Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat and a close friend of Mr. Obama's from Chicago, has been offered the job of chief of staff, and although he was said to be concerned about the effects on his family and giving up his influential role on Capitol Hill, many Democrats said they expected him to accept it. Mr. Obama named John D. Podesta, the former Clinton White House chief of staff, to lead his transition team along with Valerie Jarrett, a longtime adviser, and Pete Rouse, his Senate chief of staff.
Read on at NYTimes...
More like this
Timothy Sandefur has a brief post up about who might be named the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He pointed out a problem with a possible Thomas nomination that I hadn't thought of - why would he accept it?
I've been so busy with unpacking that I didn't know until today that Chief Justice Rehnquist had died. It's certainly not a surprise, given his battle against thyroid cancer, but the timing is almost surreal.
Lott has a new post on blog where he writes:
6/15/04 Two-thirds of Police Chiefs think Right-to-carry Laws Reduce Crime
CNN has a long review of the job Chief Justice John Roberts is doing so far at the Supreme Court. By all accounts, the other justices have embraced him and he has shown great understanding of and affinity for court tradition.
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:
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.