According to the New York Times, Salazar's selection was "praised" by "oil and mining interests," who called him "open-minded" and "not doctrinaire," for example by "understanding" the supposed need to open public lands to fossil fuel development.
Meanwhile, he got "mixed reviews" from environmentalists, who charged he "often favors industry and big agriculture in battles over global warming, fuel efficiency and endangered species,” has "a disturbingly weak conservation record," is the "friend" of "oil and gas, mining, agribusiness and other polluting industries," and is "very unlikely to bring significant change to the scandal-plagued Department of Interior. It’s a very disappointing choice...."
As for LaHood, according to Jonathan Turley he
gleefully carried out the wishes of the Bush Administration on the House Intelligence Committee, which virtually shutdown any oversight of the unlawful programs. Even by congressional standards, he was a thuggish partisan who painted democrats and liberals as insufficiently patriotic or a danger to national security.Overall, as Turley archly notes,
[w]hile liberals are reluctant to admit it, Obama’s cabinet is far more of an insider and establishment group than Bush’s cabinet. ... Obama’s “change” appears to be switching out the red team for the blue team - giving power to the same party leaders who have been ridiculed by voters for years for their failure to confront Bush on issues like torture, unlawful surveillance, and are cited for the very same abuses of earmarks as Republicans.So here's the small request: Explain to me again, slowly and in great detail, why we're not supposed to criticize any of Obama's choices.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment