HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » It would be nice for the ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:09 AM

It would be nice for the White House not to set trial balloons and let presumed nominee dangle

First Susan Rice and now Chuck Hagel. Neither was officially nominated for the proposed posts, but the hints got opponents to attack and the nominees helpless in responding since, well, they have yet to be nominated.

Dear Mr. President: make up your mind and nominate, or not. This is not fair.

11 replies, 1243 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply It would be nice for the White House not to set trial balloons and let presumed nominee dangle (Original post)
question everything Dec 2012 OP
exboyfil Dec 2012 #1
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #2
BigDemVoter Dec 2012 #3
musiclawyer Dec 2012 #4
GoCubsGo Dec 2012 #6
question everything Dec 2012 #7
karynnj Dec 2012 #8
MjolnirTime Dec 2012 #5
karynnj Dec 2012 #9
TeamPooka Dec 2012 #10
question everything Dec 2012 #11

Response to question everything (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:16 AM

1. I agree totally

If I was on a list of prospective nominees, I would tell the President no thank you.

It sends a horrible message. It is basically using up capable people as cannon fodder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:28 AM

2. It's a crappy way to treat people. I feel that Susan Rice is now

the official "person to blame" for Benghazi as far as the low-info public is concerned, and she had nothing to do with it. And she can do nothing publicly to repair that. They should have let her go forward to a nomination hearing, in which case she could present and defend her record, even if she fails to get the votes. Same with Hagel--he's a big boy, let him defend himself against bogus charges of anti-Semitism and defend his apparently "too-peace-loving" record in public hearings. Edit to add: Obama is way too risk and conflict-averse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:31 AM

3. Agreed. The POTUS could do a better job of standing up for his nominees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:10 PM

4. I disagree

Trial balloons are put out there for a reason
We learn that Rice is compromised because of her investments and Hagel is a homophobe .. And POTUS did stand up for Rice. He refused to fight when he learned she was not squeaky clean. Libya was not the issue. Besides I am categorically opposed to having any republicans in a democratic president's cabinet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musiclawyer (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:37 PM

6. So do I.

It may or may not be "fair" to these supposed nominees. But, it is more than fair to the people of this country. I would prefer the President take all the time he needs, and make sure he chooses the right person for the job--without having to rush his decision merely to keep his nominee from being subjected to more poo-flinging. Both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have to deal with shit that's way worse than what McCain and his ilk are dishing out here. If these people can't handle it, then I sure as hell don't want them dealing with the likes of Netanyahoo, Putin, al-Assad...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musiclawyer (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:49 PM

7. Then quietly vet them. Why let others do this for you?

As for Republicans - he had Gates as his first Secretary of State and Ray Lahood as Secretary of Transportation. And there was another senator - cannot remember his name now. I think that he wanted him to head the commerce dept. but he (the Republican) declined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:50 PM

8. I think the Republican for Commerce was Judd Gregg of NH after Richardson was found to have

too much baggage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:23 PM

5. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Use your imagination for something worthwhile.

 

Why waste it making up things about the White House?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:05 PM

9. I don't see you protesting the posts that take the MEDIA rumors at face value

I don't think we know anything on Secretary of State other than that the only two people seriously considered and vetted were Kerry and Rice. I think it also safe to say that where Kerry, per several articles, asked his supporters to not lobby on his behalf, Rice actively had her proponents do so. I suspect that this difference had no impact - Obama knew what each brought to the job and it was his choice.

I do think that one thing that the media never suggested was that perhaps putting Rice in the position of being on those 5 talk shows was to some degree a "test". A more political person, such as Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, could have navigated the hearings by staying within what was known. (If you think this unfair, I remind you that there have been 10s of things the media called "tests" for the 2004 Presidential nominee with a far higher political and even international profile.)

I think that Obama's defense of Rice was something that ANY high level official should get against unfair charges. Each time, he took pains to say both that this would not stop him AND tha he had not made his choice.

I have MORE problems with the WP using the criticism to say that IF Obama did not then nominate her, the person they had blatantly favored for the nomination, it sent a message that he was weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:12 PM

10. every administration floats triial balloons. Get over it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:37 PM

11. Examples, please?

and I will politely decline your offensive suggestion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread