0
0

Why are all of Obama's hand-picks jumping ship?


 share                
2010 Oct 12, 1:34am   8,378 views  27 comments

by Bap33   ➕follow (0)   💰tip ()  

Just wanted some other folks opinion. I personally think it is a case of the dirty socialist rats jumping before the ship sinks, but I can not support that with anything other than "gut feeling". So, anyone else have some input to explain the mass exodus? Or, is there no real exodus going on?

#politics

« First        Comments 7 - 27 of 27   

7   Bap33   2010 Oct 13, 12:36am  

is that to infer that demoncrates wouldn't worry about post-public service income?

8   Vicente   2010 Oct 13, 1:24am  

Are you referring to all positions? Or just chief of staff? The average duration of a chief of staff is 2.5 years. Some quicker, some longer. So I don't see much significance in it.

The only staffer I ever got a clear sensation of leaving a sinking ship, was Colin Powell. It was however, obvious to everyone he was shut out and would be sidelined.

9   Bap33   2010 Oct 13, 3:17am  

I was talking about all of the resignations that have came thus far in the past 6 months. I do think it speaks well for Barry that his inside people are walking away in healthy condition ... Vince Foster and many close to the demoncrates were not given such good treatment by Komrad Klinton and the RedChinaMob.

Anyways, all positions, not just COS, that were hand selected, never confirmed, no previous experience, will have lifetime benifits from their short service, and have jumped ship. Yes, I understand there have been R's that did the same thing, but I can't find the same volume nor the same haste, in history. ANd, please remember all of the media flack the R's face when they change ANYONE on ANY cabinet when they take over .... the media ALLWAYS calls them racist/sexist/whateverist if the person surplanted meets the magic liberal grouping requirements. Didn't Bush have more protected class people on his hand selected team than any D -- ever? Conde Rice should have been applouded by the NOW and the NAACP .. but she was not because she did not fit the magic mold, and that shows the disgusting truth about those two groups ... they are just extentions of more liberal bias and not about WOMEN nor about CP's ..... disgusting.

10   tatupu70   2010 Oct 13, 5:05am  

BAP--

I think you tend to see things through your own biases. There were lots of articles about Condie Rice. Like it was said earlier, these jobs are incredibly stressful and people often just get burned out--2.5 year average says it all...

11   RayAmerica   2010 Oct 13, 9:08am  

RayAmerica says

are taking a leap while they can get still something good in the corporate or lobbyist world.

marcus says

This is an extremely understandable projection, for many republicans.

I never knew that only GOPers take jobs with corporations and or become lobbyists. Funny thing. In my area alone 3 former congressmen did just that and shockingly they were Democrats.

12   Vicente   2010 Oct 13, 9:58am  

Bap33 says

I was talking about all of the resignations that have came thus far in the past 6 months. .

Clinton and Reagan went through 4 CoS in 8 years, and GHW Bush had 3 of them in just 4 years. Reagan had a revolving door installed for 6 National Security Advisors. I'm not sure what "staff" encompasses for you. Can you list the positions you consider, and turnover per administration, over time? I lack the patience to sift for the statistics on this, please enlighten me.

13   marcus   2010 Oct 13, 10:10am  

Bap33 says

is that to infer that demoncrats wouldn’t worry about post-public service income?

No, not what I said or what I implied.

RayAmerica says

marcus says

This is an extremely understandable projection, for many republicans.

I never knew that only GOPers take jobs with corporations and or become lobbyists. Funny thing. In my area alone 3 former congressmen did just that and shockingly they were Democrats.

I never realized that I was that difficult to comprehend.

14   Bap33   2010 Oct 13, 1:24pm  

@Vincent, I agree with you. Changes are not uncommon. I just wondered if this time was much different. I would say it is not enough different to mean anything -- from what I could find and bother to read.

@marcus, my mistake. I figured you were talking about income activities.

15   marcus   2010 Oct 13, 2:06pm  

Bap33 says

@marcus, my mistake. I figured you were talking about income activities.

I was. But only saying that I'm not surprised that Ray (being a republican) would think that it was all about self interest and money.

Projection.

(Doesn't mean that plenty of democrats aren't the same way.)

16   elliemae   2010 Oct 13, 2:53pm  

Emmanuel won't make as much if he's elected the mayor of Chicago. But it seems like he's setting himself up as a presidential candidate... I don't know.

Changes are bound to happen - they have with every administration. What you view as a mass exodus seems to be business as usual.

17   nope   2010 Oct 13, 4:14pm  

I heard that they were all leaving the whitehouse to more directly control their secret plot to undermine the united states and turn it into a homosexual communist dictatorship.

Also, they want to kill your children.

18   CBOEtrader   2010 Oct 13, 10:28pm  

elliemae says

Emmanuel won’t make as much if he’s elected the mayor of Chicago.

Mayor Daley is an 8 figure, and possibly a 9 figure, millionaire. In Chicago politics is an entrepreneurial enterprise. I doubt Emmanuel will be able to become mayor without bowing down to the powers that be...and those mobsters will force him to play the game.

Here's an interesting fact about Rahm. His brother, Ari, is a talent agent who is the basis for the Ari Gold character in HBO's entourage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_Emanuel

19   EightBall   2010 Oct 14, 5:57am  

Kevin says

Also, they want to kill your children.

You also forgot they want to kill your grandparents as well as your dog and feed their carcases to the half-human creatures they intend to create via stem cell research. I would vote for them if they would include cats.

20   American in Japan   2011 Jan 3, 5:33pm  

Although I disagree with Bap at least he is getting many comments on this post!

21   kentm   2011 Jan 3, 6:18pm  

Partially I suppose it's because he's changing some staff to make his cabinet look more leftish and appealing to the folks who elected him the first time. After 2 years of pretty much pandering to the right and wall street with folks like Rubin, Summers, Volker etc its time to get a new face on for the election...

Or partially its because people are always coming and going...

But wait, I forgot, Obama's a socialist. So the answer must be that the dirty socialist rats are jumping ship after thr great take-over has been set in place. Yeah, thats it...

Or maybe its because they recently started reading this forum and have seen the true gleam of light & truth that you, shrekgrinchonemanarmy, tenounce and giggles have been so tennaciously and purely trying to help us see and so they just can't bear to continue.

22   FortWayne   2011 Jan 4, 12:09am  

Whats with the whole D vs R argumens. When you go up the chain of power you will run into huge power brokers out there (by power I'm referring to policial and monetary capital). The group of folks who don't really care what administration you work for as long as they can be the guaranteed middle man for every deal.

I've been in meetings with types of this nature. Realtors look like angels compared to some of these types, who are devoid of all ethics and morality... whose standards are based solely on profit they make and power they gain.

23   bob2356   2011 Jan 4, 2:22am  

Bap33 says

@Vincent, I agree with you. Changes are not uncommon. I just wondered if this time was much different. I would say it is not enough different to mean anything — from what I could find and bother to read.
@marcus, my mistake. I figured you were talking about income activities.

If you think it's not enough different to mean anything (it's not, staff turnover doesn't look much different than any other presidency in the last 50 years) then why in the world did you post this? Being constantly fixated on Obama cannot be healthy for you.

24   kentm   2011 Jan 4, 2:22am  

ChrisLosAngeles says

Whats with the whole D vs R argumens. When you go up the chain of power you will run into huge power brokers out there (by power I’m referring to policial and monetary capital). The group of folks who don’t really care what administration you work for as long as they can be the guaranteed middle man for every deal.

I’ve been in meetings with types of this nature. Realtors look like angels compared to some of these types, who are devoid of all ethics and morality… whose standards are based solely on profit they make and power they gain.

hear hear.

25   HousingWatcher   2011 Jan 4, 6:04am  

Bap33,

You do know that, except for Bush's Sec. of Labor, ALL of his cabinet members resigned their jobs during his 8 years, right? Or are you just repeating BS you heard on Rush Limabugh's show?

George W. Bush's original cabinet:

Sec. of State, Colin Powell, RESIGNED

Sec. of Treasury, Paul O'Neil, FIRED (O'Neil's successor, John Snow, RESIGNED)

Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, RESIGNED

Attorney General, John Ashcroft, RESIGNED

Sec. of Interior, Gale Norton, RESIGNED

Sec. of Agriculture, Ann Veneman, RESIGNED

Sec. of COmmerce, Donald Evans, RESIGNED

Sec. of Health & Human Services, Tommy Thompson, RESIGNED

Sec. of Housing & Urban Development, Mel Martinez, RESIGNED

Sec. of Transportation, Norman Mineta, RESIGNED

Sec. of Energey, Spencer Abraham, RESIGNED

Sec. of Education, Rod Paige, RESIGNED

Sec. of Veterans' Affairs, Anthony J. Principi, RESIGNED

Sec. of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, RESIGNED

26   Bap33   2011 Jan 4, 10:51am  

lol ... nice list, and no time of service included ... darn! We both know how much more horrible Barry's hand selections are doing in such a short time frame. Next!!

Yes, I did listen to Rush at least once in Dec, maybe once in Nov, so THAT must be what my problem is. Besides .. this post is like - old -.

27   Clarence 13X   2011 Jan 4, 12:27pm  

marcus says

Obama has paid some verbal respect to the successes of the Reagan administration, that is administrative success not policy success. Reagan changed his cabinet and staff around quite a bit. He had 4 chiefs of staff in his two terms. Many cabinet positions had three different people over the 2 terms.
See the table :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan
I’m sure you understand that it’s customary to ask for a resignation, rather than to fire.
Wouldn’t be surprised if Woodward’s book, and the midterm elections are both factors.

...waiting for Shrekgrinch and BAP33 to give a refutation of these facts.

Signed,

Liberalist Dirty Rat

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions