4 ms·
He's picked 3 out of 15, it's a little early to be so confident about your opinion. Or that he'll run a Cabinet based government vs. e.g. something more in the
by hga 10y ago
He's picked 3 out of 15, it's a little early to be so confident about your opinion. Or that he'll run a Cabinet based government vs. e.g. something more in the direction of what Obama did. Or that he won't "fire fast" if they don't perform or fulfill whatever promises he made to them, as Chris Christie found out. This is, after all, the guy who won the election because he went through 3 campaign managers, not despite it.
And Sessions may be a "dyed-in-the-wool Republican insider", more specifically a de jure member of the establishment, but his positions on immigration put him well outside of the de facto establishment.
I'd never even heard of Wilbur Ross before he was picked, he's not a notable "dyed-in-the-wool Republican insider", in fact, being "a trustee of the Brookings Institution" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/24/trump-expected-to-tap-billionaire-investor-wilbur-ross-for-commerce-secretary/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/24/...) makes him anything but that. Heck, per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Ross#Political_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Ross#Political_activiti...):
Ross served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund, and later, under New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as the Mayor's privatization advisor. In January 1998 he put $2.25 million in seed money into McCaughey Ross's campaign.[citation needed, and I add she is a Republican, but obviously of the NY variety] Although he was an early supporter of Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign, Ross in earlier years was a registered Democrat, served as an officer of the New York State Democratic Party and held fundraisers for Democratic candidates at his apartment in New York City.
It is absolutely, totally, and completely wrong to claim he is a "dyed-in-the-wool Republican insider".
His Education Secretary pick is a Common Core fan, that's enough for me (as in, not in a good way at all), but see my other comment about the current state of US K-12 public education. On the other hand, she seems best known for pushing private school vouchers (another bad idea, he who pays the piper picks the tune), but that's definitely not a partisan issue, plenty of Democrats are for it.
- vkou 10y agoJust because some of their positions put them outside the current political orthodoxy doesn't mean they are not well within the orthodox power structure. The Tea Party was a fringe 'grassroots' movement a few years ago - also intended to clean up government. Once it got elected, it was back to the same old GOP, just with a refreshed mandate for 'no new taxes ever'.
- hga 10y agoThe real Tea Party was enthusiastically suppressed by the full establishment, and the IRS's part of that continues to this very day, it's been slapped down in the courts in a ruling within the last few weeks. Establishment politicians claiming the mantle of the Tea Party used that to get elected in the notable 2010-14 elections, and you're shocked, shocked that professional politicians lied? Quelle horreur! And didn't notice that when presented with such blatant betrayal, the Republican base picked a non-professional politician as its Presidential nominee, who ran on a non-establishment platform, in the face of a near total revolt of the GOPe outside of Reince Priebus and enough of the RNC, and, you know, won the election? Let me turn this around: who specifically would you recommend as being outside of the "orthodox power structure" for his cabinet picks? Heck, is Trump, according to you, by definition part of the "orthodox power structure"? Did getting elected President make him so, if not earlier? Just what are you asking for?
- vkou 10y agoAnd yet, despite the rejection of establishment politics by the electorate, these establishment politicians keep getting re-elected. This election, neo-liberalism was what was rejected - not the establishment. > Heck, is Trump, according to you, by definition part of the "orthodox power structure"? That power structure was created to serve the interests of people like him. How could he not be? He's a well-connected, politically-vocal billionaire, who is not at all squeamish about being surrounded by the perception of corruption and impropriety - and he hasn't even taken office yet. How on Earth could we expect anything better when he will? People keep saying he is not a politician - but that is only true in the sense that he hasn't held public office. Neither has Newt Gingrich (For the past 16 years).
- dragonwriter 10y ago> The Tea Party was a fringe 'grassroots' movement a few years ago - also intended to clean up government. The Tea Party was Koch-funded astroturf.
- hga 10y ago