A Few Good Men For Obama's Transition

Too bad Obama's endangering his pro-science cred by apparently seriously considering antivaccine supercrank Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for a Cabinet-level position or to run the EPA:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/11/say_it_aint_so_barack_say_you…

I don't like the Summers for Treasury rumors. Either he or Rubin would be very, very bad (for the same reasons Paulson is bad now -- conflicts of interest in the financial sector).

Is "Valerie Jarrett" a good man?

And I don't think much of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff. If Obama is about unifying the country, then why choose he person who was the chief enforcer for House Democrats. If he is about a new era of foreign policy, why alienate the Islamic world by choosing a man who fought in the Israeli Defense Force during Iraq War #1.

We will learn a lot more by how he structures his staff and cabinet. The signs are that he is a very cautious person and that his picks will be partisan politics safe.

And I don't think much of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff. If Obama is about unifying the country, then why choose he person who was the chief enforcer for House Democrats. If he is about a new era of foreign policy, why alienate the Islamic world by choosing a man who fought in the Israeli Defense Force during Iraq War #1.

We will learn a lot more by how he structures his staff and cabinet. The signs are that he is a very cautious person and that his picks will be partisan politics safe.

Too bad Obama's endangering his pro-science cred by apparently seriously considering antivaccine supercrank Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for a Cabinet-level position or to run the EPA:

EPA â  NIH. I am willing to evaluate Kennedy on environmental policy only. There are quite a few examples of scientists who are good in one field, and cranks in another.

And I don't think much of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff.

This is not a position with any policy power at all. It is an internal position. If this is your argument, then you probably do want him in this position, as the alternative (and the reason has not accepted yet) appears to be an attempt to wrest Speaker position from Pelosi. Trust me, Rahm would be much more a divider in that position.

There are other reasons to be suspect of this choice, though. Yuval Levin has this take:

The White House chief of staff is not a chief strategist or a chief advocate. He is a manager of people and of process. Above all else, he sets the tone internally, and shapes the president's decision process and the feel of the upper tiers of the administration.....[Obama] will need a chief of staff with a sense of the gravity of the choices the president faces, and one capable of moving the staff to decision, keeping big egos satisfied and calm, and resisting the pressure to be purely reactive to momentary distractions. None of this spells Rahm Emanuel. There is definitely a place for a Rahm Emanuel type of brilliant ruthless shark in a White House staff, but not in the Chief's office.

Point one: RFK, Jr. is not a scientist. He's a lawyer and an activist. His knowledge of science is appalling in many ways.

Point two: RFK, Jr.'s pseudoscience is not that well compartmentalized, and he's been known to play fast and loose with facts and science about the environment when it suits his agenda. He's a NIMBY hypocrite as well. (Can't have any wind turbines ruining the view of Kennedy compound, can we?)

Point three: Impressions count. Barack Obama claims to be pro-science. To appoint someone with such a glaring hole in his critical thinking and scientific reasoning abilities sends a very bad message even if you were right and RFK, Jr. can completely compartmentalize. Remember, he's not just wrong, he is a crusader for wrong when it comes to vaccines.

Point four: True, the EPA does not regulate vaccines, but it does regulate mercury in the environment. RFK, Jr. passionately believes that mercury causes autism and buys into the dubious science claiming that mercury from power plant emissions causes autism. Now, there are good health reasons to regulate such emissions, but arguing for them on the bogus claim that they cause autism is not the way to convince people that it is worth the expense and trouble. Moreover, his belief would likely lead him to fund dubious studies looking for just such a link.

Point five: There is nothing in RFK, Jr.'s history or experience to indicate that he has the managerial or bureaucratic chops to run a huge, sprawling bureaucracy like the EPA. That takes a pretty specific skillset that he just does not have.

Finally, I am not willing to evaluate Kennedy on environmental policy only. Whenever someone is appointed to a high profile job like EPA chief, you get the whole package, and the whole package must be examined. RFK, Jr. fails on any reasonable evaluation.

Well, the current EPA head is a scientist, so I reject the notion that a scientist must head the agency.

While we are theorizing, John Doer has suggested that Obama appoint Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, as his Chief Technology officer. Picked this up from David Roberts at Gristmill.