Posted on 12/13/2016 12:15:41 PM PST by Sean_Anthony
Mission change
This will be portrayed in the media as a “flip-flop,” or as some sort of inherent contradiction. How can a man lead a department he once advocated eliminating entirely? But there’s no contradiction at all. If you believe the federal government doesn’t need to be dictating energy policy to the rest of the nation, but the Energy Department is still going to exist, why not have someone in charge of it who believes in the inherent limits of its usefulness, and runs it accordingly?
McMorris Rodgers to Sec of Interior.
Crony capitalism is a strange concept.
If I partner with someone I know to start a business, isn’t that “crony capitalism”?
Yep! :-)
Trump is just a stalking horse for Hillary!
That works for me. Too many politicians are all hat and no cattle. Shutting down the DOE would be a resume enhancer.
Rick hates the Dept of Energy. He will chop back the whole thing.
And of course Reagan. For many years I was a democrat.
I hope (and expect) that this is the plan. The budget should be steadily reduced, and pieces dismantled so that in 4 years or less there is nothing left. A manager that wants to kill the beast is essential.
maybe he was appointed to it.. to oversee it’s dismantling !
No. But if you have another pal who is a decision maker in the government and over lunch he promises to send some work your way to help get your new company up and running because he owes you one, it is.
Somebody has to be in charge of dismantling.
It’s amazing how many of Trump’s nominees may well end up being the last leader of their respective Departments.
A lot depends, of course, on who gets to define "the mission".
Yes, now I realize energy policy is more than just taking off EPA regs and giving out drill permits. It’s also about our foreign policy deals
Agreed!
Perry is a great choice, and yes, I too hope he oversees its complete elimination.
Let’s hope that Texas cowboy Perry gets onto that EPA horse and rides it into the ground and then buries it very, very deep.
My hope is that Perry was hired to manage an orderly wind-down, kind of like a Chapter 7.
Maybe Mittens can be the “Wind-Down Czar”, overseeing the phase out of all the useless and unconstitutional departments. He does like firing people, after all... :)
People were saying Sarah Palin would get this slot—What happened to her?
Think about Palin a bit. She would have to move some 3,000 plus miles or leave her family
there and visit once in a while. She has a special needs child that I don’t see Sarah leaving
for the rigors of a full time job. She is more comfortable being free to go and come as she
pleases or it seems so to me. She was a council person or something similar and governor for
a couple of years. She stays occupied but not in a designated full time job of employment.
Sarah will remain with the family in Alaska. JMO
Granted the reasons for wanting Cruz on SCOTUS, I hope it will not happen, at least not until Trump’s third pick (were that to happen).The Republicans only have 52 in the Senate, and Democrats love to prattle about Republican SCOTUS nominees being “out of the mainstream.” But in that context Trump’s list of potential nominees - potentially a liability during the election campaign - is now a trump card. The Democrats’ problem is that the “out of the mainstream” dog won’t hunt when the nominee’s identity fulfills an explicit campaign promise. A promise, BTW, which helped him attract support from Christian voters nationwide.
If the Democrats had made a valid issue over the record of anyone on that list, they could now claim that the actual nominee was “worse than that.” They defaulted on that opportunity, and now they don’t have a leg to stand on if they oppose Trump’s nominee. If the nominee is on Trump’s list.
In 2018 the Democrats will have 25 - half their total senate caucus - seats to defend. Ten of them from states Trump won las month. The Democrats have been weak in the last two non-presidential elections, so the iron will be hot in ’18, and the Republicans must strike. Failure to win seats in ’18 would set the Republicans up for loss of the majority in ’20 or ’22, when they will have an average of 22 - not a mere 8 as in 2018 - incumbents to defend.
The Republicans must have those 25 Democrat senators - especially the most vulnerable ten - sweating bullets over their reelection. They must go to work right now recruiting solid nominees in all 25 of the states with Democrat seats up for reelection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.