« Voicemail | Main | This Is An Emotional Moment »
February 06, 2007
Electing An Executive Branch
Publius gets this right. Responding to Giuliani's promise to appoint judges exactly as Bush has, he says, "it doesn’t really matter what Giuliani thinks personally about abortion. If his executive branch nominates judges that are anti-abortion, or delegates that process to the Federalist Society and OLC, then he is for all practical purposes anti-abortion." Indeed, the larger issue here "is that it’s important to resist viewing presidential elections (particularly general elections) as personality contests. It’s important of course to consider an individual’s judgment prior to handing over the keys to the military. But voters should also remember that they’re selecting not just an individual, but an executive branch."
That's exactly right. You're not just electing George w. Bush or Rudy Giuliani, you're electing all the judges they'll appoint, all the executive orders they'll issue, all the members of the National Labor Relations Board they'll choose, all the regulators they'll hire, all the interest groups they'll need to placate with executive branch patronage. On these issue, it's almost impossible to imagine Giuliani will be a moderate. The forces pushing him are simply not moderate forces. He may fight some personal battles on the big issues, but he's going to keep his troops happy when staffing the NLRB, or the EPA.
And here, via Chris Hayes, is what such decisions have wrought. Steven Law is Bush's Deputy Secretary of Labor, and in that capacity, recently gave a speech to the National Association of Wholesale-Distributors, where he was questioned on a recent card check drive run by the Teamsters. "You have no choice but to retaliate," he said. Some language. Of course, that's what you get from a Dept. of Labor official whose previous experience was "[directing] political strategy, media advertising, and fundraising development for the National Republican Senatorial Committee — where he erased a huge inherited debt, set new fundraising records, and helped win several highly competitive Senate races." That's the sort of patronage you want to avoid, and it's the sort that most any Republican, no matter how chummy their Meet the Press persona is, will engage in.
February 6, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
It seems like every government at every time has been patronage as far as the eye could see. The modern GOP just read their 'fox in the henhouse' tales more carefully that has been the custom in the US and decided that the tale promised rewards as well as dangers - and they set out to find more foxes for more places in government, largely succeeding beyond normal patronage levels because they scratched out the word shame from their vocabulary.
No GOP candidate can escape from the dark energy generated by their party and supporters since Reagan. The GOP has perfected the interlocking directorates of corporate money, ideological policy, and political zero-sum partisanship. There is nothing but the dark side, with the gravitational effect of a dark hole that sucks everything into its maw.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 6, 2007 1:34:24 PM
This stuff is hugely important with regards to the regulatory agencies, but it's even more important when one considers judicial appointments. We're going to be stuck with Bush' legacy for decades, even if we get nothing but liberal Democratic presidents and Congresses during that period, because Bush was able to add two more reactionaries to the Supreme Court, and many, many more to lower courts. These judges will make it their crusade to impede anything progressive future presidents or Congresses try to do. Just ask FDR; this kind of action is why he tried to stuff the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP | Feb 6, 2007 1:42:00 PM
Whoa, that post strikes me as a mighty big bait & switch. You started out on Rudy's personal vs. de facto position on abortion and ended up with the GOP being the party of patronage.
(Presidents from both parties tend to make political appointments based on policy agendas. What sets this administration apart is that it has removed being qualified for the job from the list of criteria.)
Getting back to the opening graf, though, I agree with the fundamental argument made. Still, there's a certain amount of political courage for a Republican presidential candidate in 2007 to even utter the words, "I believe in a woman's right to choose." That shows something that in another, less repugnant individual I might call character. With Rudy, I'm not so sure. But it's worth examining, nonetheless.
Posted by: Headline Junky | Feb 6, 2007 2:01:32 PM
The point that we elect a whole Executive Branch (or important parts of it) is a very good one. I think Publius is wrong, though, when he says
it doesn’t really matter what Giuliani thinks personally about abortion. If his executive branch nominates judges that are anti-abortion, or delegates that process to the Federalist Society and OLC, then he is for all practical purposes anti-abortion.
