OK, I'll bite. Why does the Pentagon have 250 political appointees?

OK, I'll bite. Why does the Pentagon have 250 political appointees?
Because there wasn't enough room for 500?

Rev. Dennis - I guess it takes more people to negotiate with private contractors than I had imagined.

I, for one, can't wait until Obama finally takes office, if only so Obama's critics who were already convinced he was going to sell us out will finally have something solid to complain about, rather than all the tea sifting and mindreading they're working with now. Sure, they were wrong about Obama and how he'd run his campaign all year, but they're absolutely certain that they're correct now. And once Obama proves them wrong, yet again, they'll completely ignore all of their erroneous predictions and focus on some new outrage that will finally prove them right.

Or have I somehow missed all the mea culpas from the people who insisted that Obama's nice guy routine would allow Republicans to destroy him in the general election, and that he had no chance of winning? How many times does Obama have to prove them wrong before they finally realize they don't know what they're talking about? And yes, that was a rhetorical question, as this will never happen.

Given the impressive efficiency with which Obama has handled appointment processes so far, I'd say there's that much less to worry about on this count.

Obama was never going to change defense policy. That was obvious from the very beginning of his campaign, despite its slogans.

John Cole of Balloon Juice was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq war. Millions of people in this country took to the streets protesting that invasion. Numerous progressive blogs said that Bush was lying us into an unnecessary war. John Cole was too stupid to get it and yet here he is being quoted on a progressive blog as if his opinion has value.

Perfectly sensible. And Pete? I think you are misremembering the pre-war attitudes, "Millions of people in this country took to the streets protesting that invasion"? Uh, no, not really.

Shorter Pete's Sake: If anyone was wrong about anything, they should never be listened to about anything.

For the record, John Cole is a conservative and nobody pretends otherwise. I fail to see why we should instill ideological litmus tests on bloggers; as if we can only quote people who agree with us on everything. Perhaps some day I'll be wise enough to understand why it's intelligent to act like Republicans, but until then, I think we should act rationally and quote whomever we like. It's the quality of their words we should consider, not the background of the person writing the words.

And something else to ponder: Why is it that the progressives who insist that Obama isn't a progressive also pretend as if progressives won on election day? Either Obama won as a progressive or he didn't. And if he didn't win as a progressive, then progressives have absolutely zero mandate. I fail to see what is confusing about this. But these people insist that Obama convinced everyone he is a progressive, yet they have some inside knowledge proving that he's not one. This I find confusing.

Obama realizes we are in treacherous straits and need to take a low-risk, careful approach. I can't blame him, that doesn't mean in itself he's punting on progressivism. But we do need to keep an eye on things like bills he proposes or signs about things like economic justice, transparency, etc. There's ways to keep track of the distinction.

But we do need to keep an eye on things like bills he proposes or signs about things like economic justice, transparency, etc. There's ways to keep track of the distinction.

But Neil B, you're spoiling all the fun. That requires that his critics actually wait until Obama betrays us before they start complaining about him betraying us. Plus, it might not show that he's betraying us at all, which would completely undermine what these people have been saying about him all year (see Brojo above).

These people aren't interested in keeping Obama on the straight and narrow. They're just looking for confirmation of their opinion about Obama. They've been proven wrong about him at every turn this year, but they're still holding out hope that they'll be right about something. Somehow, they've failed to understand that Obama has been doing the exact opposite of the centrists. Centrists like Bill Clinton talk tough, but "win" by adopting Republican-lite positions. Obama has done the opposite; talking soft, but adopting liberal positions. Are they as liberal as these progressives? Of course not. Hell, these people are far more progressive than I am. But that's a far cry from making him a centrist. But again, they're not interested in any of this. They've convinced themselves that Obama will betray them and that's all their interested in finding. And so there's no reason to wait for Obama to betray them.

From the article: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is asking many of the Bush administration's 250 Pentagon political appointees to remain on the job until the incoming Obama administration finds replacements

Brojo: Obama was never going to change defense policy. That was obvious from the very beginning of his campaign, despite its slogans.

Apparently, reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points, Brojo.

Obvious? What, was he throwing gang signs or something that only you could understand? "Ignore my words, Brojo, I'm only bullshitting ya!"

You're confusing the candidates. The one who would not have changed Pentagon policy was Hillary Clinton. She voted for the war, and would have continued it so as not to be portrayed as weak by the Republicans or the MSM.

But Doctor Biobrain, I'm not referencing or mostly interested in what various "groups" or types of critics are up to about Obama, I am suggesting what really makes sense in how we should really judge him. I meant it in good faith, whatever anyone else is up to. Hope you can appreciate the point.

