Was it a bad move for the President to take Napolitano from AZ (and Sebelius from KS)?

[dorkulon]

The title is pretty much it. Napolitano would simply have vetoed these ridiculous laws coming from AZ. Why take two Dem Governors from these red states? Is there really no one else who could have done the jobs they now hold? It seems like a bad move, strategically.

Now tell me why I'm wrong.

[joeybee12]

1. I can't say you're wrong...neither has proven herself indispensible from their cabinet

positions...he could have gotten someone else.

[zonkers]

2. The AZ law will backfire on the hateful. No need for a veto. I think bringing redstaters into the

Administration has many plusses.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. to the contrary, we get three wins here:

First, foremost, Both Napolitano and Sebelius are directing (more than adequately) two large segments of government. Not only are they doing superb work for all of America, they have brought hundreds of talented, dedicated public servants with them, reversing the crash and burn course set out by Grover Nordquist, Dick the Cheney and W.

Second, the promotion of a lackluster ultra-conservative in AZ has made that state the laughing stock of the country. There is a global reaction, as well as a growing response by moderates, progressives, liberals and Democrats. In a strange way, the Police State of Aridzona is doing something that democrats in office have had a great deal of trouble doing. Energizing people to vote.

Lastly, a bill like AZ's White Man Only statute serves another great purpose. It splits the GOP into the crazies and the worried. The more sane and rational a GOP office holder or seeker is, the more this bill scares the shit out of them. As for those who support such racist legislation, as they dance their victory dance, they forget that they have just given up any minority votes, even semi-conservative catholic hispanics, for an entire generation.

If you think about it a little more, this is all a plus for America and Democrats.

[lamp_shade]

5. Damn. Wish I could rec your excellent reply.

[Lost4words]

6. thats a very valid point also, damn now I have to reconsider. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. To make it a total advantage, we need leadership strong and willing enough

to get out there and push the right framing. It has taken a year, but I do think I see signs of awakening inside the Democratic leadership.

[Lost4words]

9. Agreed and I hope you are correct re Democratic awakening!

nt

[craigmatic]

12. In theory you're right but in passing that law

they've also locked up a good percentage of the working class white population. It's not as if Obama is doing anything to make the hispanics more democratic so more or less they're just sitting there waiting for someone to come to their cause. It's not reeally clear what percentage of this population are elibible/registered to vote or if they're energized. I also think any competent liberal/moderate dem could do just as good of a job as Napolitano or Sebilius. In the case of Sebilius I think Dashile would've been better if he hadn't had so tough a confirmation fight.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. That is all well and good

but the price paid for this 'plus' is paid by real people, divisions in families and neighborhoods, fear in children and lives uprooted. So those elements have to be properly respected, and that means there has to be strong, unwavering follow through by those who have chosen to use humans as political fodder. So in short, this is not a plus for the Americans who are targets of this law, and I'm not going to say that it is. Skilled leadership can make this negative into a useful thing, but that is yet to be seen.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

27. That it is a negative is absolutely true, a huge negative.

The fear that this will create (and will take years to go away, even when this POS is overturned) is huge. Jews in 1930s Germany can probably relate.

[CakeGrrl]

22. Agreed.

As many disparaging remarks are made about the President's ability to play chess, this is a good example of a strategy that's paid off.

The Repubs are letting the lunatics run the proverbial asylum, and it's far more effective to have it on display for all to see rather than trying to level simple accusations of same.

The American people, including, as was indicated above, the saner faction of the Republican Party, are seeing what happens when the extremists are left to their own devices.

[Lost4words]

4. And its not like they are powerhouses in their current roles.

looking at these states today I am inclined to say it might have been a costly oversight

I wasn't happy with most of the Presidents picks, except for Eric Holder, I really had high expectations for Eric at DOJ, can you imagine my disappointment with DOJs non action on many fronts.

[Phx_Dem]

8. No. Arizona has to deal with it's wingnut problems.

#1 And this law is very likely to be either changed or thrown out.

#2 Her termwould be up soon anyway and we very likely would have elected a Republican (which is usually the case) and passed this law as soon as she left.

#3 Homeland Secuirty is one of the biggest and hardest jobs there is, and by all reports Napolitano is doing a spectacular job. In fact, she's doing such a great job, it may imperil her chances for a Supreme Court nomination. Which is a bummer because she would make an outstanding Justice.

#4 The security of the nation is more important than one wingnut state, in which I live. The courts will take care of this matter, as they should.

[poverlay]

10. Yes, but Napolitano wouldn't have been there forever. I think shining this big beautiful light on

these bigoted cockroaches is the best thing to happen to this state in years.(Painful as it is..)

I so very miss Janet, but I honestly feel so much safer with her at Homeland.
She may not be doing amazing, high profile stuff, but I guarantee that she is a very industrious, tough as nails, and liberal as can be. Her tenure there will be felt for decades and will be very difficult for some repuke to come in and undo all she is currently doing.
Any position she is in will be good for the citizens she can effect. She is one of the very few politicians that I trust, which is exactly what I want at H.S..

[craigmatic]

11. yes because there were liberal dems from liberal areas he could have got for those

jobs. They would've been replaced by liberals. These red state dems were replaced by repubs. He shouldn't have took Salizar either because now Bennett is in trouble.

[WI_DEM]

17. Nothing is taken for granted. Who would have thought Scott Brown would be US Sen from MA?

[GoCubsGo]

13. Obama did not "take" anyone.

Both women were asked to fill their positions, not ordered to do so. If either of these women thought that leaving their governorships was a bad idea, they would have turned down their respective appointments. Both were approaching the end of their second term, in states where the Governor can only hold two consecutive terms.

[Arkana]

15. Agreeing with this.

We heard this argument over and over when Obama picked Sebelius and Napolitano for his cabinet. He didn't force them to accept--they do have free will, ya know.

[dorkulon]

16. Well, obviously.

I didn't mean to suggest that Obama forced them to leave their positions. Sheesh!

Although the detail about having to leave at the end of their second term is something I hadn't considered.

[GoCubsGo]

25. No, not obviously.

Whether you intended it or not, you DID suggest this was a one-sided decision by using "take".

[KingFlorez]

19. It's pretty clear the OP didn't say anything about anyone being "forced"

[GoCubsGo]

26. Reread the subject line.

When the OP said "take" he/she insinuated that this was a one-sided decision. It was not.

[treestar]

29. Exactly and they could not predict the future either

But were in a better position than Obama to the extent it could be done.

[WI_DEM]

14. No. He asked the best people he felt for the jobs and they accepted.

[Jennicut]

18. Napolitano would have had to leave in 2010 because Govs are

term limited in Arizona to two terms. A Rethug might have won anyway in 2010 and then the law would have passed. Sebelius was term limited as well, 2010 would have been her last year.

[dorkulon]

20. I think this is the answer I was looking for.

I wasn't aware of the term limits in these states. The appointments make a lot more sense in this context.

[Jennicut]

24. I think that is why Napolitano jumped at the chance. Her career as gov. was going

to last only two more years.

[FrenchieCat]

23. You are wrong, because #1, Napolitano and Sebelius were both term limited.......

and were simply offered jobs, and decided to go for them.

But since we blame Obama for everything,
Might as well blame him for this too.

[treestar]

28. Why did AZ replace her with a Republican?

That's on them. Obama had no way to predict the future. He should put the best people in the cabinet, not sit there worrying over their replacements at state level.