Picking Biden's Cabinet

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

This is a larger problem with society. 

I wouldn't. Maybe in 10 years, but not next month. 

Yeah, fair enough on both points.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I wonder if there is some kind of old guard Dem instinct to devour their young, steer promising local leaders into dead-end jobs.

It is indeed rather criminally negligent - at best - that the congressional leadership including all of Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer, Durbin, Clyburn and Murray has done so little to foster the next generation.  For over a decade now.  While I've been holding my fire on Biden's cabinet until the last six posts are announced, it's also glaring how old and retread-y its overall composition is as well.  That's definitely my biggest, and almost only, complaint about the team he's put together.  Lance Bottoms is a rising star.  If you want to encourage her progress - which he should if only due to her early and steadfast support - you don't offer her SBA.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

It is indeed rather criminally negligent - at best - that the congressional leadership including all of Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer, Durbin, Clyburn and Murray has done so little to foster the next generation.  For over a decade now.  While I've been holding my fire on Biden's cabinet until the last six posts are announced, it's also glaring how old and retread-y its overall composition is as well.  That's definitely my biggest, and almost only, complaint about the team he's put together.  Lance Bottoms is a rising star.  If you want to encourage her progress - which he should if only due to her early and steadfast support - you don't offer her SBA.

They've actively kept the next generation down. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They've actively kept the next generation down. 

Thanks captain obvious, that's what I was saying.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Thanks captain obvious, that's what I was saying.

Say it with some teeth next time. 

[maarsen]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

It is indeed rather criminally negligent - at best - that the congressional leadership including all of Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer, Durbin, Clyburn and Murray has done so little to foster the next generation.  For over a decade now.  While I've been holding my fire on Biden's cabinet until the last six posts are announced, it's also glaring how old and retread-y its overall composition is as well.  That's definitely my biggest, and almost only, complaint about the team he's put together.  Lance Bottoms is a rising star.  If you want to encourage her progress - which he should if only due to her early and steadfast support - you don't offer her SBA.

All organizations do this. Be ever so thankful the Republican party excels at this too. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 12/19/2020 at 8:28 AM, shortstark said:

"Against their will" 

Has there ever been a willing castrati? 

Was also that dude always looking for fantasy series ideas writing about the ninja castratis in the Lit Forum 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, maarsen said:

All organizations do this.

First, not really, or at least not to this extent.  The leadership of organizations generally aren't all in their 70s and even 80s now.  I mean I guess chairs/boards of businesses but not those in charge of running day-to-day operations.  And while I can certainly empathize with Boomers holding onto their positions too long in my own profession, 4 of the 6 mentioned aren't even Boomers.  

Second, and more importantly, the House leadership especially is rather unprecedented.  The only comparison is Sam Rayburn and John McCormack, but even then McCormack was a decade younger than Rayburn so when the latter died in office McCormack was his natural successor who replaced him as Speaker for almost a decade himself.  The top three leaders holding onto their positions for 18 years now is unprecedented and presents quite a problem as neither Hoyer or Clyburn are expected to succeed Pelosi.

While Dem leaders/whips have been around as long as the Senate trio, along with Reid all three have been among the top four ranked Dems for 14 years now, which also is rather unprecedented in holding down the next generation.

3 hours ago, maarsen said:

Be ever so thankful the Republican party excels at this too.

This isn't the case either outside of McConnell.  For GOP Senate leaders, his tenure is already unprecedented at 14 years - the previous longest was 10 - but during that time he's also now on his fourth whip.  And John Cornyn actually stepped aside John Thune two years ago even though Cornyn just won another term.  Increased turnover is also seen in the number 3 and 4 positions.

And in the House the GOP leadership has almost the opposite problem - the caucus devours them.  They had to beg Ryan to take the Speakership and he only lasted about three years, Boehner hated it so much his reputation for always crying became comically linked to his job, and Eric Cantor got primaried out his of his seat let alone leadership position.

