Preparing for the Presidency.. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Jinn · 10-09-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

As the 2008 campaign nears its conclusion, the presidential transition efforts of the two major candidates have become a study in contrasts: Sen. Barack Obama has organized an elaborate well-staffed network to prepare for his possible ascension to the White House, while Sen. John McCain has all but put off such work until after the election.

Quote:

Governance scholars consider the process invaluable, particularly as the nation struggles with a major economic crisis, two active wars, and a range of domestic security threats. "Our enemies understand how potentially vulnerable we are in the transition from one administration to the next," Clay Johnson III, former Executive Director of the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition, said recently at a forum on transition planning. "This is something we need to be very, very seriously prepared for."

Quote:

With 100 or so days before the next president takes office, Obama's transition effort has been organized into roughly a dozen teams of six to eight people to plot out the approach for each agency, according to a Democratic official. The ethics code governing the process prohibits staff from working on subjects that could be deemed a financial conflict of interests, either to that member or that member's family.

Quote:

John McCain, by contrast, has done little. Campaign spokespersons did not respond to requests for elaboration. But one official with direct knowledge, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, expressed concern with McCain's approach. The Arizona Senator has instructed his team to not spend time on the transition effort, according to the source, both out of a desire to have complete focus on winning the election as well as a superstitious belief that the campaign shouldn't put the cart before the horse.

Excepted from Obama, McCain Transition Efforts Are Worlds Apart

Do you think designing the transition time this early is presumptuous of Obama? Do you think McCain's failure to do so yet is a sign of a candidate simply determined to win?

I personally think that Obama's planning this early is only a sign of his personality, and a sign of a person I want to be as President. I think McCain failing to plan much (if any) of it is a real sign of a person who either thinks they're not going to win or someone who really doesn't care about the Presidency inasmuch as he cares about winning at all costs.

Willravel · 10-09-2008, 11:56 AM

I'd hate to be caught with my pants down when becoming president. It's pragmatism, not presumptuousness.

McCain has more immediate problems to deal with.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 12:05 PM

It is possible to prepare and to be prepared without making your effort public. I don't think Obama's efforts are meaningful one way or the other, but it will impress some in terms of him coming across as thoughtful and distress others given the presumptuous nature of making his plans public. I am a cynic and think he is doing it to impress people. He is currently on "cruise control" in this election, intent on not making any mistakes, I generally don't like that strategy. I would rather see people putting it all on the line until the very end.

kurty[B] · 10-09-2008, 12:38 PM

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but why would McCain need a transitional team? To me, wouldn't we just have more of the same if he takes over as president as we've had under Bush?

I agree with ace, that Obama is probably setting up his team in part as a show. But I'd rather have a president who is getting ready to be president, then a president who is hell bent on repititiously name-calling (both to the other party, and to himself).

dc_dux · 10-09-2008, 01:21 PM

I think this is about the time (a month before the election) many candidates in the past would start to put transition teams in place....and it doesnt take anything away from the day-to-day campaigning.

I dont see why it is a show at all. We're talking about installing a new government and something like 7,000 political appointments to be made as well as setting policy goals and objectives for the numerous agencies in the executive branch.

For me, its another sign that Obama is demonstrating effective leadership.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurty[B]

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but why would McCain need a transitional team? To me, wouldn't we just have more of the same if he takes over as president as we've had under Bush?

I agree with ace, that Obama is probably setting up his team in part as a show. But I'd rather have a president who is getting ready to be president, then a president who is hell bent on repititiously name-calling (both to the other party, and to himself).

Yea, Obama needs to do all he can to "look" Presidential given his lack of substance, values and principles. I doubt McCain feels the need for on-the -job training and could step into the role without an army of transition people.

Just as an example - Obama is going to make us "respected" again around the world, after we become "respected" what is going to be different? Is it that when we go visit France, they will laugh harder at our jokes?

Obama won't be much different than Bush either, if you think he will be...what can I say. Have you noticed lately the frequency at which Obama has been saying he agrees with McCain - does that disturb you?

dc_dux · 10-09-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....I doubt McCain feels the need for on-the -job training and could step into the role without an army of transition people.

ace....you really think "stepping into the role without a large transition effort" is good management?

It would certainly be a first!

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

For me, its another sign that Obama is demonstrating effective leadership.

A better sign would be Obama answering the dangling question regarding when he has ever taken a stand against his party or a non-populist position? Or a stand for anything? I am not forgetting that letter he wrote warning us all about this current economic crisis, but as a US Senator...oh never mind, I am making another unfair attack and it is outside the scope of the thread. Please forgive me.

dc_dux · 10-09-2008, 01:35 PM

Nice dodge. ace!

Did you read the OP...do you understand the question is about transition planning?

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....you really think "stepping into the role without a large transition effort" is good management?

It would certainly be a first!

Depends. If one is prepared, wasteful added preparation is poor management. If one needs preparation, preparation may be good management assuming focus is not taken away from the efforts to actually get elected.

dc_dux · 10-09-2008, 01:39 PM

ace...Do you think McCain is prepared to appoint 7,000 people ....provide written agency policy guidelines and goals...without a large transition team?

Hell, even sitting VPs who go on to win the WH know better than that.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Nice dodge. ace!

Did you read the OP...do you understand the question is about transition planning?

Yes. In my original post on the subject I gave my opinion, since I have been taking unreasonable shots at Obama. But, I think I started after reading a shot taken against McCain, and then there is of course the Obama show leadership but McCain doesn't thing. I do understand that my shots are unfair and the others are o.k.

dc_dux · 10-09-2008, 01:42 PM

ace...I get it.

The "he did it first" defense!

But oddly enough, I cant find any post is this discussion that characterized McCain as lacking substance, values and principles

aceventura3 · 10-09-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...Do oou think McCain is prepared to appoint 7,000 people ....provide written agency policy guidelines and goals...without a large transition team?

Hell, even sitting VPs who go on to win the WH know better than that.

A President is not going to individually appoint 7,000 people. A person who has been a Washington insider for as long as McCain would know or have a short list of his/her highest level appointments.
-----Added 9/10/2008 at 05 : 44 : 09-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...I get it.

The "he did it first" defense!

I try my best to be honest. I was not defending my actions, I described them. there is a difference.

dc_dux · 10-09-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

A President is not going to individually appoint 7,000 people. A person who has been a Washington insider for as long as McCain would know or have a short list of his/her highest level appointments.

ace...there is much more to a transition than simply appointing the highest level people.

The idea is to be able to be "up and running" asap after the inauguration with people (at the highest 3-4 levels) and general policy guideline in place across the dozens of departments/agencies in the executive branch.

That takes time...not simply being a Washington insider.

filtherton · 10-09-2008, 02:26 PM

I think that McCain probably has it all figured out, he just doesn't want to telegraph his punches.

Paq · 10-10-2008, 08:20 AM

well, from what i know of elitists...they tend to be very organized. Also, nominees in the past tend to put together transition teams about this time...generally for the reasons stated above.

Mccain's transition:"hey, y'all just stay where you are where you've been doing such a fab job"

obama's transition; "hey, y'all get the f((k out"

and that's change i can believe in

Derwood · 10-10-2008, 08:45 AM

at this point, a transition effort would be a waste of time for McCain. He's losing, and the gap is widening daily.

Paq · 10-10-2008, 09:17 AM

but derwood, fox news even said it best, "Yea, the people 'liked' obama better..but all that matters is who they really vote for.." i mean, clearly they will vote for mccain. heck, even the fox news poll right after the debate had 86% of respondents saying mccain won...

i still get the feeling we'll be introducing president mccain...seriously, i don't know why

ottopilot · 10-10-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'd hate to be caught with my pants down when becoming president.

Yes... the Bill Clinton model of pants down after elected is a time proven strategy.

Paq · 10-10-2008, 11:53 AM

i'd rather have clinton in office than bush: at least clinton only fucked the interns

roachboy · 10-10-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Yes... the Bill Clinton model of pants down after elected is a time proven strategy.

see, otto, this is the kind of thing that encourages people like me to confuse you with a run-of-the-mill conservative who listens to limbaugh without laughing and watches fox news and maybe reads the national review on occasion.

i would think planning for the transition a wise idea--there's no particular reason to leave appointments dangling, particularly not if there's a reasonable expectation that the economic shit will still be hitting fans in various sectors in january. in fact, given that assumption, it's probably a really *bad* idea not to be planning for it if you have any expectation of actually being president.

personally, when i am preparing to be president of the united states, i generally put on a smoking jacket that makes me look like a curious formation covered in wallpaper with a head tacked on top, don an ascot, pour myself a large glass of scotch, sit in a chair with a bearskin rug nearby, put a cigarette in my unnecessarily long cigarette holder and look dreamily off to the left.

aceventura3 · 10-10-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...there is much more to a transition than simply appointing the highest level people.

The idea is to be able to be "up and running" asap after the inauguration with people (at the highest 3-4 levels) and general policy guideline in place across the dozens of departments/agencies in the executive branch.

That takes time...not simply being a Washington insider.

I don't underestimate the task or the prep work required, I just don't think one person starting the process in October would have a material head start or advantage compared to another who starts the process in November. I also believe people with a track record and is known will have an advantage over a person without a track record and is still unknown. For example - McCain has worked with thousands of people over the years in Washington, they know him and he knows them. McCain has a reputation, people interested in working in his administration would know what to expect. A relative new person or an outsider would have more work to do based on that fact alone.

dc_dux · 10-10-2008, 01:26 PM

ace..I would suggest that McCain only has an advantage if he intends to keep many Bush political appointees (particularly at the sub-cabinet level) and intends to have similar policy goals for the numerous departments/agencies.

Otherwise, I dont see the head start. The process is long and cumbersome....vetting thousands of appointees, holding security briefings for many, training on general personnel guidelines for most, setting agency agendas, etc.

But what I disagree with most in your initial reaction was the suggestion that Obama was doing it "to impress people"....but you're entitled to your opinion. IMO, the fact, that by most accounts, Obama's transition plans are farther along than McCain sounds like a more thoughtful, deliberative approach.

BTW, Bush announced his transition council today.....to impress people?

Yakk · 10-10-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

A better sign would be Obama answering the dangling question regarding when he has ever taken a stand against his party or a non-populist position? Or a stand for anything? I am not forgetting that letter he wrote warning us all about this current economic crisis, but as a US Senator...oh never mind, I am making another unfair attack and it is outside the scope of the thread. Please forgive me.

If that was an on-topic, honest question, I'd point out that voting against the (at the time) very popular "go to war in Iraq" was done by Obama at the very start.

In that case, 29 out of the 50 Senate Democrats voted for it, and it was an extremely popular measure at the time. As it happens, it gave the permission to use force to a President who was prepared to go to war based on lies and deception.

And Obama is pretty open about making that vote.

dc_dux · 10-10-2008, 01:54 PM

I can think of one very good reason why McCain has been less forthcoming on his transition team....

...if it is anything like his current campaign strategy/communications team:

Seems Like Old Times
Many of the people running John McCain's campaign are veterans of George W. Bush's campaigns and the Bush White House.

Yep...."seems like old times" indeed.

Hell, I wouldnt announce it if that were the case.

filtherton · 10-10-2008, 03:48 PM

That explains a lot about Palin's campaigning tactics.

girldetective · 10-10-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

aceventura3 said : Just as an example - Obama is going to make us "respected" again around the world, after we become "respected" what is going to be different? Is it that when we go visit France, they will laugh harder at our jokes?

Being respected in the world is a big deal, being able to work and talk with other nations, the World Bank, and so forth. To be trusted and taken seriously in the sciences and education, and so forth. I believe Obama will add to what trust is left. In fact, other nations are excited to see him elected.

aceventura3 · 10-11-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

If that was an on-topic, honest question, I'd point out that voting against the (at the time) very popular "go to war in Iraq" was done by Obama at the very start.

Obama did not vote against the resolution to use military force against Iraq. The bill was passed October 2002. Obama was elected to the US Senate in 2004. Also, I would add that many Democrats who voted for the resolution were against it as soon as Bush used the unconditional authority given to the President. I don't know when Obama first made his views public, but I would bet it was after other Democrats made their views know.

I stand by my view, Obama has never really lead on any issue and he would never risk taking an non-populist position. If that is what you want in our next President, that is what we are going to get in Obama.
-----Added 11/10/2008 at 05 : 36 : 33-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by girldetective

Being respected in the world is a big deal, being able to work and talk with other nations, the World Bank, and so forth. To be trusted and taken seriously in the sciences and education, and so forth. I believe Obama will add to what trust is left. In fact, other nations are excited to see him elected.

Being "respected" is ambiguous, it has no meaning, it has no measure, it is not something you do - it happens as a result of long standing patterns of behavior, it is basically an empty campaign phrase. Obama's speeches are full of this kind of stuff.

If we want "respect" one thing we do is earn it through fulfilling our commitments. we made a commitment to Iraq if we let them fail how does that move us closer to his goal of being "respected". Personally, I think some nations want (pardon my French) to screw us up the a$$, and because we say no, then they say they don't "respect" us until we do what they want. If that is the kind of "respect" Obama wants he can have it, I don't accept that.
-----Added 11/10/2008 at 05 : 42 : 45-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I can think of one very good reason why McCain has been less forthcoming on his transition team....

...if it is anything like his current campaign strategy/communications team:

It is funny, when McCain was a darling of the media, a victim of Bush (Rove), being a maverick taking middle of the road positions (remember his immigration plan or amnesty as everyone on the right called it?), he was loved by you folks on the left. Now, he is closer to Bush than Bush was to his own father.

The strange thing about this is I don't know what is worse, how quickly the left turned on McCain or if they just forgot. Which is it?

Paq · 10-11-2008, 02:44 PM

ace, i know this is going to fall on deaf ears, but

mccain 2000: loved by the left/centrists

mccain 2008: proven time and again to 1, follow bush, 2, do whatever it takes to win he campaign: therefore..people like tully and me are left standing going "what the hell happened to the mccain i would have voted for.." he went from the "i railed against my party to the "I endorse gw bush, i endorse bush i endorse bush" bush hugging, votes in agreement 70-95% of the time (depending on the year, but lowest n the last 8 yrs is 70%, still well over my tastes).

So there is a following and rationale for the left dropping mccain so quickly.

dc_dux · 10-11-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It is funny, when McCain was a darling of the media, a victim of Bush (Rove), being a maverick taking middle of the road positions (remember his immigration plan or amnesty as everyone on the right called it?), he was loved by you folks on the left. Now, he is closer to Bush than Bush was to his own father.

The strange thing about this is I don't know what is worse, how quickly the left turned on McCain or if they just forgot. Which is it?

Perhaps no one turned on McCain....and it was he who did the turning.

One only need to look at changing positions on Bush tax cuts, immigration, torture, abortion, etc in order to appease the base of the Republican party.

I guess you dont see anything unusual, or any character issues, about a candidate who condemned the vicious lies and attack tactics of his primary opponent one year then turning and hiring that same attack team for his next campaign.

And I must have missed when he was "loved by us folks on the left"...at least outside of the media.

MoonDog · 10-12-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

STUFF...

BTW, Bush announced his transition council today.....to impress people?

I would suggest that any sitting US President would begin transition efforts because it is their DUTY to do so. The fact that it is happening earlier than ever before is, in my opionion, due to combat in two different countries and the economic crisis facing our nation. Whatever the reason, it seems like a fair, well-reasoned effort to aid WHICHEVER candidate happens to win the White House.

