Why Napolitano?

Powering Up

RSS

Featured Postings

Wait! We're Not Done with Bush Yet...

3:18 PM, January 19, 2009 | Comments (25)

Celebratory is a safe way to describe the mood in Washington. And not just for Barack Obama's big day on Tuesday. When Obama raises his right hand, it will mark for millions of his supporters the end of something else. At Dupont Circle in Northwest Washington,...

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Daniel Stone

Little of Barack Obama's press conference this week came as a surprise. The president elect's announcement of five top cabinet officials was hardly more than the confirmation of rumors that have swirled for weeks. Gates at Defense? Knew it. Holder at Justice? Old news. Even Hillary at State didn't come as a shock.

But the bigger name of the week is Janet Napolitano, the Arizona governor who Obama tapped to lead Homeland Security. Sure her named had floated for the position and the rumors that she was Obama's top choice had leaked out even before Thanksgiving, but that he actually chose her is, well, a bit surprising. Why? Because the effect of leaving her current post as governor of Arizona won't be all good news for Obama and the Democrats.

That's not to say that Napolitano won't make a good leader of DHS. She probably will. But she will for the exact same reason that any other qualified public official would also be good in the role. It's a brand new job (created by the Bush Administration after 9/11) with few specific duties. It's a monitoring agency that does things like threat assessment, setting the colored ladder of the threat level. (It now sits at Yellow, by the way). The broader objectives -- protecting against terror attacks and coordinating the federal response to natural disasters -- are things that other agencies, like the CIA, Department of Defense and FEMA used to do before DHS was created. Not to mention that even with the job description in mind, Napolitano has little public experience on issues of national security and disaster preparedness and relief. (To be fair, neither did Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, who were the first two to sit in DHS' corner office).

All of which is to say that Napolitano, sitting in an office that doesn't really fit her experience in a department that hasn't really existed long enough to assert its relevance, is kind of a waste.

Now before you write angry comments, here's why: Napolitano is an all-star governor, who's done good things for Arizona, like turning a large deficit into a surplus and cranking up education funding. But her absence means a much less balanced outlook for Arizona, especially in the view of Democrats. Upon resigning, her replacement will be Jan Brewer, Arizona's Secretary of State, who is a Republican. She will govern with the Republican house and the Republican senate, which means quite a red zone for Democratic policymakers and strategists. Napolitano's unique ability as a Democratic governor was to avoid partisan deadlock and provide political balance. Now, with her moving to Washington, Arizona becomes much harder to handle for Democrats. And they'll need to work with the state, especially on national policy issues like immigration and renewable energy production.

You must be a registered user to comment. Click here to register. Already a user? Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: phyllis AZ (December 5, 2008 at 4:12 PM)

I'm sorry to loss my governor. As painful as that will be, the country comes first. DTAZ pleassssse

Report Abuse

Posted By: DTAZ (December 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM)

As important as DHS is, the jury is out on Napolitano. I watched my state of Arizona go from deficit, to surplus, to deficit. I watched as vital programs suffered lack of funding. I watched while others got enough support. Some deserved support or cuts, some did not. More could have been done to protect hard working, tax paying citizens.

Her first 90 days will set the mold for the days that remain. My concern is does she have the fortitude to do what is necessary to protect our country regardless of popularity? Will she strengthen departments like FEMA with "highly qualified" people, or sit by and let key positions fill with cronies of influential elected officials who couldn't tie their shoes? Will she enhance communication between vital departments which will strengthen our security, or let turf conflicts create a greater threat? Like in Good to Great, get the right people on the bus. Let those go whose personal agendas are not beneficial to the safety and security of our great nation. Put country first, and push party to the side. Like I said, the jury is out.

Powering Up

Authors

Categories

Links

Featured Postings

Wait! We're Not Done with Bush Yet...

Archives

Why Napolitano?

Member Comments