[SFDanny]

On 12/19/2020 at 7:47 PM, DanteGabriel said:

I wonder if there is some kind of old guard Dem instinct to devour their young, steer promising local leaders into dead-end jobs. The Democratic leadership is too old and I don't see good successors waiting in the wings. I do think Pelosi has been effective from a position of not-that-much leverage for the last few years. Not without her mistakes, of course, but I just don't have confidence that someone else would have done better. Schumer, please just someone replace him already.

It'll never happen, but I would love to see a Speaker Ocasio-Cortez. What she could do with the power and platform, it'd just be fascinating to watch.

Ok, I admit to bias. Pelosi is my congresswoman. First woman to hold the job as Speaker of the House, and in my opinion one of the most skilled people to hold the job. I'm in no hurry to throw her out of the position. Having said that, I expect Pelosi to finish out the next two years and stand down as Speaker. It looks extremely likely  to me that Hakeem Jeffries is the heir to the throne. He is all of 50. Will be 52 when that takes place. Hoyer, Clyburn or others are not likely to challenge him. That assumes, of course, the Democrats manage to hold onto the House in 2022. We will have to see how the new districts are drawn to get a good idea of how likely that is going to be.

I could see Ocasio-Cortez making the mistake of running against Jefferies, but she is very, very unlikely to win the position.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Having said that, I expect Pelosi to finish out the next two years and stand down as Speaker. It looks extremely likely  to me that Hakeem Jeffries is the heir to the throne.

First of all, on Pelosi's legacy, I think it's secure in that she will be remembered as the most successful Democratic leader, at least, since Rayburn.  Maybe not for old Irish guys who still love Tip O'Neil, but for everybody else.  Also, regardless of whether the Dems retain the House in 2022, I do expect her to abide be her commitment - which she kinda/sorta reiterated last month - to step down.  While she is an outstanding leader, I think it's long overdue.

Although I think Jeffries is the frontrunner as a replacement, I definitely would not characterize it as "extremely likely."  First, there's the fact that Katherine Clark leapfrogged him within the leadership last month, winning the assistant speaker election by over 40 votes.  Not clear why Jeffries didn't seek the position - quite possible (even likely) he simply didn't want to run a contested election - but it still positions Clark as a clear and strong challenger to Jeffries is she so desires.

Moreover, a number of other contenders could make a play, at least in the early go.  Pete Aguilar is the new Vice-Chair of the caucus and seems quite ambitious.  In 2018, Jeffries only won the Caucus Chair election by ten votes to Barbara Lee.  Considering her widespread support among "progressives" and the shifting dynamic within the caucus, she could be a very formidable candidate as well.  And while I don't see Clyburn running against Jeffries, I could see Hoyer throwing his name in as a stabilizing force amidst the chaos, you never know.  Point is, if I was a betting man, I'd definitely take the field over Jeffries at the moment even though he is the frontrunner. 

As for AOC, I do not think a leadership position is in her near-future.  At least among the top 5-6 positions.  She just made a play for a seat on the highly coveted Energy & Commerce committee and lost overwhelmingly to Kathleen Rice 46-13.  Pointedly, a number of members cited (either implicitly or in a couple cases explicitly) her continued infighting as a demerit.  I think her influence within the Democratic caucus is vastly overrated around here and, understandably, the internet in general. 

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

First of all, on Pelosi's legacy, I think it's secure in that she will be remembered as the most successful Democratic leader, at least, since Rayburn.  Maybe not for old Irish guys who still love Tip O'Neil, but for everybody else.  Also, regardless of whether the Dems retain the House in 2022, I do expect her to abide be her commitment - which she kinda/sorta reiterated last month - to step down.  While she is an outstanding leader, I think it's long overdue.

Although I think Jeffries is the frontrunner as a replacement, I definitely would not characterize it as "extremely likely."  First, there's the fact that Katherine Clark leapfrogged him within the leadership last month, winning the assistant speaker election by over 40 votes.  Not clear why Jeffries didn't seek the position - quite possible (even likely) he simply didn't want to run a contested election - but it still positions Clark as a clear and strong challenger to Jeffries is she so desires.

Moreover, a number of other contenders could make a play, at least in the early go.  Pete Aguilar is the new Vice-Chair of the caucus and seems quite ambitious.  In 2018, Jeffries only won the Caucus Chair election by ten votes to Barbara Lee.  Considering her widespread support among "progressives" and the shifting dynamic within the caucus, she could be a very formidable candidate as well.  And while I don't see Clyburn running against Jeffries, I could see Hoyer throwing his name in as a stabilizing force amidst the chaos, you never know.  Point is, if I was a betting man, I'd definitely take the field over Jeffries at the moment even though he is the frontrunner. 

As for AOC, I do not think a leadership position is in her near-future.  At least among the top 5-6 positions.  She just made a play for a seat on the highly coveted Energy & Commerce committee and lost overwhelmingly to Kathleen Rice 46-13.  Pointedly, a number of members cited (either implicitly or in a couple cases explicitly) her continued infighting as a demerit.  I think her influence within the Democratic caucus is vastly overrated around here and, understandably, the internet in general. 

As I said, I expect Pelosi to step aside in two years. Right now she has the task of continuing the ambitious agenda she set almost two years ago that moved nowhere in the face of McConnell's obdurate "leadership." Again we must look to Georgia to secure a Democratic Senate to make much of anything possible or at least likely. We shall see what her legacy will be after that.

I didn't mean to imply, however, that Jeffries will have no opposition in taking over the speakership. I'm sure there will be other challengers to the position. He just looks like the person I'd bet on. 

As to AOC, I admire her. I also think she doesn't always play well with others. Others who should be friends. I have no problem with her calling out many in the opposition. At some point she will have to decide if she wants to be a gadfly or person who actually passes legislation. It hard to do both. Not impossible, but hard.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Would love to see Barbara Lee as Speaker

[SFDanny]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Would love to see Barbara Lee as Speaker

While I think that is unlikely, she would be great. My hope is to see her  as the new Senator from California, replacing Kamala Harris. Of course, that depends on Gavin Newsom, and I'm not confident. Former Mayor Willie Brown his pushing him to name a back woman to replace Harris, and he has influence with Newsom. I got to believe Gavin is likely to choose someone else even if he follows Brown's advice.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm curious if Pelosi will retire if she keeps her word and doesn't seek another term as Speaker.

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

As to AOC, I admire her. I also think she doesn't always play well with others. Others who should be friends. I have no problem with her calling out many in the opposition. At some point she will have to decide if she wants to be a gadfly or person who actually passes legislation. It hard to do both. Not impossible, but hard.

AOC is very popular with the base, but I've always wondered if she's not very popular within the Democratic caucus.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Again we must look to Georgia to secure a Democratic Senate to make much of anything possible or at least likely. We shall see what her legacy will be after that.

I don't think Pelosi's legacy is contingent on whatever happens in the next two years.  Even if the Dems win both Georgia seats and a 50/50 majority, the likelihood of any ambitious legislation beyond stimulus reaching Biden's desk is minimal.  And even then, the focus of passage will be on garnering unanimity in the Senate caucus rather than the House, meaning the credit will be decidedly shared - at best - with Senate leadership.  Anyway, point is I think Pelosi's place and roll in history is secure regardless, everything in the next two years would just be more gravy on top.

On Jeffries, my point in saying I'd take the field over him right now is that while I would bet on him over any other individual candidate, I'd still put his chances right now at less than 50%, if that makes sense.

On AOC, I don't think a leadership position is the best place for her, at all really.  First, if she has presidential ambitions (which she should), congressional leadership is decidedly not conducive to one's national prospects in modern American politics.  Second, I would think she wants to focus on being the new standard-bearer for the progressive movement/wing of the party.  It's difficult to be that voice while concurrently tasked with the responsibilities of uniting the caucus that is inherent in any leadership position.  

If I was advising her political future, I'd continue to foster that reputation as Bernie and even Warren's successor, while - as you point out - expanding her appeal by becoming more amiable to at least intraparty colleagues.  I'm not sure leading the passage of legislation is necessary or even desirable in this polarized and gridlocked context, but it does mean making intraparty competitors, rivals, even adversaries into potential allies.  Then I'd keep an eye on Schumer's seat in 2028, or maybe the NY governor's race(s) while waiting to strike at the right time for the big chair.

[DMC]

Just saw that McConnell has vowed to hold votes on Biden's Cabinet nominees:

Quote

They "aren’t all going to pass on a voice vote, and they aren’t all going to make it, but I will put them on the floor," McConnell said. 

He added that he would treat Biden "a hell of a lot better than [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] ever treated Donald Trump.”

I'll believe it when I see it, but I guess at least it's something.

Gotta say, I'm surprised Biden hasn't at least leaked some of the remaining 6 picks for Cabinet-level positions by now.  I really expected him to wrap it up by Christmas, which seems quite unlikely at this point.  I guess 5 of the 6 don't really matter too much, but failing to settle on an AG by Christmas is not a good sign.  Let's just say Biden's Cabinet rollout/selection process did not go as smoothly as promised or expected.  It was a very difficult task, to be sure, but I think some healthy criticism on some of the transition's stumbles is quite warranted.  Especially considering most of the obstacles they've encountered should have been anticipated.

[SFDanny]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't think Pelosi's legacy is contingent on whatever happens in the next two years.  Even if the Dems win both Georgia seats and a 50/50 majority, the likelihood of any ambitious legislation beyond stimulus reaching Biden's desk is minimal.  And even then, the focus of passage will be on garnering unanimity in the Senate caucus rather than the House, meaning the credit will be decidedly shared - at best - with Senate leadership.  Anyway, point is I think Pelosi's place and roll in history is secure regardless, everything in the next two years would just be more gravy on top.

I agree. I do think if she can keep her caucus together enough to pass important legislation, and Schumer can do the same in the Senate, she has a chance of greatly enhancing her already impressive legacy.

9 hours ago, DMC said:

On Jeffries, my point in saying I'd take the field over him right now is that while I would bet on him over any other individual candidate, I'd still put his chances right now at less than 50%, if that makes sense.

It does, and I won't disagree with those numbers.

9 hours ago, DMC said:

On AOC, I don't think a leadership position is the best place for her, at all really.  First, if she has presidential ambitions (which she should), congressional leadership is decidedly not conducive to one's national prospects in modern American politics.  Second, I would think she wants to focus on being the new standard-bearer for the progressive movement/wing of the party.  It's difficult to be that voice while concurrently tasked with the responsibilities of uniting the caucus that is inherent in any leadership position.  

If I was advising her political future, I'd continue to foster that reputation as Bernie and even Warren's successor, while - as you point out - expanding her appeal by becoming more amiable to at least intraparty colleagues.  I'm not sure leading the passage of legislation is necessary or even desirable in this polarized and gridlocked context, but it does mean making intraparty competitors, rivals, even adversaries into potential allies.  Then I'd keep an eye on Schumer's seat in 2028, or maybe the NY governor's race(s) while waiting to strike at the right time for the big chair.

I would not want her to look to Sanders's history as her example. Bernie has one of the worst records in getting legislation passed of anyone in his time in Congress - including the House and the Senate. He talks a lot and does very little. It works for him because he wants to spit on everyone else that doesn't agree with him all the time. This doesn't make for great leadership skills. I hope for better from Ocasio-Cortez.

Warren is a much better example to emulate. She actually wants to reform the system and make people's lives better now, instead of just lead a protest movement. As vital as protest movements are to change, they should be primarily about making change, not just building followers.

[SFDanny]

WSJ report has Biden picking Miguel Cardona as his Secretary of Education. This is after the Hispanic Caucus came out and endorsed the move. Of note in the story is the caucus also endorse Stacie Olivares as Small Business Administrator. Cardona is Puerto Rican, born in Connecticut. Which means the three Hispanic Cabinet Secretaries come from Mexican-American, Cuban immigrant, and now Puerto Rican backgrounds. The Biden administration isn't going to see all "Hispanic" people the same.

[SFDanny]

Newsom has picked Alex Padilla to replace Harris in the Senate

These two men are more than political allies, they are friends and it shows. It's why everyone had Padilla as the favorite going in to Newsom making the choice. Historic choice for California. 

[SFDanny]

The Biden/Harris website now has the Cardona nomination up.