If there is a conflict between Giuliani's personal views and his public policy views, it's that he is personally against abortion but still pro-choice. There is no conflict between Giuliani's pro-choice views and his philosophy on court nominees. He's pro-choice but isn't wed to the idea that the courts should set the law on the matter. Those are two different points. It appears Giuliani would support state laws guaranteeing women's choice, with some constraints for late-term abortions and minors.
So, if you're pro-choice in the way Giuliani is, you'll be happy with his philosophy on court nominees. No bait and switch.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 6, 2007 3:37:48 PM
Sanpete, where do you get the idea that (a) Giuliani "would support state laws guaranteeing women's choice", and (b) such laws would make any damn difference if the federal government decided to ban abortion, with Supreme Court approval?
Posted by: Hob | Feb 6, 2007 4:47:20 PM
This dovetails with Matt Y's idea that a nominee, at least after the convention, ought to name a tentative cabinet-in-waiting. If we're talking bait-and-switch, then consider that Bush made much of his promise to delegate and choose qualified people, but no-one pressed too hard on just who those people would be.
Of course, you can't derive an entire set of executive branch from those names, but you get a whiff of the kind of appointments that will be made. Then again, perhaps it's best just to look at the big names on the election committees and presume they're headed to the departments where they'll do most damage.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 6, 2007 4:47:23 PM
Hob, in the interview Giuliani says he is against punishing women for having abortions and that women should be able to choose to have them, so I would guess he favors laws along those lines. Do you have reason to think otherwise? I didn't say anything about your second point, but I don't see any chance of the federal government or Supreme Court making abortion illegal.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 6, 2007 5:16:49 PM
pseudo: the partisan damage in modern presidentcies by the power of appointment is not in the cabinet, who are now faceless, powerless unknowns. Disclosing these people would do no good in judging how the President will govern or what policies the leaders of various agencies will perform.
The real power is in the Executive Office of the President, where appointees are now routinely selected or approved for their closeness to the conservative ideology or to major segments of the money support base of the president or party. Today's approach is really one of having the fox guard the henhouse. The examples under Bush are legion.
Only the President has the authority to insist on looking for the best and brightest for the executive branch.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 6, 2007 5:22:16 PM
Agreed, Jim. If you look at Bush appointees, then 'Bush-Cheney election/re-election campaign' is usually on their resumes, right down to the lowest level of science-censoring functionary.
Which is why my later thought is probably more pertinent: when candidates have assembled their full campaign staffs, pick through their careers and point out who's likely to end up where. Which poxy College Republican is set to become a flack; which union-buster's heading to Commerce; which warmonger is the dead weight-in-waiting at State.
(Wasn't Garfield assassinated by a disgruntled patronage-seeker? My only source on this is Sarah Vowell, fraid to say.)
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 6, 2007 6:50:26 PM
Suffice is to say, if I were a pro-lifer, I wouldn't trust Giuliani's promise to appoint constructionist judges one bit. It would be like trusting Clinton to pull out of Iraq, or to fight for a non-crappy health care proposal.
Posted by: Alon Levy | Feb 7, 2007 3:58:54 AM
This is an interesting idea, but it seems dramatically oppossed to other posts that have been made here on the 2008 election, as well as other elections.
Basically, what it seems you are saying is that the individual positions and passions of a candidate doesn't matter, only the party that is behind them matters. It seems though that you believe this is only true of Republicans, and not Democrats or you wouldn't have advocated various Democrats the way that you have.
It seems to me that while there is some truth in what you say, the party machinery does matter to a large degree, this is mostly an attempt to scare people.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Feb 7, 2007 6:29:23 AM
Alon, Giuliani doesn't backtrack in the interview, or waffle. His position is consistent. Maybe it will be too nuanced for some voters.
Basically, what it seems you are saying is that the individual positions and passions of a candidate doesn't matter, only the party that is behind them matters.
I overlooked that, Dave. I thought the point to be that you can't just consider what a candidate says his personal views are but you must also consider what kind of appointments he will make. Giuliani has said he'll appoint justices like those Bush appointed, so that's an important factor.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 12:03:27 PM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: judy | Sep 26, 2007 10:57:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.