Obama's Cabinet appointments

[mimartin]

Those are all members of the cabinet, and/or positions in the executive Branch but you left some members off. Including the Chief of Staff.

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

 

You said the Chief of Staff was the highest ranking member outside of the President of the Executive Branch. I gave you the order of succession. If you believe the Chief of Staff has been left off in error, then you may want to take this up with Congress as this is the list set forth by Presidential Succession Act of 1947.

 

I fail to see how you can say the Chief of Staff is the highest ranking member of the Executive Branch behind the President and the Chief of Staff is not even on this list. I believe "highest ranking" is untrue or overstated and you are just trying to use it to make your point.

 

FWIW I know what and who the Cabinet members are, that isn’t the question. I also understand the power of the Chief of Staff. I am just disputing your assessment that the Chief of Staff is the highest ranking member of the Executive Branch behind the President. You can water down your reply with any other unrelated information you would like, but that will not make the Chief of Staff suddenly rise in rank.

[Achilles]

Garfield,

 

Regardless of how you would like to spin it the Vice President of the United States is the highest ranking member of the Executive Branch, outside of the President. You can revise your earlier comment or drop the point. If you continue to repeat debunked points, I'm going to start reporting posts.

[GarfieldJL]

Regardless of how you would like to spin it the Vice President of the United States is the highest ranking member of the Executive Branch, outside of the President. You can revise your earlier comment or drop the point. If you continue to repeat debunked points, I'm going to start reporting posts.

 

You're referring to the order of succession, I'm referring to the actual power they wield and their responsibilities while in their current office. You are deliberately try to derail the topic.

 

The formal powers and role of the vice president are limited by the Constitution to becoming President should the President become unable to serve (e.g. due to the death, resignation, or medical impairment of the President) and sometimes acting as the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate. As President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College. For example, in the first half of 2001, the Senators were divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats and Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote gave the Republicans the Senate majority. (See 107th United States Congress.)

--wikipedia

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the order of succession, this has to do with powers they actually wield.

 

The roles of the Chief of Staff are both managerial and advisory and can include the following duties, depending on the President's style of conducting business:

Managerial

• Select key White House staff and supervise them
  
• Structure the White House staff system
  
• Control the flow of people into the Oval Office
  
• Manage the flow of information
  

 

Advisory

• Advise the President on issues of politics, policy and management issues
  
• Protect the interests of the President
  
• Negotiate with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and extragovernmental political groups to implement the President's agenda
  

--wikipedia

 

The Chief of Staff wields a lot more power than the Vice President, though the Vice President is first in line if the President is incapacitated, the VP has no real power unless that happens, otherwise the Vice President can't do much of anything.

[Achilles]

Nope. You're deliberately bringing up order of succession and then accusing us of using it to go off topic. You bring up rank and then try to change the topic to power. Power is subjective. I'll go create a wikipedia article right now which states that the First Lady wields more power in the White House than the President, but that isn't going to make me correct (even though I probably am).

 

So again, the highest ranking Executive aside from the President, is the Vice President. He is an elected official that has responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. Seriously man, if you can't even keep track of your own argument...

[GarfieldJL]

Nope. You're deliberately bringing up order of succession and then accusing us of using it to go off topic. You bring up rank and then try to change the topic to power. Power is subjective. I'll go create a wikipedia article right now which states that the First Lady wields more power in the White House than the President, but that isn't going to make me correct (even though I probably am).

 

mimartin brought up the order of succession, I pointed out that it had nothing to do with this though I humored him by responding to his posts.

mimartin's posts: http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550493&postcount=17 and http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550545&postcount=23

 

My response: http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550564&postcount=25

 

In my response I point out repeatedly that what mimartin is referring to is the order of succession in the advent of the President's incapacitation or death, and that it doesn't have anything to do with the powers they wield, nor does it refer to the responsibilities they have.

 

So again, the highest ranking Executive aside from the President, is the Vice President. He is an elected official that has responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. Seriously man, if you can't even keep track of your own argument...

 

Again, you're attempting to derail the topic, the VP doesn't have much in the way of power or responsibility, the Chief of Staff technically has more power than the Vice President. I don't really care what the order of succession is, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual power and responsibilities that they have.

