Grijalva for Interior Secretary

posted by John Nichols on 12/02/2008 @ 11:27pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (27)

Subscribe Now

Now that President-elect Barack Obama has put together his administration's economic, foreign-policy and national-security teams, the transition process comes to the interesting part.

Obama was, necessarily, constrained by practical and political circumstances when it came to many of his highest-profile picks. Even those of us who have objected to some of the president-elect's selections recognize that Obama has faced powerful pressures from economic and political players who are disinclined to give him the space or the flexibility that might allow a new president to satisfy his most progressive supporters.

But as he selects the members of his Cabinet who will be charged with revitalizing essential agencies that suffered from bad leadership and top-level indifference during the Bush-Cheney interregnum -- and, in some cases, during Bill Clinton's presidency -- Obama can and should nominate bolder, more progressive leaders.

Where to begin?

How about Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva as Secretary of the Interior?

Grijalva is reportedly under serious consideration for the post that far more important than the attention usually accorded it by a neglectful media would suggest. The Department of the Interior does not merely have responsibility for the management and conservation of federally owned lands, it also administers programs of concern to indigenous populations of the United States and its territories. As such, the secretary plays a definitional -- and at times delicate -- role in shaping environmental, energy, economic and social policy.

Grijalva is uniquely well qualified to renew the department's role.

As a westerner, he fits what would appear to be the first requirement: 15 of the past 16 Interior secretaries have come from the region where the federal government is a major land owner.

But there is a lot more to Grijalva than his region.

The five-term congressman currently chairs the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. And he has been a genuine activist in that position, challenging giveaways to agribusiness and big ranchers who have taking advantage of ridiculously cheap grazing permits on federal lands in the west and exploring the role that oil and gas development on federal property has played in the decline of hunting habitats in the west.

And when it comes to voting in the House, the congressman from the Tuscon area has been a steady defender of environmental interests -- his lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters is 95 percent positive.

Grijalva, the son of migrant laborers from Mexico who became a college administrator, has also shown the sort of interest in the affairs of indigenous peoples that is needed at Interior.

Beyond his specific qualifications for the post, the recently elected co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus would add a smart, strong progressive voice to Cabinet discussions.

Grijalva's got great convictions and a record of taking courageous stands. Yet, he has, as well, displayed an ability to work across lines of party and ideology.

As such, Grijalva looks like an ideal fit for a Cabinet where Barack Obama says he wants to encourage honest debate, the exploration of big ideas and a commitment to renewing the sense of purpose that is required to realize the full potential of agencies like the Department of Interior.

Comments (27)

If The Wall Street Journal has your back in times like these --yes, they've been basically singing Obama's praises-- then who needs enemies?

In closing, I could be wrong about Obama and if that becomes the case I'll happily eat crow with gusto, but I would suggest that those who see the same ghastly picture developing that I do --business as usual in Washington DC including the same whirling revolving door that is spinning America into its grave-- should break out the bullhorns and strut out on the streets.

It's high time for agitation all across this nation.

Post script:

It's looking more and more everyday like the "Reverend Wright controversy" was backwards. It may have been more appropriately termed the "Barack Obama controversy" if the public weren't so blinded by propaganda.

It's a slam dunk that Dr. Martin Luther King would have been on the front lines of the marches against a kowtowing Obama.

This country needs a wake up call, and perhaps even an enema in the immortal words of Jack Nicholson's Joker.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/03/2008 @ 02:29am
"Obama was, necessarily, constrained by practical and political circumstances when it came to many of his highest-profile picks. Even those of us who have objected to some of the president-elect's selections recognize that Obama has faced powerful pressures from economic and political players who are disinclined to give him the space or the flexibility that might allow a new president to satisfy his most progressive supporters."

~Nichols

I'll grant that there's some truth in that statement, but it is equally true that the choices thus far have been disturbingly backward looking.

The last two paragraphs in the stellar piece here at The Nation by Steve Fraser (of The American Empire Project fame):

All of this would require a capacity for re-imagining foreign affairs as something other than a zero-sum game. So far, nothing in Obama's line-up of foreign policy and national security mandarins suggests this kind of potential policy deviance. Again, no Rooseveltian "brain trust" is in sight, even though unorthodoxies are called for, not just because of the hopes Obama's victory have aroused but because of the urgency of our present circumstances.

If original thinking doesn't find a home somewhere within this forming administration soon, it will be an omen of an even more troubled future to come, when options not even being considered today may be unavailable tomorrow. Certainly, Americans ought to expect something better than a trip down the grimmest of memory lanes into the failed neoliberalism of yesteryear.

End quote.

It would be great to see Grijalva at Interior, but on the larger issues that we face as a nation and as a global society, the indications from Barack Obama thus far are deeply disturbing.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/03/2008 @ 02:29am
Posts 1 and 2 above were intended to go in reverse order.

Oops!

Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/03/2008 @ 02:30am
ONE MORE for good measure.

Excerpt from Jeremy Scahill at Counterpunch yesterday:

Obama's starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain", called Obama's cabinet selections, "reassuring", which itself is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain," Boot wrote. The appointment of General Jones and the retention of Gates at defence "all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign."

Boot added that Hillary Clinton will be a "powerful" voice "for 'neoliberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neoconservativism.'" Boot's buddy, Michael Goldfarb, wrote in The Weekly Standard, the official organ of the neoconservative movement, that he sees "certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush in his second term."

There is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of the Obama foreign policy apparatus. And this is the point: Obama is not going to fundamentally change US foreign policy. He is a status quo Democrat. And that is why the mono-partisan Washington insiders are gushing over Obama's new team.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/03/2008 @ 02:41am
Hey John. Did you see this? **********************************************************

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. cgi?file=/c/a/2008/12/02/MN0514FPHH.DTL

Texas judge dismisses Cheney, Gonzales charges

A judge dismissed indictments against Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday and told the south Texas prosecutor who brought the case to exercise caution as his term in office ends. **************************************************************

Now that's disappointing. You guys were so close.

NOT!

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 08:02am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/03/2008 @ 02:29am

Might I point out again, since B_KOOL is on another of his "Not good enough" tirades against Obama...

that if we had gone with HIS choice in the Democratic Primaries...

McCain would be President and the lament would be "If only Edwards had kept his pants zipped up!"

Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 09:07am
you must be proud, darin.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2008 @ 09:27am
"It's a slam dunk that Dr. Martin Luther King would have been on the front lines of the marches against a kowtowing Obama."

yeah right. YOU are going to tell us what MLK would do. absurd. how old were you when MLK was alive?

"There is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of the Obama foreign policy apparatus. "

except for the guy in charge.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 09:34am
B, at the time MLK was attacked for not being radical enough, like Malcolm X, for instance.

MLK was never elected to any political office, nor did he run for such an office.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 09:59am
As long as he'sot another Bruce Babbitt I'm happy

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/03/2008 @ 10:07am
THATS "NOT" ANOTHER-SORRY

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/03/2008 @ 10:42am
you must be proud, darin.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2008 @ 09:27am

No, not proud, but there is a limit to the childlike, idealistic naivetee that I can stand.

There's a story out there about Chris Wallace from Fox News telling Ron Howard that Nixon's crimes for self-promotion are far worse than any of the disagreements you have with Bush who, right or wrong, did the thing he did because he thought he was protecting the country, not selfishly advancing his one self-interests at the expense of the country.

Too many lefties forget this. That's why I found Nichol's cheerleading for impeachment ridicuouls.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 11:01am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 11:01am

Not going "Godwin's Law" or nothing, Darin, but...

Hitler and Stalin weren't "in it for the money" either.

And who was it talking about "permanent majorities" in Congress? Bush's buddy Karl? Seems a BIT self-interested for a Republican, no?

Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 11:47am
Now here is an area that needs some real disinfectant and house cleaning. Special interest groups in bed with the Interior Department for lucrative federal land extractive leases - drugs, sex and money - candy to our pathetic politicians and patronage appointments. When Bush wants to mine in Southern Utah next to some of our most beautiful and treasured national parks, you know you are on the brink. Let's hope Obama turns this around.

Posted by OneVote at 12/03/2008 @ 12:38pm
i thought bill clinton would be secretary of the interior.

or secretary of the secretary's interior.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2008 @ 12:53pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2008 @ 12:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

flaccid.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 12:57pm
Hitler and Stalin weren't "in it for the money" either.

And who was it talking about "permanent majorities" in Congress? Bush's buddy Karl? Seems a BIT self-interested for a Republican, no?

Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 11:47am

These are fair points. Maybe Nixon wasn't just power hungry. Maybe he rationalized his approval of the break in because he feared the country would "make a mistake" in the next election and could had to "protect the coutry from itself".

Nonetheless, they were rationalizations. When Rove talked of permanent majorities it was certainly hubris. He would do well to remember Solan's warning: "Remember, you are human."

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 3:09pm
i thought bill clinton would be secretary of the interior.

or secretary of the secretary's interior.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2008 @ 12:53pm

LOL! Good one.

Posted by k330k at 12/03/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 3:09pm

So doesn't that mean you just contradicted this post?--

Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 4:21pm
"Maybe he rationalized his approval of the break in because he feared the country would "make a mistake" in the next election and could had to "protect the coutry from itself"."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 3:09pm

So doesn't that mean you just contradicted this post?--

"...any of the disagreements you have with Bush who, right or wrong, did the thing he did because he thought he was protecting the country, not selfishly advancing his one self-interests at the expense of the country."---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 11:01am

Nixon "protect the country"...Bush "protecting the country"

Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 4:24pm
A brief couple of replies:

Maskot you ignorant slut. You are an odious and cowering little cretin.

If an argument is near at hand, rest assured that Maskot will misconstrue, misapprehend, misdirect and be generally flummoxed, foiled, baffled and bewildered.

For the umpteenth time, clueless cur, an argument is addressed upon its merits, not on unforeseeable extenuating circumstances.

Yet, bloggers here can count on Maskot to miss the cogent point(s) --virtually every time. High marks for consistency is your greatest virtue.

Dear "Emile",

It's not a very difficult extrapolation from MLK's speeches and protests --unjust U.S. war fighting being of central concern-- that he would be excoriating Obama for faintheartedness on Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if Obama is getting kudos from The WSJ, Karl Rove, and assorted neocons at, say, The Weekly Standard, how likely do you think it would be that a living MLK would be on the other side of that debate?

The defense rests.

Post script:

"How old were you?" is not a valid angle for argument. Surely, you're sharper than that, Emile.

No?

Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/03/2008 @ 7:38pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/03/2008 @ 7:38pm

You attack Obama as not good enough...and we can't remember that your keen political insight into the character of a political figure...

failed you when it came to John Edwards?

Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 8:29pm
NONE OF US KNEW ABOUT EDWARDS' AFFAIR AT THE TIME, MASK!

So cut Kool some slack for not taking into account something that he didn't know about (now, the gutlessness of Edwards, that's another story).

If Edwards had NOT been having an affair, do you really think McCain would have beaten him? Even after the financial meltdown?

If it comes out that Obama has been having an affair or hiring high-end hookers, THEN could we criticize the ideological homogeneity of his nominees and appointments?

Posted by cka2nd at 12/04/2008 @ 10:36am
Posted by cka2nd at 12/04/2008 @ 10:36am

B_KOOL, apparently sure that Obama is a "corporatist sell-out who'll do AIPAC's bidding on more wars"....

all before he's even Inaugurated. Yet, the rumors (while Edwards was still a viable candidate in the primaries) of adultery didn't bother him? Remember the Enquirer was publishing stories about the affair in October of 2007.

Plus, if we can presuppose how "Obama is going to be a sell-out"...why not Edwards?

Edwards "road to Damascus" moment on "Pure Progressivism" was relatively late. He was as centrist as Obama in 2004 and only "veered Left" when he saw he was running against Hillary and Obama.

In his Senate run in North Carolina, he was a BLUE DOG Dem.

So lectures from B_KOOL on Obama fall a bit flat given the guy he supported.

Posted by Mask at 12/04/2008 @ 11:20am
I don't know much about this guy Grijavlva. But my choice and someone who Obama should consider closely would be John Kitzhaber, former governor of Oregon. He IMO was one of the greatest govenors our country has seen in decades. His ability to work constructively for natural resource issues and finding consensus with the timber industry exemplifies his common sense nature. With the legacy problems that Bush is leaving the department of the Interior in has hamstrung many of the agencies, especially the Fish and Wildlife Service. We need a director who knows what to do to fix those issues while maintaining the sustainability of the industries that utilize our natural resources. Kitzhaber would be and ideal choice.

Posted by Extraneous at 12/04/2008 @ 1:20pm
Plus, if we can presuppose how "Obama is going to be a sell-out"...why not Edwards?

Posted by Mask at 12/04/2008 @ 11:20am

Now this is a legitimate argument, and if you had said to Kool that his guy would have been just as much of a centrist sell-out as he thinks Obama is, I would have said "Amen."

But instead, you focused on Edwards' affair. The problem is, unless there is a surprising amount of cross-readership between The Nation and the National Enquirer, I would guess that 95% or more of those of us who post here regularly didn't know anything about the "alleged" affair and only heard about it after the mainstream media picked up on it, etc., etc., so you can't really use that as a club against Edwards' supporters.

Posted by cka2nd at 12/04/2008 @ 4:34pm
Posted by cka2nd at 12/04/2008 @ 4:34pm

I focused on the affair because it was a matter of character and discerning of that character in a "clairvoyant" way based on limited information.

Just as B_KOOL is now in full mode of "Obama is a corporatist/AIPAC sell-out" because he's appoint Emmanuel or Hillary....with NOT ONE POLICY IMPLEMENTED YET (since Inauguration Day is still 6 weeks away)....

why not the same standard for Edwards? Both in terms of the affair (again, the Enquirer was out with the "rumors" almost a YEAR before the primaries were through and months before Super Tuesday)....did that slow B_KOOL AT ALL in his support of Edwards? Nope.

And yes, throw in Edwards as a "pure progressive convert". Do we accept that and ignore his previous centrist, even conservative policies....AND assume that he'd appoint Noam Chomsky Secretary of State and Dennis Kucinich SecDefense?

I don't care if Edwards was doing it nasty with some chick in Raleigh....that's between him and her and Elizabeth. Last good President we had, couldn't keep it zipped.

But if there is suspicion to suspect Obama....why none on Edwards or concern that his "dalliances" might create a "President McCain"????

Posted by Mask at 12/04/2008 @ 10:40pm