And I don't like it.

Paraphrasing what Obama and his defenders/surrogates have said over the last couple days:

1.  I'll select cabinet people from the pool of talents, to get the best (most talented) people.

2.  I'll likely have Republicans in my cabinet.  I like a couple Republican senators (Lugar, Nelson) for Defense and State.

3.  I prefer working for civil liberties through the Congress and Executive, rather than the Courts.

4.  Turn off the TV, do what I tell you is best for your kids.

Taking #1 separately, it implies that the Democratic party does not have enough "Talented" people in it, to fill all the slots in the government.  It also belies a grave naivete - thinking that Republicans are loyal to anything other than the Republican party.

Well, Joe spends no little time telling people (verbally and by his actions) that.  He spends no little time demeaning the Democrats and their talent for governance, and finding Republicans he likes.  

So, now Obama has decided that insulting his fellow Democrats by saying there are not enought talented Democrats to fill the Cabinet.

And, remember, the NSA (listening to you) is actually a part of the Department of ... Defense.  So, we'll keep the biggest lawbreakers of them all during the current Republican administration, under Republican control.

Lots of potential for accountability there, dontcha think?

Taking #2 separately, there are two fundamental difficulties.  

First, removing Nelson and/or Lugar from the Senate will not make any difference in the composition of the Senate.  Both are from solid Republican states (Nebraska and Indiana) and will be replaced with Republicans.  Period.  

Second, by having to go to the Republicans to fill the posts at State and/or Defense, Obama pretty explicitly states not only the lack of "talent" (see #1) in the Democratic party, but also does the party one worse.  He is saying, in so many words, that every time the Republicans argue that Democrats cannot be trusted with defense - they're right.  Because I can't find in the Democratic party someone "talented" enough to run the department.

The history of the past 28 years indicates that since Reagan took office, Republicans have held Defense for all save four years of that time.  Those four years were 1993-1997, during which Les Aspin and William Perry were the Secretaries of Defense.  Aspin, you might remember, was a serious policy expert when in Congress and then got it in the neck for the debacle in Somalia, i.e., one created by the prior Bush administration.  

Perry, well he was an investment banker who was pretty much a caretaker.  On his watch - the Balkan wars got a real rolling start, among other things.  Most of WJC's international defense work that actually worked on problems seems to have happened while former Republican Senator Cohen (who, IIRC, now sits on the board of one of those mercenary companies) was his SecDef.  

And, why did Perry quit at the end of WJC's first term?  Among other reasons, the unremitting partisanship of the Gingrich Republicans.

As to #3 - civil liberties.  

We've seen, and will continue to see, just how assiduously the Congress will protect civil liberties.  This week, I expect, the Dems will fold on the FISA and give Bushie the immunity he wants so badly.

Congress, it needs be remembered, passed that part of FISA which gives a private damages remedy to any person wiretapped not-in-compliance-with-FISA.  I haven't seen anything about anyone cashing any checks.  You gotta be able to get into court and stay there.  As many say correctly:  a right without a remedy isn't much of a right at all.

As to those arguing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did a lot of good - they're right, but they overlook the history.  

1.  To get it passed, Johnson had to break a Thurmond/southern filibuster.  Johnson knew he was likely losing the south to the Republicans for a generation (closer to two, now) because he was doing what was right.  How many Democrats will be willing, in the face of that historical example, to do what is right again?  [Answer:  zero]

2. For the women in the crowd, remember, please, that the sex discrimination part of the Civil Rights Act was included by a Republican lawmaker as a joke, in the expectation that it would help bring the bill down to defeat.  Like the Russians walking out on the UN and winding up losing their veto over the UN going into Korea, the Republicans have never made that kind of mistake again.

3.  Putting it in Congress gets spew like Senator Sessions of Alabama, making extended speeches on telecom immunity, in which he complains about "some people" who were "Busy taking up the time of the Senate defending the constitution while they should have been defending the nation."  This man, it needs be remembered, was actually considered bright enough to be nominated to be a federal circuit court judge.  By a Bush.

4.  Civil rights acts are pretty meaningless when the Courts interpreting them routinely gut them through little, incremental decisions.  Used to be, if the police ran you down and killed you while in a high-speed chase, you could get your civil right (to not being deprived of life without due process) enforced.  No more.  Bivens?  A court decision.  And so on.
   

-

If you appoint corporatist/Establishment judges - as WJC did after nominees like Lani Guinier (sp) ran into a buzzsaw of opposition from the Republicans for actually advocating civil liberties - you will get Establishment-protecting decisions.  And civil liberties are routinely the victim of Establishment policies and practices.  

Oh, and finally. Relying on the Executive to actually obey the law is, after this administration, a dubious prospect at best.

FWIW - ask former AG Bobby Kennedy and his deputy Katzenbach how much got done with civil rights, without going to court.  Or, if you can't reach them, look in a history book.  [Answer:  next to nothing]

As to #4 - "Turn off the TV, do what I tell you is best for your kids."

Reading about that, all I could hear was Joementum's sanctimony on all things.  It's a short ride to another hospital.  You shouldn't have gotten yourself raped. Mr. Clinton's behavior was excreable.  And so on.  You've all heard his holier-than-thou sanctimony and it makes my stomach turn to try to write it down.  

Obama's sounding a lot like his mentor.