« Security Framework Paradox | Main | A New Day »

The Shadow Knows

05 Jun 2008 01:12 pm

200px-TheShadowComic01.jpg

On Tuesday, I wrote that "at some point in the next couple of months someone needs to write the inevitable column calling on Obama and/or McCain to name a 'shadow cabinet.'" In doing so, I failed to appreciate the marvels of internet time. Thus Tom Schaller blogs "now that Barack Obama has won the nomination, my initial reflex is that he ought to choose quickly—not rashly, of course, just quickly—and build a shadow cabinet of sort outward from there."

Now nobody genuinely offers a shadow cabinet when running for election, but one could imagine Obama doing something like what Bush did in 2000 when he made it pretty clear in advance that Colin Powell was going to be his Secretary of State. Of course here in 2008 there's no figure of Powell-like popularity to anoint. What's more, that served a very specific purpose of trying to (falsely) reassure people that the inexperienced Bush would pursue a calm, modest, moderate course in foreign policy. Normally, I think it's more advantageous to a politician to stay vague. The list of plausible Obama Secretaries of State and Defense has a lot of overlap with the list of people who might plausibly be quoted on TV and in the newspapers talking about the Obama foreign policy. You want, as much as possible, all of those people to be thinking to themselves "if I'm as helpful to Obama as possible, then maybe he'll pick me!" You want all the wannabes wanting to be as strongly as possible.

But for McCain this is a more interesting proposition. My assumption when Al Gore was running was that there would be a lot of overlap between the Gore cabinet circa 2001 and the Clinton cabinet circa 2000. Some people would leave, of course, as is always the case during an administration, but you could easily imagine some people staying on in their jobs and also many instances of things like Assistant Secretaries becoming Undersecretaries and Undersecretaries taking over as Secretaries.

But what about John McCain? We know he's truly, madly, deeply in love with Bush's choice to head up CENTCOM, General David Petraeus, but what about other Bush appointees? Will William Luti, formerly a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense and currently a Special Assistant to the President have a role in a McCain administration? Will Zalmay Khalilzad? Ryan Crocker? The question of whether or not a McCain administration would amount to a third Bush term has gotten a lot of play lately. Some clearer indication from McCain of how he intends to staff his administration, and what he intends to do with the hundreds of current Republican political appointees in office would shed some light on all that. Will he fire the overwhelming majority of them the way a Democrat would, or will he keep the majority on the way Bush would in a third term?

Share This

Comments (26)

McCain just raised 20 million last month, which good for him. But it will all go to his heavy campaign expenses:
1) Adult diapers (7.2 million)
2) Hemmeroid treatments (2.3 million)
3) daily blood transfusions (1 millions)
4) Geratol & Gatoraide mix (2 million)
5) Charlie Black's phone bill (4 million)
6) Carle Fiorina stock options (2 million)
7) Straight Talk Express gaffe-prevention bribary payments (1 million)


Obama should be Mau Mauing McCain to commit not to nominate lobbyist X or Y.

He should put McCain on the defensive NOW - over future hires -

Well, given that the "shadow government" is those wealthy AIPAC donors Obama sucked up to yesterday, I don't see why we need a "shadow cabinet"

If our AIPAC Overlords think we need a "shadow cabinet" , they'll appoint one.

They just won't tell us about it.

Mary Peters needs to go. She is the toll road kill transit queen.

You keep lapsing into the future tense. I'm pretty sure you mean to use the conditional.

I think you are being a little overconfident. Obama has claimed that he's practicing a new kind of politics, but many suspect that's hot air. There's also enormous doubt about whether he is too weird and unpatriotic etc. among what the Onion perceptively called the 'idgit demographic'. By naming specifically a few cabinet members he could show that he's working in a different way and show that he's really going to have a solid team.

E.g. Hagel (R) for SecDef
HRC to run HHS
Richardson or Biden for State.
James Comey (R) or Patrick Fitzgerald (?) for AG

The rest can be more congenial Dems, named after the election if all goes right.

VP is tricker- Webb is probably out because this is not the year for somebody who once wrote very anti-woman articles. Too bad because he's brilliant.

Schweitzer? Sebelius?

I think you are being a little overconfident. Obama has claimed that he's practicing a new kind of politics, but many suspect that's hot air. There's also enormous doubt about whether he is too weird and unpatriotic etc. among what the Onion perceptively called the 'idgit demographic'. By naming specifically a few cabinet members he could show that he's working in a different way and show that he's really going to have a solid team.

E.g. Hagel (R) for SecDef
HRC to run HHS
Richardson or Biden for State.
James Comey (R) or Patrick Fitzgerald (?) for AG

The rest can be more congenial Dems, named after the election if all goes right.

VP is tricker- Webb is probably out because this is not the year for somebody who once wrote very anti-woman articles. Too bad because he's brilliant.

Schweitzer? Sebelius?

How about making John Edwards as AG this years Powell?

http://steampoweredopinions.blogspot.com/2008/05/edwards-and-obama.html

You know, for all the talk of Obama's VP, isn't McCain's VP choice more important? I mean, much like Dole, he has an age issue that will be salient to voters come August. Will he pull a Jack Kemp? Wouldn't picking one of the other candidates further shred the Republican coalitions? IE imagine the fit the Christian right would throw if he nominated Romney, or the pro business lobby if he picked Huckabee.

Mary Peters needs to go. She is the toll road kill transit queen.

I was thinking about this issue of the carryover from a Bush administration in a possible McCain administration, and wondering whether it might not be possible to frame a debate challenge along the lines of:

"Senator McCain, you say that yours will not be a third term of the Bush administration. Will you pledge right now that you will not appoint anyone to office who has worked in the Bush administration? Or would you be willing to say that fewer than one in three of your political appointees would have worked for Bush? Would you be willing to reassure us that less than half of your appointees would have worked for him?"

Not sure how to word it but the point is that there is no way McCain could staff his gov't with less than 2/3 former Bush apparatchiks and what's worse for him he can't even lie about this because to do so would be to piss off his campaign staff, largely composed of the same!

They just won't tell us about it. - Don Williams

I'm afraid you got the self-proclaimed Israel lobby all wrong. That a bunch of Zionists have formed a hush-hush shadow government with all sorts of power is an old anti-Semitic canard.

If AIPAC or a similar group picked a shadow cabinet, they wouldn't not tell us about it, they would in fact, be incapable of stopping their incessent talk about it. They'd go on and on about how they have so much power that they can name cabinet members. But the second someone else said anything about them having any influence what-so-ever, that person would be labeled an anti-Semite/self-hating Jew.

Hagel (R) for SecDef
HRC to run HHS
Richardson or Biden for State.
James Comey (R) or Patrick Fitzgerald (?) for AG

Yes, Dems have to name Republicans to their cabinet to demonstrate their seriousness and dedication to comity. Odd how Republican Presidents can then turn around and repeatedly accuse the Democratic Party of everything short of treason, and a Republican Congress can completely shut Democrats out of the legislative process, yet somehow the calls for bipartisanship fall silent. I hope, upon election, that Obama will pick who he thinks will best implement his ideas. But he's under no obligation to put members of the party that has wrecked the federal government into top positions in charge of government agencies.

By naming specifically a few cabinet members he could show that he's working in a different way and show that he's really going to have a solid team.

On the other hand, by naming specifically a few cabinet members, he could find himself facing jail time, which would make his VP pick really important. Quoting a private communication from John Berryhill to Michael Froomkin when shadow cabinets were brought up in 2004:

[S]hadow cabinets have not been used in the United States because Mr. Kerry would face up to two years in jail under 18 USC § 599:

“Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Note that it still goes round and round whether this passes constitutional muster, or whether it applies to such approaches as announcing one's "dream team" without having its members publicly support one's candidacy.

what he intends to do with the hundreds of current Republican political appointees in office would shed some light on all that. Will he fire the overwhelming majority of them the way a Democrat would, or will he keep the majority on the way Bush would in a third term?

If Pres. McCain so much as lays off a single one of these political appointees, people, many of whom are perceived as "liberals", will go on and on about how this indicates "McCain is a maverick who is making a clean break from the Bush admin". If Pres. Obama so much as lays off a single one of these political appointees, those same people will go on and on about "how dare Pres. Obama put that poor feller out of a job? why is Pres. Obama trying to further politicize the executive branch by engaging in politically motivated firings?"

Well, "shadow" in the sense of determining who the PRIMARY financiers of AIPAC are. You would think it would be straight forward to identify WHO is behind a lobby that Fortune Magazine ranks
as the among the most powerful in the USA.

I know some of the names, of course. But the public record that one can point to seems kinda sparse.

The incentives work the same way for McCain as Obama, albeit in the other direction.

McCain's acute dilemma is holding onto the hard-core GOP base (the 25 percent who still approve of Bush) at the same time as he appeals to independents and moderates for whom Bush's policies are now anethema.

McCain is going to talk out of both sides of his mouth to these two groups. But in the age of Youtube he will not be able to build a firewall between these two message strategies.

Anything McCain does which is either explicitly pro-Bush or anti-Bush alienates one-half of his unhappy coalition. Like naming a shadow cabinet - which if he did it would in all likelihood signal a firm commitment to continue Bush's foreign policy.

This dilemma is one reason McCain has been talking about global warming -- it's a way to signal "change" which is not explicitly anti-Bush.

Matt I would point out that Ryan Crocker is a Foreign Service officer not a political appointee. He served as Amabsssador in some pretty harsh posts before Bush came into office and less he chooses to retire, which he may due to the length of his service, he will be serving as an Ambassador in whatever adminstration is after Bush.

Crocker is unusually well respected with the State Department and continues to be. He is one of just a handful, I belive the number is three, of Ambassadors with the rank Career Ambassador.

I agree with Nathaniel here: it's a disservice to Crocker's experience and abilities to treat him as a mere political appointee. (He was Daddy Bush's man in Beirut, then served in Kuwait and Syria under Clinton.) Those are not grace-and-favour ambassadorships.

nice graphic, MY.

ah, the genius of Mike Kaluta!

Jonathan Rauch wrote an Atlantic Comment about a year ago saying that a big benefit of the new primary schedule is that since we'd have nominees so early in the process (by Super Tuesday he thought), the nominees would be able to pick cabintes-in-waiting. So you didn't even have to wait for Tom Schaller!

What makes you think that McCain will even care about who is running things in the non-DoD neck of the woods?

Don: "But the public record that one can point to seems kinda sparse."

Somebody needs to hack their systems.

While the hackers are at it, they can determine how many US military secrets the AIPAC crowd have really shifted off to Israel.

The blatant spying and direct foreign government lobbying that AIPAC engages in is one of the worst aspects of that group. By any criteria, they should be registered as agents of a foreign power - and kept under close surveillance by the FBI (and apparently were for at least two years before the arrest of the two AIPAC employees for espionage - which, by the way, was merely a side benefit of the still-unknown original purpose of the investigation.)

AIPAC (and its Turkish equivalent the ATC) are probably the two biggest groups of foreign spies in the US - probably larger than China's and even Cold War Russia's efforts. They certainly operate with more impunity than either China or Russia.

It's interesting that A. Q. Khan in Pakistan is now saying he was pressured into accepting blame for transferring nuclear secrets when in reality it was "Europeans". That jibes nicely with Sibel Edmonds accusations that it was primarily AIPAC and ATC people working with groups in Turkey and the Russian-Israeli Mafia (and Marc Rich, pardoned by Clinton in exchange for money and Israeli pressure) who transferred US nuclear secrets to Pakistan and hence to North Korea and Iran. Khan implies even that was unnecessary - all the design plans, all the materials, the products necessary, it was all open and all from Europe.

Matt's a Ray LaMontagne fan!
Matt for Secretary of Keepin It Real, I don't care who wins the the election.


But I suspect McCain will slaughter Bush's staff. They're loyal to that guy McCain hates, and too many of them have already been revealed to be crooks.

Most importantly, if Obama does this right, he could pin McCain down early. Either McCain will be forced to commit himself to old-style realists like Powell to reassure the voters that he's not a batshit insane neocon, or he'll select batshit insane neocons like Giuliani for AG and Podhoretz for the NSC, and give the Democrats plenty of time to paint him as Dr. Doom between now and November.

"Most importantly, if Obama does this right, he could pin McCain down early. Either McCain will be forced to commit himself to old-style realists like Powell to reassure the voters that he's not a batshit insane neocon, or he'll select batshit insane neocons like Giuliani for AG and Podhoretz for the NSC, and give the Democrats plenty of time to paint him as Dr. Doom between now and November.

Posted by Kevin Carson | June 6, 2008 3:46 AM"

Plus, Powell has lost a bit of his shine.

Where the conversation can turn interesting is Rice. Rice, on the one hand, is probably the smartest long-term Bush appointee still around, but on the other hand, she has often been ineffective or incompetent. However, is McCain going to ask the GOP's only prominent African-American woman not to come back after running against the first African-American candidate (with a possible female VP)? If Obama can play that game with a good sleight of hand, he can put McCain in a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" box.

Anyway, my picks (not that anyone cares):

VP: Sebelius
Defense: Zinni
State: Gary Hart or Nye
Veterans Affairs: Webb or Cleland
National Security Advisor: Richard Clarke
Homeland Security: Schweitzer or Kaine
AG: Edwards or Dodd
Labor: Strickland, Rendell or Reich
EPA: Gore
HHS: Clinton
UN: Zakaria (the reaching across the aisle pick) or Strobe Talbott
Commerce: Bloomberg or Soros
Head of the Council of Economic Advisors: Stiglitz, Reich or Krugman
Random foreign policy advisors in various lower positions: Ikenberry, Fukuyama, Juan Cole, Samantha Power, Kristof, Biden, etc.

"Of course here in 2008 there's no figure of Powell-like popularity to anoint."

Bill Clinton?


Comments closed June 19, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.