Sunday, September 08, 2013


You know what actually could undercut the president's solid support among African-Americans (as well as further reduce his support among liberals, me included)? Appointing Ray Kelly to replace Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary. Is this a sign Obama's going to do it?
NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly played down a shoutout from the vice president Friday during Janet Napolitano’s sendoff as secretary of Homeland Security -- a job some have said the city's top cop is suited for.

Biden, after his remarks, walked the edge of the stage to give Kelly a fist-bump of solidarity, quietly asking him if he was "doing OK."

... After Napolitano announced her plans to step down in July, top New York lawmakers called on President Obama to tap Kelly for the post.

Days later Obama called Kelly "very well-qualified for the job."

Sources say Kelly wants it, but skeptics note that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program, now subject to federal oversight, and its post-9/11 surveillance of Muslim communities could hurt his bid....
Napolitano's last day on the job was Friday, and Obama still hasn't named a replacement. Compare that with secretary of state: John Kerry's nomination was announced more than a month before Hillary Clinton left office. I know Obama can drag his feet in making appointments, but this is a high-profile position. What's the delay?

It may be that Kelly is waiting to see whether he'll keep his current job. The two Republican mayoral front-runners here in New York both say they want to keep him on, but the Democratic front-runner, Bill de Blasio, wants to replace him, as does one of his top challengers, Bill Thompson. (The other leading challenger, Christine Quinn, would keep him on.)

If no one is named to replace Napolitano between now and November, or at least between now and, say, a series of polls showing de Blasio clearly headed for victory in the general election, that means it's going to be Kelly. And that would be another unforced Obama error.


Victor said...

When your first-term "A-team" starts to leave in your 2nd term, you might consider going to a "B" player, and not go to "C" and "D" players, like Summers and Kelley.


Steve M. said...

Picking Summers is going to be yet another unforced error, and he's definitely going to do it. It's crazy.

Victor said...

Thanks to the internet, I'm much more politically knowledgeable than I was before - and most people thought I was a politics geek back when newspapers, and magazines like Time and Newsweek, were people's primary sources for politics.
I've always been a political junkie!

And I'd always read how the Presidencies of those who are reelected, tend to go downhill.

And largely, the predominant theory is, because the newly-elected President puts his A-team in charge of things - but now, in the 2nd term, after those people start to move on to other things, lesser qualified people replace them.

And, in retrospect, I could see that back when I'd first read that, with Ike.

Nixon, Reagan, and W didn't really choose great candidates for a lot of departments in the first place, because their intention was to undermine the ones they didn't like.

But I could see that happen with Clinton, who was trying to make government more efficient.

And I can now see it with Obama, who's trying, and has so far succeeded, to help this country recover from 20 out of 28 years of the gross mismanagement, and the willful attempts to undermine the Federal government, and destroy the middle class.

And now, I've watched, and am still watching, Obama's A-team leave, and he's replacing them with lesser qualified people.

I think we need to re-look at having our Presidents serve a single, non-reelectable, 6-year term.

And yes, I'm aware of the 'instant lame-duck' theories, and others.

I was wondering what you think about that, Steve?

Victor said...

Make that 28 out of 32 years - I didn't go back all the way to Nixon when I wrote that.

And I don't think I'd include Ford in that, because I think he genuinely cared about this country and its people, more than his party.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see him in the same dark light I see Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush's.