Basically, what the thread title says. I know everybody wants to throw in a funny answer, but I mean it seriously. Somebody said in the Ashcroft thread that it's common for cabinet members to resign after the prez is elected - but after re-election just seems peculiar to me. Why is everybody resigning en masse?
There are a multitude of reasons. Obviously some of the "resignations" are a nice way of saying "about to be fired" (and especially in the case of the CIA, I can only say "thank God"), but others have far less policy reasons.
For example Ridge and Ashcroft, while I'll shed no tears over the departure of either, both were basically thrust into duties they never could've imagined at the start of this term thanks to 9/11. Can't blame either of them for wanting to go back to private life.
And not to turn this into another media thread, but this isn't that uncommon. I just get the feeling that a lot of dejected "elites" are dealing with their grief by painting this as some sort of Orwellian coup.
Lethalwrestling.com: If you don't read us, you're probably gay
Originally posted by Barbwire MikeFor example Ridge and Ashcroft, while I'll shed no tears over the departure of either, both were basically thrust into duties they never could've imagined at the start of this term thanks to 9/11.
I'm pretty sure Ridge knew what he was getting into, considering his post didn't exist until AFTER 9/11. I never understood what his job really was, besides setting the terror alert level, but I'm sure it was one of those easily burned out jobs. Word going around a few months ago was that he wasn't happy with his salary, for he had to put his kids through college, and 100 grand a year wasn't cutting it. As long as he stays out of public office (I REALLY didn't like him as PA gov), I'll be happy.
They were talking about this on CNN yesteray. Being a cabinet member is a 24-hour a day job and is just about as stressful of a job as you can get. I'm sure a lot of the guys are just burnt out and didn't want to be running on empty for four more years. It's better to let the people who are burnt out go and hire some people who are fresh and can provide more energy to the job.
And, as BarbwireMike said, I'm sure some of these are just nice ways of saying "You're fired" as well.
The answer to WWE's financial problems...
Never 'Wiener of the Day', and is actually quite bitter about it.
Originally posted by OMEGA Being a cabinet member is a 24-hour a day job and is just about as stressful of a job as you can get. I'm sure a lot of the guys are just burnt out and didn't want to be running on empty for four more years.
That's my point. If these guys cannot be expected to perform a lesser job than the President for four years, how can we expect the President to be able to operate on empty (your words) for four more years?
pieman: That's my point. If these guys cannot be expected to perform a lesser job than the President for four years, how can we expect the President to be able to operate on empty (your words) for four more years?
I think the obvious answer is co...COME ON! HE'S BORN AGAIN!
Damn Kitty Kelly book...
FLEA
Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
Originally posted by piemanThat's my point. If these guys cannot be expected to perform a lesser job than the President for four years, how can we expect the President to be able to operate on empty (your words) for four more years?
It is an interesting question. But being President means that you are the boss, and can delegate most of the work, depending on the management style of the President. The Cabinet Secretary serves at the Pleasure of the President and implements his vision for government. So not only do you have to run what would amount to a multi-billion dollar company, you have to answer to the most powerful man in the world. The President only has to answer to the voters once after being elected, and then to his God.
I can't recall...was there similar turnover with Clinton (96) and Reagan (84)? I know the Secretary of State under Reagan changed from Haig to Shultz, but were there others?
I haven't found anything yet that lists ALL of the positions Clinton had to fill, but that article should show that this sort of thing happens, and there is nothing special or meaningful about it happening this time around.
Lifted from a, gasp, print edition of Congressional Quarterly, here are the number of resignations and early replacements for the last 6 2-term Presidents.
Harry Truman: 4 Dwight Eisenhower: 3 Lyndon Johnson: 4 Richard Nixon: 9 Ronald Reagan: 7 William Clinton: 7
Tim
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
Originally posted by Barbwire MikeFor example Ridge and Ashcroft, while I'll shed no tears over the departure of either, both were basically thrust into duties they never could've imagined at the start of this term thanks to 9/11.
I'm pretty sure Ridge knew what he was getting into, considering his post didn't exist until AFTER 9/11. I never understood what his job really was, besides setting the terror alert level, but I'm sure it was one of those easily burned out jobs. Word going around a few months ago was that he wasn't happy with his salary, for he had to put his kids through college, and 100 grand a year wasn't cutting it. As long as he stays out of public office (I REALLY didn't like him as PA gov), I'll be happy.
Yeah, he's got a job that didn't exist before 9/11. Thus, before 9/11, he could never have imagined what he'd be doing in 2004.
The president's job can be more likened to a marathon: they pace themselves to not get burned out. The president brings in people to work his agenda, and those are the people who work the 80+ hour weeks to get their particular area going; more like a sprint than a marathon.
Besides, in Bush's particular case, I was under the impression that he NEVER worked after hours and always took his vacations. He's the last guy who should be burned out.
It's pretty much standard operating procedure for cabinet secretaries to offer their resignation if the president is re-elected. Part of it is the inevitable burnout; part of it is so the president can make changes if cabinet members aren't on the same page as him or so they can go on to whatever they want to do next.
As for burnout, it's been touched on here, but the job of cabinet members is to make sure the president doesn't get burned out by keeping as much off of him as possible. Therefore, they're pretty much going around the clock and they only present to the president the major problems.
Originally posted by CrimedogAs for burnout, it's been touched on here, but the job of cabinet members is to make sure the president doesn't get burned out by keeping as much off of him as possible. Therefore, they're pretty much going around the clock and they only present to the president the major problems.
So it seems what most of you are saying is that the President really doesn't do a whole hell of a lot?
Originally posted by CrimedogAs for burnout, it's been touched on here, but the job of cabinet members is to make sure the president doesn't get burned out by keeping as much off of him as possible. Therefore, they're pretty much going around the clock and they only present to the president the major problems.
So it seems what most of you are saying is that the President really doesn't do a whole hell of a lot?
Basically, yes. The president has two jobs: Be the symbol of the country and make the really, really big decisions. Simply dealing with the U.S. government alone _ independent of any foreign policy concerns or anything dealing with non-government issues in the U.S. _ would be too much for one person. The president needs to be insulated from that a little, because if he had to micromanage, it would be an impossible situation.