time, as well as dealing with local issues. Including roads and highways and transit.

And of course experience isn't everything, otherwise we'd just keep on the person who is already Secretary of Transportation. There's brains/talent. The willingness to learn. The willingness to hire experienced people and listen critically to them. The willingness to work hard to go a good job. Plus a set of ideological priors, i.e., beliefs about the importance of mass transit versus individual cars, cars vs bikes, etc.

This is the thing, though. Pete Buttigieg is not AOC, and he's not Bernie Sanders. So of course he's a bad pick under a certain mindset. Facts about actual experience and qualifications for the job don't really matter if you are driven by that mindset.

[mister d]

No, that's your optics. Trump's cabinet was a specific "Fuck You" to anyone paying attention. Most every other administration has a number of Mayor Pete scenarios and it's just not that big of deal, regardless of party.

You have a very binary approach to a lot of things. That's not how I look at this, regardless of partisan politics.

I posted a positive comment about another pick in this thread, probably on this page. The binary approach is "shut up this is actually good" no matter what Biden does, not saying some things are good and some things are bad.

[Nonlinear FC]

No, that's your optics. Trump's cabinet was a specific "Fuck You" to anyone paying attention. Most every other administration has a number of Mayor Pete scenarios and it's just not that big of deal, regardless of party.

You have a very binary approach to a lot of things. That's not how I look at this, regardless of partisan politics.

I posted a positive comment about another pick in this thread, probably on this page. The binary approach is "shut up this is actually good" no matter what Biden does, not saying some things are good and some things are bad.

I'm not telling you to shut-up, that's your take on debating this stuff.

[Brontoburglar]

He's not qualified and everyone jumping through hoops to defend the choice wouldn't do so if it were a Republican.

flipside, no one would be criticizing it either because of where it ranks on the give a shit scale and it's only a "thing" because of PB's profile

it's barely a blip if it's a mayor of a similarly-sized city that didn't run for president

[The Sybian]

No, that's your optics. Trump's cabinet was a specific "Fuck You" to anyone paying attention. Most every other administration has a number of Mayor Pete scenarios and it's just not that big of deal, regardless of party.

You have a very binary approach to a lot of things. That's not how I look at this, regardless of partisan politics.

I posted a positive comment about another pick in this thread, probably on this page. The binary approach is "shut up this is actually good" no matter what Biden does, not saying some things are good and some things are bad.

From my perspective, we are in a restaurant that is engulfed in flames, and you are complaining that they didn't add enough salt in the soup.