Your "question" about the administration announcing this effort to "impress people", is disingenuous, and appears to be stated more for the opportunity to score a sarcastic point against Ace than advance discussion.

I've studiously avoided this section, as well as TFP Politics, for quite some time, as it seemed people were more interested in wounding their adversaries than having open discussions. Glad to see that human nature fails to disappoint me again.

dc_dux · 10-12-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

I would suggest that any sitting US President would begin transition efforts because it is their DUTY to do so. The fact that it is happening earlier than ever before is, in my opionion, due to combat in two different countries and the economic crisis facing our nation. Whatever the reason, it seems like a fair, well-reasoned effort to aid WHICHEVER candidate happens to win the White House.

Your "question" about the administration announcing this effort to "impress people", is disingenuous, and appears to be stated more for the opportunity to score a sarcastic point against Ace than advance discussion.

I've studiously avoided this section, as well as TFP Politics, for quite some time, as it seemed people were more interested in wounding their adversaries than having open discussions. Glad to see that human nature fails to disappoint me again.

Moondog....IMO, ace's comment about Obama's more comprehensive transition planning being "to impress people" was disingenuous.

I tried to explain why I thought Obama's plans were more thoughtful and deliberative....in part because of the same reasons you attribute to Bush...two wars and an economic crisis. Ace suggested it was for show.

I want the next president to be up and running at as close to full speed as possible on Jan 20.

If you see it differently..thats cool!

aceventura3 · 10-13-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Perhaps no one turned on McCain....and it was he who did the turning.

That is why I never liked McCain. He currently has two things going for him. One - he is running against Obama. Two - He picked Palin, a future leader of the party in my view. I thought the reason the left loved McCain was because of his turns, especially when he turned against the party. He has a history of turning, but now the left thinks he is a rubber stamp of Bush - that is fantasy. But it is working for you folks, to bad it is not truth.
-----Added 13/10/2008 at 01 : 12 : 31-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Moondog....IMO, ace's comment about Obama's more comprehensive transition planning being "to impress people" was disingenuous.

How dare I say something negative about Obama? Please forgive me.

Quote:

I tried to explain why I thought Obama's plans were more thoughtful and deliberative....in part because of the same reasons you attribute to Bush...two wars and an economic crisis. Ace suggested it was for show.

Let's be clear. One can prepare, without making public pronouncements. And, one can be prepared because they have been giving it thought for years. When I issue press releases I do it for one reason, publicity. You need publicity to make money or in the case of politicians, to get votes.

Quote:

I want the next president to be up and running at as close to full speed as possible on Jan 20.

If you see it differently..thats cool!

No one sees it different. But understand that Obama is running for President, trying to get votes, why is it so extreme that he might do things like announce a transition team to get votes? How long have you been in Washington?

dc_dux · 10-13-2008, 09:59 AM

ace...you know what....people can read the thread and decide for themselves.
-----Added 13/10/2008 at 02 : 22 : 23-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

He picked Palin, a future leader of the party in my view.

ace...i do agree that Palin is attempting to position herself as the future standard bearer for the party. That works for me!

IMO, the result will most likely be a further exodus of many more than have already abandoned the party over the last few years.

Derwood · 10-13-2008, 11:25 AM

If Palin became the "face" of the GOP for the future, the Democrats will be dancing in the streets

Yakk · 10-14-2008, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

That is why I never liked McCain. He currently has two things going for him. One - he is running against Obama. Two - He picked Palin, a future leader of the party in my view. I thought the reason the left loved McCain was because of his turns, especially when he turned against the party. He has a history of turning, but now the left thinks he is a rubber stamp of Bush - that is fantasy. But it is working for you folks, to bad it is not truth.

See, I don't know if I should cha-cha to "Pallin, the extreme right-wing social conservative" as the future of the self-immiolation of the far-right in the USA...

Or shiver, at the possibility of someone who would encourage crowds to yell "kill him", and "terrorist" about her opponent, in a position of power while having the time of her life.