...it's really actually fairly routine.

But there was nothing routine about the Bush administration, its foreign policies, its national security policies and its wars. If any political commentator, right or left, had dared predict back in post-election 2006 or at any time in 2007 that an incoming Democratic administration in 2009 would be keeping the Pentagon team intact, that commentator would have been laughed out of pundit camp, since it was generally agreed that deep, angry dissatisfaction with these Bush foreign and security policies was the driving force behind the predictable upcoming change of parties in the 2008 election.

That Gates and his team are staying on should be seen as a breathtakingly clear index of just how abject the slow-motion Democratic surrender has been on Iraq and a host of other Bush policies. That this pathetic surrender has been pulled off with the rhetorical legerdemain to make it look like an actual victory of some kind may be welcome evidence of the new administration's political skill, but it does not represent good tidings of its foreign policy and national security acuity or consistency.

We have now reached the stage where Democratic pundits, who claim to have been mightily exorcised by the bloody travesties of the Bush administration, assure us every day that an Iraq SOFA that legitimizes a stay in Iraq for three more years; a debate over whether we keep combat forces in Iraq for 18 months of three years as we draw down to a permanent "residual force"; and plans for an escalation of war in Afghanistan are all signs of a victorious repudiation of the Bush Era!

Astonishing and maddening.

Apparently Dan Kervick has similar reading comprehension problems.

Dan, go back to the story. It states, QUITE CLEARLY that Obama is keeping the political appointees until replacements can be found.

I don't know how that can be made any clearer.

Neil B - I was just making a joke about the folks who insist that we already know that Obama has betrayed us. I agreed with what you wrote and think it's the only thing that makes sense.

It's obvious that there is a big rift in the Democratic ranks that I'm hoping will disappear once Obama actually starts doing things. On the one side, we have people who take a pragmatic approach and agree that Obama should set the stage for achieving his agenda. And on the other side, we have people who hate Republicans and believe that the first order of business is to repudiate Republicans and destroy them at every turn. And if Obama achieves his policy goals, all the better; but Republicans MUST be destroyed. For them, destroying Republicans is the same as advocating liberal policies.

But of course, the folks who think Republican destruction is the key to victory are the same folks who have bashed Obama the whole time, because he didn't advocate Republican destruction. And seeing as how their theories were proven wrong by Obama's victory (which they assured us couldn't happen) and they still attack him for not destroying Republicans, it's unlikely that anything Obama does will convince them of their mistake. For these people, if we don't adopt the slash-and-burn partisan tactics that have ruined the Republican Party, we are betraying our liberal agenda. Just as conservativism means hatred of liberals, progressivism often means hatred of conservatives. Fortunately, Obama has ignored these "progressives" and is setting a proper course for giving progressives much of the agenda they want.

I agree that (and with) Obama doesn't want to "destroy" Republicans and wants to engage with what rational elements can be (assuming good literal understanding, BTW I am a bit sarcasm blind.) But Obama shouldn't lean too far the other way to please and appease them, or he will be seen by them and us as weak and unclear of vision.

Neil B - You're looking at all this backwards. Obama isn't pleasing Republicans at all. At least not the Republican leadership. They want him to attack the hell out of them. They want war. They want him to anger conservatives and scare moderates. They don't care if he's liberal, moderate, conservative, or neo-conservative; they just want somebody they can demonize. Obama has avoided that trap all year and is playing things perfectly for avoiding it in the future.

Remember, the only thing that most conservatives care about is pissing off liberals. They're not ideological and will support any position imaginable, as long as liberals hate it. It's all about team warfare for them. And Obama has been frustrating them this whole time because he won't play along. Remember, Bill Clinton was their most hated enemy, yet he pushed a fairly conservative agenda. All they want is an enemy to hate.

And so Obama has given them choices that they can't attack him for, and because they didn't demand him to take them, they can't take credit for. He's given them the worst of everything and the only people who hate Obama right now are the extremists of both sides, who are upset because he's not giving them the partisan warfare they desire.

"...the extremists of both sides, who are upset because he's not giving then the partisan warfare they desire."
But, it' sooo much more fun! (sigh)

I find it odd that so many blogs are dedicated to smoothing the feathers of the Obama supporters whenever the incoming administration appears to veer to the right on anything and everything. This conveys the image that Obama people are a bunch of hand-wringing liberal ninnies, exactly the stereotype the right wing politicos love to broadcast to middle America. Why not wait to see what the man does ? I was in the beginning a Clinton supporter, but I think I have more patience for Obama/Biden than a large fraction of his zealot army.