[Achilles]

mimartin brought up the order of succession, I pointed out that it had nothing to do with this though I humored him by responding to his post.

mimartin's post: http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550493&postcount=17

Ignored.

 

Again, you're attempting to derail the topic, the VP doesn't have much in the way of power or responsibility, the Chief of Staff technically has more power than the Vice President. I don't really care what the order of succession is, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual power and responsibilities that they have.

Please go back and re-read my post.

 

Also, this post has been reported.

[Jae Onasi]

OK, the point is made that order of precedence/succession and 'the actual power and influence behind the scenes on the President' are two different things. mimartin and Achilles are talking about the former, Garfield's talking about the latter, and these two things were getting confused.

 

To clarify this, it's a discussion of how much influence Emanuel is going to have as Chief of Staff on Obama and his presidency, regardless of the Chief of staff not being on the order of succession. Let's move on from there, please, I don't want to deal with 5000 reported posts over minutiae.

[Astor]

Oh and Obama promised to have a bipartisan cabinet, another broken promise?

 

There's been one official choice so far - there's still plenty of people he could pick.

 

Only one person so far, and you're already calling for his head?

 

Again, what about the rumours that Gates will be kept on in Defence? From what I gather, he's a pretty popular guy on both sides of the house.

[Achilles]

OK, the point is made that order of precedence/succession and 'the actual power and influence behind the scenes on the President' are two different things. mimartin and Achilles are talking about the former, Garfield's talking about the latter, and these two things were getting confused.

Not at all. The discussion was "rank". I think mimartin and I have been very clear about what Garfield said.

[mimartin]

I made a promise, that I will not break by replying.

 

Ranking – Position in relation to others.

Power – Control and influence.

 

Now who brought up ranking?

[GarfieldJL]

There's been one official choice so far - there's still plenty of people he could pick.

 

Only one person so far, and you're already calling for his head?

 

Again, what about the rumours that Gates will be kept on in Defence? From what I gather, he's a pretty popular guy on both sides of the house.

 

The Chief of Staff is the guy that serves as the President's chief advisor and works to get the President's political agenda through congress. Judging from who he chose, you can expect far left agenda to be the policies that they are attempting to push through.

 

@mimartin

Respectfully there are two seperate determinations of rank, the actual power they have, and the order of succession. I was referring to rank as far as power and influence, you were talking about the order of succession. As far as power goes the VP is pretty close to the bottom.

[Astor]

The Chief of Staff is the guy that serves as the President's chief advisor and works to get the President's political agenda through congress. Judging from who he chose, you can expect far left agenda to be the policies that they are attempting to push through.

 

I'm already aware of his role in the cabinet. I was saying that there's only be one person chosen so far.

 

And, i'll ask again, what about Gates' possibility of staying on as Sec'y of Defence?

[Achilles]

And, i'll ask again, what about Gates' possibility of staying on as Sec'y of Defence?

And not just Gates' with the Defense role.

 

Lots of names are being floated for lots of positions. Link

[Jae Onasi]

Not at all. The discussion was "rank". I think mimartin and I have been very clear about what Garfield said.

 

And I think Garfield was using the incorrect term 'rank' when it appears he meant 'power/influence on the President', hence the clarification that it doesn't appear to be a succession argument before this gets anymore confusing.

 

Oh and Obama promised to have a bipartisan cabinet, another broken promise?

You can't accuse him of a broken promise until all the cabinet/staff positions are filled and there's no bipartisanship. Evaluating the liberalness of his staff/cabinet from one data point isn't very fair.

[GarfieldJL]

I'm already aware of his role in the cabinet. I was saying that there's only be one person chosen so far.

 

The Chief of Staff pretty much sets the tone of the administration, it would be like McCain having put Ann Coulter as his Chief of Staff advising him on policy if he had won.

 

 

And, i'll ask again, what about Gates' possibility of staying on as Sec'y of Defence?

 

I'm not going to entertain that notion until after he names the appointment. I'm just going off who he has appointed thus far, which is his Chief of State, and his new FCC Commisioner (whom may not be a cabinet member but still wields significant power), and they are both on the far-left fringe.

 

And I think Garfield was using the incorrect term 'rank' when it appears he meant 'power/influence on the President', hence the clarification that it doesn't appear to be a succession argument before this gets anymore confusing.

 

Actually I was giving a direct quote from an article, so I wasn't the one using the correct term, if anything it was the article.

 

You can't accuse him of a broken promise until all the cabinet/staff positions are filled. Evaluating the liberalness of his staff/cabinet from one data point isn't very fair.

 

Actually it's from more than one data points, just one happens to be outside the cabinet, as I stated earlier.

[KinchyB]

Lots of names are being floated for lots of positions. Link

 

Sorry Achilles, but expecting everyone to look at the facts and draw conclusions from what is actually presented is somewhat unreasonable. Especially when the facts go against their flawed logic, and could risk a slight bit of disillusionment in their "perfect little world".

 

For example... you can easily tell that what Obama's agenda is based off of his first pick for COS... just like you could tell that McCain was going to win the election when he won the first state... oh wait... nm.

[GarfieldJL]

Sorry Achilles, but expecting everyone to look at the facts and draw conclusions from what is actually presented is somewhat unreasonable. Especially when the facts go against their flawed logic, and could risk a slight bit of disillusionment in their "perfect little world".

 

For example... you can easily tell that what Obama's agenda is based off of his first pick for COS... just like you could tell that McCain was going to win the election when he won the first state... oh wait... nm.

 

Heh, cute except for the fact he has been continuing to name left wing wackos to his cabinet.

 

In case you've missed the guy he wants to be the Attorney General whom was behind the last minute pardon of a guy on the FBI's most wanted list as well as terrorists...

 

In fact the only intelligent choice I've heard thus far is Hillary Clinton, because at least she is more of a moderate.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Heh, cute except for the fact he has been continuing to name left wing wackos to his cabinet.

Oh well. He won, he can appoint pretty much anyone he wants. With the monumental ****-ups of many right-wing politicians in the last 8 years, he doesn't have much of a choice. <snipped flamebait>

 

jmac; With all the problems Kavars has had recently I would strongly advise you are careful and cautious about what you post, I had to delete an off-topic snipe of yours yesterday, and now this, anything further and you will receive infractions. Post on-topic, and free of sniping or inciting anger in other members please. Your help in making Kavars friendly as a senior member would be most helpful -- thanks j7

[The Doctor]

Oh well. He won, he can appoint pretty much anyone he wants. With the monumental ****-ups of many right-wing politicians in the last 8 years, he doesn't have much of a choice. <snipped>

I'm having this quote framed, and hanging it over my desk.

[GarfieldJL]

Oh well. He won, he can appoint pretty much anyone he wants. With the monumental ****-ups of many right-wing politicians in the last 8 years, he doesn't have much of a choice.

 

Last I checked, none of Bush's cabinet members are responsible for the Presidential Pardons of Mark Rich, and Puerto Rican Terrorists.

[jrrtoken]

Last I checked, none of Bush's cabinet members are responsible for the Presidential Pardons of Mark Rich, and Puerto Rican Terrorists.

Some proof would be welcome.

[GarfieldJL]

Some proof would be welcome.

 

 

Larry King Guests all Conduct Love Fest for Erik Holder Despite Marc Rich Pardon Role

 

There are other sources that you can find this information in too, however you're not going to find an outcry with most media outlets because they have been committing media malpractice for over a year.

[jrrtoken]

Larry King Guests all Conduct Love Fest for Erik Holder Despite Marc Rich Pardon Role

Could you please find one without obvious bias, as indicated by its headline?

There are other sources that you can find this information in too, however you're not going to find an outcry with most media outlets because they have been committing media malpractice for over a year.

Sure.

[GarfieldJL]

Could you please find one without obvious bias, as indicated by its headline?

 

And none of these are nonbiased sources all have a reputation of being Left Wing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081120/pl_politico/15805

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holder20-2008nov20,0,532485.story

 

And here is a copy of the search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Marc+Rich+pardon+eric+holder&aq=f&oq=

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Last I checked, none of Bush's cabinet members are responsible for the Presidential Pardons of Mark Rich, and Puerto Rican Terrorists.

And last I checked none of his cabinet members are responsible for any of the numerous felonies committed by members of the Bush administration.