The republican party tried to coopt the racists in the southern strategy of the 70s, then the dominionists in the culture wars of the 80s and 90s. In both cases, it poisoned the party -- although it did grant them periods of electoral success. (Coopting the racist dixiecrat wing of the democratic party (southern strategy), and then catering to dominionists, was a quite effective way to get a strong base of votes).

My general advice for most nations on the earth looking at the possibility of a Republican presidency: start working on your nuclear weapons programs.

smooth · 10-14-2008, 07:59 AM

it doesn't look like you read the article or even the starting post's quotes, ace, because I don't see any mention of any public statements from the Obama campaign.
it looks like the teams were interviewed about the state of their transition teams and Obama's looked like it was under way and McCain was directing his team to not plan ahead. unless we don't believe the source, then there isn't an argument to be made that he's organizing under the radar regardless of the other stuff.

aceventura3 · 10-14-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

it doesn't look like you read the article or even the starting post's quotes, ace, because I don't see any mention of any public statements from the Obama campaign.
it looks like the teams were interviewed about the state of their transition teams and Obama's looked like it was under way and McCain was directing his team to not plan ahead. unless we don't believe the source, then there isn't an argument to be made that he's organizing under the radar regardless of the other stuff.

Sorry, I don't believe a professionally run campaign would disclosed that kind of information un-planned. Do you?

dc_dux · 10-14-2008, 12:45 PM

I wonder how McCain will explain his transition chief?

Or how long he will last in that position:

Quote:

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.

...

Timmons declined to comment for this story. An office manager who works for him said that he has made it his practice during his public career to never speak to the press. Timmons previously told investigators that he did not know that either Vincent or Park were acting as unregistered agents of Iraq. He also insisted that he did not fully understand just how closely the two men were tied to Saddam's regime while they collaborated.

But testimony and records made public during Park's criminal trial, as well as other information uncovered during a United Nations investigation, suggest just the opposite. Virtually everything Timmons did while working on the lobbying campaign was within days conveyed by Vincent to either one or both of Saddam Hussein's top aides, Tariq Aziz and Nizar Hamdoon. Vincent also testified that he almost always relayed input from the Iraqi aides back to Timmons.

McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort

10-09-2008, 12:05 PM	#3 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	It is possible to prepare and to be prepared without making your effort public. I don't think Obama's efforts are meaningful one way or the other, but it will impress some in terms of him coming across as thoughtful and distress others given the presumptuous nature of making his plans public. I am a cynic and think he is doing it to impress people. He is currently on "cruise control" in this election, intent on not making any mistakes, I generally don't like that strategy. I would rather see people putting it all on the line until the very end. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

10-09-2008, 12:38 PM	#4 (permalink)
kurty[B] Sauce Puppet	Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but why would McCain need a transitional team? To me, wouldn't we just have more of the same if he takes over as president as we've had under Bush? I agree with ace, that Obama is probably setting up his team in part as a show. But I'd rather have a president who is getting ready to be president, then a president who is hell bent on repititiously name-calling (both to the other party, and to himself). __________________ In the Absence of Information People Make Things Up. Last edited by kurty[B]; 10-09-2008 at 12:41 PM.. Reason: Typos

10-09-2008, 01:21 PM	#5 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think this is about the time (a month before the election) many candidates in the past would start to put transition teams in place....and it doesnt take anything away from the day-to-day campaigning. I dont see why it is a show at all. We're talking about installing a new government and something like 7,000 political appointments to be made as well as setting policy goals and objectives for the numerous agencies in the executive branch. For me, its another sign that Obama is demonstrating effective leadership. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-09-2008, 01:35 PM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Nice dodge. ace! Did you read the OP...do you understand the question is about transition planning? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-09-2008, 01:39 PM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...Do you think McCain is prepared to appoint 7,000 people ....provide written agency policy guidelines and goals...without a large transition team? Hell, even sitting VPs who go on to win the WH know better than that. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-09-2008 at 01:41 PM..

10-09-2008, 11:56 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'd hate to be caught with my pants down when becoming president. It's pragmatism, not presumptuousness. McCain has more immediate problems to deal with.

10-09-2008, 01:42 PM	#13 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...I get it. The "he did it first" defense! But oddly enough, I cant find any post is this discussion that characterized McCain as lacking substance, values and principles __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-09-2008 at 01:45 PM..

10-09-2008, 02:26 PM	#16 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think that McCain probably has it all figured out, he just doesn't want to telegraph his punches.

10-10-2008, 08:20 AM	#17 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	well, from what i know of elitists...they tend to be very organized. Also, nominees in the past tend to put together transition teams about this time...generally for the reasons stated above. Mccain's transition:"hey, y'all just stay where you are where you've been doing such a fab job" obama's transition; "hey, y'all get the f((k out" and that's change i can believe in __________________ Live. Chris

10-10-2008, 08:45 AM	#18 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	at this point, a transition effort would be a waste of time for McCain. He's losing, and the gap is widening daily.

10-10-2008, 09:17 AM	#19 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	but derwood, fox news even said it best, "Yea, the people 'liked' obama better..but all that matters is who they really vote for.." i mean, clearly they will vote for mccain. heck, even the fox news poll right after the debate had 86% of respondents saying mccain won... i still get the feeling we'll be introducing president mccain...seriously, i don't know why __________________ Live. Chris

10-10-2008, 11:53 AM	#21 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i'd rather have clinton in office than bush: at least clinton only fucked the interns __________________ Live. Chris

10-10-2008, 01:26 PM	#24 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace..I would suggest that McCain only has an advantage if he intends to keep many Bush political appointees (particularly at the sub-cabinet level) and intends to have similar policy goals for the numerous departments/agencies. Otherwise, I dont see the head start. The process is long and cumbersome....vetting thousands of appointees, holding security briefings for many, training on general personnel guidelines for most, setting agency agendas, etc. But what I disagree with most in your initial reaction was the suggestion that Obama was doing it "to impress people"....but you're entitled to your opinion. IMO, the fact, that by most accounts, Obama's transition plans are farther along than McCain sounds like a more thoughtful, deliberative approach. BTW, Bush announced his transition council today.....to impress people? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-10-2008 at 01:28 PM..

10-10-2008, 01:54 PM	#26 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I can think of one very good reason why McCain has been less forthcoming on his transition team.... ...if it is anything like his current campaign strategy/communications team: Seems Like Old Times Many of the people running John McCain's campaign are veterans of George W. Bush's campaigns and the Bush White House. Yep...."seems like old times" indeed. Hell, I wouldnt announce it if that were the case. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-10-2008 at 01:57 PM..

10-10-2008, 03:48 PM	#27 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	That explains a lot about Palin's campaigning tactics.

10-11-2008, 02:44 PM	#30 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	ace, i know this is going to fall on deaf ears, but mccain 2000: loved by the left/centrists mccain 2008: proven time and again to 1, follow bush, 2, do whatever it takes to win he campaign: therefore..people like tully and me are left standing going "what the hell happened to the mccain i would have voted for.." he went from the "i railed against my party to the "I endorse gw bush, i endorse bush i endorse bush" bush hugging, votes in agreement 70-95% of the time (depending on the year, but lowest n the last 8 yrs is 70%, still well over my tastes). So there is a following and rationale for the left dropping mccain so quickly. __________________ Live. Chris

10-13-2008, 11:25 AM	#36 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	If Palin became the "face" of the GOP for the future, the Democrats will be dancing in the streets

10-14-2008, 07:59 AM	#38 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	it doesn't look like you read the article or even the starting post's quotes, ace, because I don't see any mention of any public statements from the Obama campaign. it looks like the teams were interviewed about the state of their transition teams and Obama's looked like it was under way and McCain was directing his team to not plan ahead. unless we don't believe the source, then there isn't an argument to be made that he's organizing under the radar regardless of the other stuff. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman