Obama, Change™, Clinton Appointees, and Republican Sour Grapes

posted by Curt, on November 26, 2008 10:42 am

CAVEAT: Don't go interpreting this as a change in heart toward Obama, just an attack on a ridiculous argument.

The latest Republican attack on President-elect Obama is that his appointment of numerous Clinton Administration appointees to his cabinet is inconsistent with his promise of Change™. This argument is ridiculous, and sounds like Republican sour grapes similar to Democratic sour grapes after the 2000 and 2004 election.

Now, I believe that Obama's promises of Change™ are largely empty (see, e.g., his continued support of President Bush's bailout approach to the economy and his backtracking on tax increases for the rich), but it's ridiculous to say that Obama is "no Change™" simply because he appoints people who've worked in Washington before.

I didn't follow Obama's campaign promises all that closely (I never was a believer), so I don't know exactly what type of Change™ he promised. I know he promised Change™ regarding partisanship, and he might actually be coming through on that a little bit (though we shall see how long it lasts). But less partisanship has nothing to do with whether a person worked in Washington D.C. for a previous President. I suspect that the change that Obama was promising was a very normal type of political Change™--i.e. the Change™ from a Republican President to a Democratic President. And appointing people who worked for a prior Democratic President is perfectly consistent with that philosophy.

So, the Republicans should lay off this. Attack Obama's Change™ promise based on policies, not appointments. Even though there's not much policy to attack currently, they have Obama's record on the bailouts. If they really want to go after Obama, through President Bush under the bus as far as bailouts are concerned and argue that Obama is no Change™ at all on the economy, which is where Change™ is really needed right now. Trouble is, most of the Republican politicians voted in favor of the bailouts and voiced support about it, and thus have no position to attack from. Too bad.

Well, the one good thing that will come of this is that the pro-bailout Republicans, on the strength of their own misguided votes and Bush's relatively disastrous Presidency, will be voted out, and I hope that a new generation of anti-bailout, (more) fiscally responsible Republicans will take their place. Then we'll once again have a semblance of choice in Washington.

Add New Comment

Your Name:
Your Comment:

Security Code: