SIO3: Trump's Cabinet: Filling the Swamp 2

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:28 Thomas: Hello and welcome to episode number three of Serious Inquiries Only with your host Thomas Smith. Oh, I forgot to mention that yes, people actually did vote overwhelmingly that they wanted me to keep that intro music and that's why I merely updated Lydia's little VO there. So thanks for sounding off. I love getting your guys's feedback on stuff. Always appreciated. All right, well, we've got for you today, uh, actually four more positions to go through. So the I'm going right in order. I might as well next up in the presidential line of succession in the swamp that Trump is filling, I think is what he's actually doing. He drained it. What he did is he drained it and then he just put different swamp in there.

0:01:15 Thomas: Actually, in some ways, worse swamp, just more just he drained it and just refilled it with just an even crappier swamp. So that's that's what we have going so far anyway.

0:01:26 Clip: We're going to drain the swamp of corruption in Washington DC.

0:01:35 Clip: Funny how that term caught on, isn't it? I tell, I tell everybody, I hated it. Somebody said drain the swamp, I said, "Oh, that's so hokey, that is so terrible." I said, "All right, I'll try it." So, like a month ago, I said drain the swamp, place went crazy. I said, "Whoa, watch this." Then I said it again. Then I started saying it like I meant it, right? And then I set it, I started loving it, and the place love It's "drain the swamp." I mean, it's true, it's, it's true, it's true. Drain the swamp.

0:02:07 Thomas: I don't think I've ever heard somebody turn into a parody of themselves more than Trump at the end there. He literally slipped into an impersonation of Trump. "It's true, it is true, we're gonna drain the swamp." It's fruit, just over and over, like, like you would do if you were making fun of him. But that's just him, you can, you can't really make fun of them, anything you say is a thing he could say. Anyway, just want to play that little clip there, I found it during the course of this, this research, I thought it was funny. Alright, well, Secretary of Defense is an interesting one, to say the least, and the military is certainly not anything I have any sort of expertise on, but I found a few, I think, interesting things to say about it, so here goes. First off, as we've been doing, let's just talk a little bit about the position and the history.

0:02:55 Thomas: The Department of Defense is America's oldest and largest government agency. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps were established in 1775, in concurrence with the Revolution, of course. The War Department was established in 1789, so it was named something else. This was the precursor to what is now the Department of Defence. The decision to unify the different services under one department led to the creation of the National Military Establishment in 1947. This establishment would replace the War Department, which converted to the Department of the Army. That same year, the U.S. Air Force was established, followed by the founding of the Department of the Air Force. The three military branches, Army, Navy, and Air Force, were placed under the same direct direct control of the Secretary of Defense confirmed by the Senate.

0:03:42 Thomas: And in 1949, an amendment to the National Security Act consolidated the national defense structure by withdrawing cabinet level status from the three service secretaries. The national military establishment was then renamed the Department of Defense. And that's where we are. So this is the Secretary of Defense, of course, is in control of. The Department of Defense. The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military force necessary to deter war and protect the security of the country. The principal defense policy advisor to the President is the Secretary of Defense, so the, the Secretary has the most, the second most power over the military, uh, obviously the President has the most. And I've been talking about, like, employees of these different departments. Well, the military has 1.3 million men and women on active duty, 826,000 in the National Guard and Reserve Forces, and more than 2 million military retirees and their family members who are receiving benefits.

0:04:40 Thomas: So, lots of people. Also, a civilian force of 742,000 personnel. I think it's pretty interesting to look at the current person, the incumbent, Ashton Carter, uh, was just made the Secretary of Defense in 2015, actually, and as with these other positions, there's no term length, but it looks as though Secretary of Defenses had some interesting terms. When I look back in the history, it's a little odd, so when Robert Gates, for example, was nominated and appointed by Bush in 2006 and he stayed until 2011, so about, you know, two or three years of Obama's term. I think that had to do with the fact that we were in conflict currently and, uh withdrawing troops so maybe he wanted to keep him in there for that that Continuity, but it's also interesting that Chuck Hagel, who had the job from 2013 to 2015, was a Republican.

0:05:33 Thomas: So Obama actually nominated a Republican to the position. So kind of interesting. The term lengths aren't at all as clear cut as some of these other positions have been. Who knows what the reason for that is? But back to the incumbent, Ashton Carter, check out his qualifications. He's got he's a physicist and former Harvard University professor of science and international affairs, B.A. in double major physics and medieval history from Yale. Pretty impressive there. Rhodes Scholar, studied at Oxford, Received his doctorate in theoretical physics in 1979, taught at Harvard University, 86. I mean, just a ton of academic qualifications.

0:06:18 Thomas: He was the chair of the International and Global Affairs Faculty and Ford Foundation, professor of science, international affairs, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs within the John F. Kennedy School of Government, author, co-author of 11 books and more than 100 articles on physics, technology, national security, and management, assistant secretary of defense for the international security policy during President Clinton's first term, and under secretary of defence for acquisition, technology, and logistics from April 2009 to October 2011, deputy secretary of finance from October 2011 to December 2013. So lots of experience, clearly a very smart person, academic, the most academic experience I've seen of anybody so far that we've looked at.

0:07:06 Thomas: So pretty cool to have that at least pedigree on paper, that's, I'm impressed by it, but Chuck Hagel was before that, and he had a lot less experience, but he served in the army in Vietnam, and actually has a BA in history, and, he was in the Senate from 97 to 2009, Deputy Administrator for the Veterans Administration, some stuff here and there, not a ton of experience actually, so that's kind of interesting. Thing. You know I can go back more through the pics, but honestly in looking at Trump's nominee of James Mattis, James Mad Dog Mattis. Ignoring the fact that we're going to have someone with a nickname Mad Dog in this position, this actually might be one of Trump's best pics.

0:07:53 Thomas: Again, if I'm coming at it from trying to be neutral about it, forgetting that his nickname is Mad Dog for a minute. It. At first I was, I looked at some of these quotes, I looked his nickname, I looked at who he is, and I was a little put off, but I don't know. I mean, in terms of qualifications, he's been in the Marine Corps, he started in 1969, he's got a BA in history, he led a Marine division to Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He has been in military that whole time, lots and lots of military experience. He He led the United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, he retired in 2013, and what's kind of interesting is that I guess he needs a waiver from Congress to lead the Pentagon because he's been out of uniform for less than seven years, so that's apparently some sort of rule, but it sounds like you can get a waiver, so I'm sure that won't be a problem in the Republican-dominated Congress.

0:08:51 Thomas: So, here's the thing. Like I said, I really have no military expertise at all. I'm just not the person to ask, but I found, actually, a really good video clip of Leon Panetta, who was the Secretary of Defense under Obama 2011-2013, just because I'm gonna hear him talk, we're gonna hear talk here, let me quickly go through his experience. He's actually a lawyer, background in law in kind of the 60s, and then in 1976 he was elected to U.S. Congress, and he had served on different committees, and then he was the director of the Office of Management and Budget, 93-94, and then he as White House Chief of Staff, 94-97, and And then he was made the director of the CIA 2009-2011.

0:09:40 Thomas: And then, of course, Secretary of Defense. So this is somebody who's a Democrat. He's, again, an Obama appointee who's been in the job before. And I found a clip of him talking about this pick. His A talking about James Mattis. And I think this will be more useful than anything I could say. So I'm just going to play this for you guys. This is on Face the Nation.

0:10:00 Clip: Let me ask you to tap into your experience as Secretary of Defense. General James Mattis, Marine General, is being talked about and Secretary of Defense. Explain for people why the civilian control of the military is a tradition and why having a general is a good or a bad thing, or just what kinds of things people should be thinking about?

0:10:23 Clip: Well, you know, it goes back to George Washington. There's a great portrait up at the Capitol of George Washington and giving up his commission in the military in order to become President of the United States, which I think was a reflection of the fact that it's important to have civilian leadership and civilian perspective when it comes to those issues. It doesn't mean that you can't have a military background, I think that is important to having that background, but at the same time, in those jobs, you've got to exercise the ability to understand political issues, to deal with broader issues that involve your capability to relate to the American people.

0:11:13 Clip: And so, yes, you know, having a strong defense background is important, but it's also important to be able to have that ability to understand the civilian side of that job, because both are involved. As Secretary of Defense, you've worked with James Mattis, what do you think about him? I like Jim Mattis a lot, he was a, he's a tough general, spoke the truth, was a good advisor, I trusted his defense judgment. And so, I think he's got a lot of qualities that are important to a Secretary of Defense job. I do think that it's important for Congress to talk with him if he is nominated, to make sure that he also understands this civilian perspective, because I think it's also important to have that when you become Secretary.

0:12:03 Thomas: So I found his opinion useful there, it certainly gave me a little more confidence in this pic, but, but again, I have to get back to his, his nicknames, Mad Dog. And I've got this article from 2013, so before all this, when he retired, when Mad Dog Mattis retired. His best quotes, I'm gonna go through them. "I don't lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word 'word.'" Okay. "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot." "I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery, but I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." Number four, "Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment in American democracy and kill every one of them until they're so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."

0:12:57 Thomas: Number five, Marines don't know how to spell the word defeat. There's a lot of spelling-based based inspirational quotes in the military. Like if you somehow, if you don't know how to spell a word, then the word doesn't apply to you. That's an interesting mentality. I don't know how to spell the word bankruptcy, but so I blown all my money on everything. It doesn't matter. I know how to spell the word homeless. So that's not going to happen to me, but I don't know. It's a weird thing. Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet. I'm not going to live that life. I'm sorry, I'm not going to, that's not how I'm going to go through life. Seven, the most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

0:13:37 Thomas: Okay. "You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon." All right, fine, you know, whatever, good message. "There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, and obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim." "No war is over until the enemy says it's over. We may think it's over, but we may declare it's over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote." That's actually a pretty good quote. So anyway, what I'm seeing from this, and what I've seen with kind of the military culture that I'm seeing in comments and videos and stuff and researching this, guys, he is this like typical American badass military guy that people in the military are really excited about. "Oh, we're finally going to get a badass to go kick everybody's ass and do all this stuff." And I don't know, I mean, I really just, I don't have the qualifications to adjudicate this.

0:14:25 Thomas: That little clip by Leon Panetta made me feel a little better. Who knows, hard to say, I mean, he could be fine, maybe he'll be fine, maybe he won't, I don't know. I guess I'll just leave that up for you guys to wonder about, and we'll have to see.

0:14:43 Clip: I'm very highly educated. I know words. I have the best words. But there's no better word than stupid. Right? There is none. There is no. There's

0:14:57 Thomas: Alright, next up is Attorney General. This is also next up in that presidential line of succession that I've been talking about, kind of an indication of how important it is. And this is an interesting one to talk about, because in looking at qualifications, like purely qualifications, I don't know that there's a whole lot to say. Let me do a quick rundown. Loretta Lynch, the current person in the position, has her JD from Harvard, Harvard, Eastern District Drug and Violent Crime Prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in 1990, Chief of Long Island Office, 1994-98, Chief Assistant U.K. Attorney in the Eastern District, just plenty of experience. And Holder, a similar thing. It's actually, there's not a whole lot interesting to look at experience-wise in the previous people to hold the position, because, because it's kind of similar.

0:15:50 Thomas: Basically, a law degree and a lot of legal experience. It's hard to really distill without drilling down into all of that and getting into politics. There's not a whole lot to say about it. Bush's nominees all had similar qualifications. Law degree, legal experience. I mean, really, there's... there's not I'm not seeing too much in there that would make this a bad pick. And so, let's just talk about the pick.

Jeff Sessions, uh, has a lot of people worried, he's got, let- let's go down his experience, he got a law degree from University of Alabama School of Law, 81 to 93 he served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Attorney General of Alabama in 1994, he won the U.S. Senate in 96, reelected 2002, 2008, 2014, uh the important thing that everybody talks about is his nomination for federal judgeship in 1986, was rejected in the senate judiciary committee and he became only the second nominee to the federal judiciary in 48 years whose nomination was killed by that committee, which is really interesting, Republican-dominated committee too.

What, what I'm a little bit in disbelief about is the fact that he got rejected by that committee, but Clarence Thomas was able to be nominated to the Supreme Court with the allegations against him, which were much more convincing to me, because it's interesting, I look at these allegations and I'm, look, people are probably gonna be mad at me for this, but there's not like a ton here. I mean, there's people testifying that he made jokes at certain times, there's... there's somebody who testified that Sessions called him boy, a black man. And, but Sessions denied that. And there's, there's also other hearsay that people testified to.

0:17:31 Thomas: They, he would say things insensitive from time to time, but it's, it's interesting because when Sessions, Sessions denied it and said, you know, the joke about the KKK he made, which was he thought they were okay until he found out they smoked pot. He said that the the comment was not serious. He apologized. He said he considered the Klan to be a force for hatred and bigotry. So I don't know. I find it interesting that he didn't make it through confirmation when it's not like there's anything on tape. It was testimony. It Was, uh, things that he said he denied. And then he, he asserted that he Didn't believe those things. I don't know. I find it, I find it strange. I'm, I don't want to look, he's probably kind of racist as he's an old white guy from the South.

0:18:17 Thomas: And I'm not trying to say he's not, but I think I'm just a little surprised by there not being as much there as I thought, I suppose. And it's just weird because only three, four years later was the Clarence Thomas nomination in the Supreme Court. I mean, I suppose it's a little different Supreme Court versus federal district court, but still seems odd to me. I don't know why. I'm not sure what went into that.

But the weird thing is that Sessions later, of course, ran for Senate, won, and eventually became the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the very committee that rejected him, and it's fascinating. So, I don't really want to try to read minds and talk about racist or not, and I know in the last episode, and and I've been trying to do this, I've been trying ignore politics and just look at qualifications, but I think with Jeff Sessions, I think the only things appropriate to talk about are politics, because qualifications-wise, I think he's more or less in line with everybody else in the, I dunno, the last five or six nominees. Jennessa makes sense. A lot of legal experience, you know, maybe maybe Andrew could come bicker about particular legal experience. But I certainly wouldn't be able to do that. He looks pretty much in line.

But politically, I would say this is this is maybe a nomination that Democrats would want to fight, I would say, based on what I'm seeing, because Jeff Sessions is a pretty far far right wing guy. He was the first Senator to endorse Trump.

So he's been on the Trump bandwagon early on, which that's a, I mean, politically now if we're, if we're getting out of just the mere objective kind of qualifications thing, and I'm going over to like a political, more political analysis of this politically, that's not who I want in power.

0:20:04 Thomas: Like, I don't want a person in power in charge of a whole lot who was on the Trump bandwagon from the very beginning and has been in favor. Like, for example, he's been in favor of the potential Muslim bans, that he would consider doing that, which, as the attorney general, I mean, he'll end up having some say in that kind of thing. Sessions is incredibly tough on immigration. He's pretty anti-LGBT. He is pretty anti-Muslim. I mean, he, my gripes with him are political.

And so thus I would say in my analysis of him, I can't say he's like unqualified for the position, but I would say this is maybe somebody that the Democrats should try to fight. I mean, if there's anybody that maybe they can try to convince some Republicans to vote against, they need a simple majority. Majority. So 50 votes plus potentially the vice president if they need it. And they only have a couple vote advantage, the Republicans. So, you know, if Democrats can convince a few people, maybe this is somebody to fight on. But who knows? I mean, I'm not too optimistic about it about it happening. But this is this is maybe one of those cases where you just want to try to get somebody a little more moderate, even if Jeff Sessions is technically qualified for the position. So a little scary, that's for sure.

0:21:24 Clip: Is sending lots of baby- and by the way, they're coming from all over the world, including the Middle East. Why not? Come in, come on in. We're stupid, we'll take care of you. We'll pay. Get sick, we will take care your hospitalization. What kind of a plan do you want? Oh,

0:21:40 Thomas: That was something I came across that I think would really, really go over well with Jeff Sessions. I think that's kind of sentiment that drew him to Trump. But anyway, on now we're going to break a bit from that ranking I was going by from the presidential succession list to hit a couple highlights. Now we've covered all like the four major kind of biggest positions. Now it's time for a couple of highlights in the cabinet of just how truly stupid some picks are.

And next we hit Secretary of Education. Thank you for watching. All right, so this becomes a good one to talk about responsibilities and qualifications. Exciting. Okay, so Education Secretary here, created by the Department of Education Organization Act and signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1979, the primary function of the Department of Education is to establish policy for, administer, and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal education laws regarding privacy and civil rights. The department's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. Let's go back through the previous people who've held the position. John King holds it currently. It hasn't been very long, January 2015. So he before becoming secretary served as the department as principal senior advisor in the Department of Education. Since 2011. He was the Commissioner of Education for the state of New York.

0:23:12 Thomas: He has a Bachelor of Arts in in government from Harvard. He's got a master's in teaching of social studies from Columbia University's Teachers College. Got his law degree from Yale Law. No big deal there. And also a doctorate of education degree in educational administrative practice from Columbia University's Teacher College. So lots of education background, some background lots in working in government and education. So So lots of qualifications there. Before him was Arnie Duncan. Harvard College graduated magna cum laude in 1987 with a bachelor's degree in sociology, director of the Aerial Education Initiative, deputy chief of staff for former Chicago Public Schools, CEO Paul Vallis, chief executive officer of the Chicago Public Schools, common core and race to the top.

0:24:01 Thomas: So lots. Lots of education experience there. Now let's look at Bush. Let's look at Bush's nominees. Margaret Spellings, who held the position from 2005 to 2009, is Was actually not quite as qualified as an Obama appointee. She, I guess, worked in Education Reform Commission under Texas Governor William P. Clemens, and also as Associate Executive Director for the Texas Association of School Boards. So she does have some experience there, but it was mostly after that she worked on Bush's campaign, presidential administration. She was the political director for Bush's gubernatorial campaign in 94 and then became advisor to Bush during his term as governor from Texas. This is a more Trumpian pick, I guess.

0:24:50 Thomas: But what's interesting is Bush's first appointee to the position, Rod Page from 2001 to 2005, was quite a bit more qualified. So bachelor's degree from Jackson State University, master's degree in doctor of physical education, degree from Indiana University, Bloomington, taught health and physical education and coached at Heinz Agricultural School, community college, Mississippi, 1957 to 1963, teacher at Texas Southern University from 1980 to 84, dean of the College of Education, 84 and 94. So I and some more stuff here. So he had superintendent of schools at H.I.S.D. in 94. So a lot of education experience for that particular pick.

0:25:36 Thomas: So even though it was, of course, President Bush, who, again, maybe not the best president, maybe not the smartest president, a Republican is still that pick is miles ahead of our current pick Getting to Trump's amazing pick here, Betsy DeVos. She's a member, here's her qualifications, never went to public school, has no background or experience in education whatsoever, was never a teacher, was never a principal, was never anything. She's the former chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party, I guess. So that's, you know, she's a prominent member of the Republican Party known for advocacy of school choice voucher programs and ties to the reformed Christian community.

0:26:22 Thomas: She is basically an education activist who is a believer in school choice and voucher program for religious schools. But she has no connection whatsoever to public school. She didn't go to a public school, she didn't work at a public school, She was never a teacher, she doesn't even send her kids to public school, and she's going to be overseeing all of the public schools in this country if she gets through the, uh, the confirmation. I saw an article that said something funny. It said the best thing about her is at least she doesn't have any ties to Russia that we know of.

0:26:55 Thomas: But yeah, this is just somebody who's a far right wing anti-public school, essentially. I mean, Jeb Bush is pretty excited by this pic. And I guess in all fairness, at least what can be said about her, is she wasn't like a fan of Trump. She wasn't, like, a Trump supporter, really. She had said initially that Trump didn't represent the Republican Party, but yeah, he was her pick. And there's a quote by American education labor leader Randy Weingarten calling her the most ideological anti-public education nominee since the position became a cabinet position. Position. So yeah, this is, it's troubling. No, no qualifications, no reason why she would have any particular insight into this position other than apparently her right-wing views about public education.

0:27:48 Thomas: And that seems to be what has gotten her the job. So sad, distressing, maybe, maybe another one that Democrats might want to fight given that she has absolutely no credentials. Credentials, it seems like they could burn, burn her pretty badly if they wanted to, um, by by emphasizing her lack of experience and qualifications for this position, so we'll see, we'll have to keep an eye on that if that happens, but yeah, terrible pick.

0:28:12 Clip: We have very stupid people in our country negotiating for us and we have leaders that don't know what they're doing. You

0:28:18 Thomas: Speaking of stupid leaders and people who don't know what their doing, I think this is probably the holy grail of bad picks. I think you probably already know who I'm going to tell you about. Let's look at the energy secretary. Let's take a look at what they do. They're the head of the US Department of Energy, much like pretty much every one of these things we've talked about. They're the head of the department that they're named after. It's pretty basic. The position was formed in 1977 with the creation of the Department of Energy when Jimmy Carter signed the Department Energy Organization Act. Originally, the post focused on energy production and regulation, but the emphasis has shifted to developing technology for better and more efficient energy sources, as well as energy education.

0:29:04 Thomas: At the end of the Cold War, the the department's attention also turned toward radioactive waste disposal and maintenance of environmental quality. It's also an important position for climate change research, clean energy research, and considering funding issues for fossil fuel research. So yeah, that's the position. That's what we're talking about. Let's look at the current incumbent of the position, Ernest Moniz. Ernest Moniz is an American Nuclear Physicist. Nuclear physicist, that's a pretty, that is a good qualification for the Department of Energy right there.

He was the Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President from 95 to 97, undersecretary of energy from 97 to 2001 during Clinton, one of the founding members of the Cypress Institute, and the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, as the director of the Energy Initiative and director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment. So yeah, there's some qualifications. Nuclear physicist, that's pretty good. Lots of background there. Previously, it was held by Stephen Chu, 2009 to 2013 co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 97 so that's pretty good pretty good qualification right there I cannot wait to just see how Trump's pick lines up with what I'm seeing from the Obama picks here is incredibly qualified scientists brilliant minds but I haven't even started on Stephen Chu so yeah,

0:30:43 Thomas: Co-winner of Nobel Prize in Physics pretty good good for his research at Bell Labs and Stanford University regarding the cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light. He's a professor of physics at Stanford, a professor physics and molecular and cellular biology previously at UC Berkeley. He was the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory. Done research into biofuels, solar energy, spearheaded the laboratory's Helios project, an initiative to develop methods of harnessing solar power as a source of renewable energy for transportation. That's cool stuff. I'm not even done. He's a vocal advocate for more research into renewable energy and nuclear power, received both a BA in math and BS in physics in 1970, a PhD in physics from UC Berkeley in 1976, supported by a National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship.

0:31:38 Thomas: So that's a qualified guy. Now, but this is, I mean, this is Obama. Obama, that egghead is going going to, of course, nominate some good people to the position. Let's look at who Bush nominated for comparison and apples to apples comparisons for Republican, because we're grading on a curve. The second person Bush nominated to this position was Samuel Bodmann, 2005-2009, he, uh, pretty qualified, not terrible, graduated 1961, Bachelor of Chemical Engineering from Cornell, pretty good, Doctor of Science in Chemical Engineering, from Massachusetts, from MIT, served as an associate professor of chemical engineering at MIT, technical director of the American Research and Development Corporation, venture capital firm. So that's interesting. So he has some investment kind of experience too.

0:32:24 Thomas: So a little bit of a mixed bag there, but good, solid education in chemical engineering and definitely some science background there. And chemical engineering, of course, is going to be very relevant to the Department of Energy. Energy. So not terrible, not awful, but a little bit of a mixed bag there. Not quite, I wouldn't say, not a Nobel Prize winner in physics, but hey, you know, not terrible. Before him was Spencer Abraham, 2001 to 2005. Co-founder of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1974 honors graduate of Michigan State, law degree. Okay, so basically a law degree gets you anything. In conclusion of this research, having a law degree can get you any position in anything ever, I've decided.

0:33:11 Thomas: So maybe I'll go do that. Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, Deputy Chief of Staff for Dan Quayle. Okay, so not a lot of experience. As a senator, on three occasions he proposed eliminating the department, saying it had no core mission. So interesting. So Spencer Abraham is actually somewhat equivalent to who our actual nominee is by Trump. So that's kind of depressing. But at least we can say that since we were going in reverse chronological order, that Bush started with Spencer Abraham, someone who suggested maybe the Department of Energy should be gotten rid of, should be eliminated, and had no energy or science experience that I see at all.

Started with that. And then went from there to Samuel Bodman, who I, who I just read before that, who is more like a mixed bag, had some, certainly some science expertise and knowledge that I guess gives us a little hope, but you might lose all of that hope when we talk about who Trump actually nominated. And that is Rick Perry, Rick Perry to the department of energy Secretary of Energy. Let's see. He's got a bachelor's in animal science. That has the word science in it. 1972. Former Texas governor. 2011 proposed scrapping the energy department while he was seeking the nomination.

0:34:43 Clip: And I will tell you, it's three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, education, and the, uh, what's the third one there? Let's see. You need five. Oh, five, okay. So, commerce, education and, uh the, um, uh... EPA? EPA, there you go. No, I'm kidding. Let's talk, let's talk... Seriously?

0:35:09 Clip: Is EPA the one you were talking about? No, sir, no, sir. We were talking about the agencies of government. EPA needs to be rebuilt. But you can't name the third one. The third agency of government, I would I would do away with the education, the commerce and let's see. I can't. The 3rd when I can. Sorry. Oops.

0:35:36 Thomas: So there you go. That's our secretary of energy potentially. I buy again like at least he couldn't remember that he wanted to eliminate that one That's it's kind of encouraging. I guess Wow, I who you painful clip, but yeah, that's that's excellent choice Trump excellent choice Trump did say he knows all the best people. He has all the BEST people. Rick Perry has experience with extracting oil, uh, from the ground, I guess, is his b- that would be his, his MOST favorable qualification. Like, if you took just the, oh, here's why he could be Secretary of Energy, he is invo- has history with- in the oil industry, and oil is energy, so, there you go. I mean, that's, that it right there. That would be the best case you could make for him. Thank you. Here's a good quote about it. I think very few people understand that the Energy Department, to a very substantial degree, is dealing with nuclear weapons, and Rick Perry suggested the agency should be abolished.

0:36:36 Thomas: That suggests he thinks it doesn't have value. That was from Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, who for years led the committee that oversees the Energy Departments budget. This was, this has got to be the most painful one. I would say the education secretary was second most painful, but this one, just going from Stephen Chute, Nobel Prize in Physics, among a million other things, to Ernest Moniz, nuclear physicist, all kinds of other experience in energy and science, and then Rick Perry. Yep, Rick Perry... So, that does it for the individual nominees that I had planned for this show. I want to point out a couple things, run a few things by you.

0:37:22 Thomas: We did research on every single nominee, actually, and these were only five of how, I don't know, in the teens, the number that we looked at, so I wanted to run it by you guys. If you'd like more of this, if this is something you would like more, I could do another show down the road on more of the nominees. Let me know your interest. This was kind of a new thing to do for this show, so I'm not entirely sure how it went. So give me your feedback. If you liked it, you didn't like it. If you'd like to hear more, I can certainly give it a break and then come back with maybe some other members of the cabinet and take a look at them. Because we've done the research, I just didn't want to do three parts on it. I figured two parts was good enough. And then I suppose I would, should probably try to do some sort of overall summing up.

0:38:10 Thomas: I'd say this cabinet has a few, a few things going on. There are people with ties to Russia, people who are very Russia friendly. That is going to be something that I'm, I'm incredibly curious to keep an eye on through these next four years or however long Trump can stay in power, because that it's just, that's such an interesting dynamic. This idea that all of a sudden Republicans are going to be Russia friendly, you know, because their president, the Republican president, the Republican Congress, I mean, they're slowly starting to go over to that side because I think politics pretty much trumps anything. But, yeah, that that's going to Be interesting to look at. Then we got a lot of a lot Of military experience in this cabinet.

0:38:56 Thomas: A lot of it. I don't know how hawkish they'll end up being. That's something to be concerned about going forward. I suppose maybe one of the few saving graces of being a pro-Russia president and a cabinet with ties to Russia is that maybe that means we don't have to fear nuclear war with Russia, at least, probably just be conflicts elsewhere, and most likely conflicts where we aren't going to be the ones hurting from them. It's going to be other countries. It's going to be other places where we go, but we'll see. I mean, that's something to keep an eye on too, too. Another big theme of this cabinet is oil company ties, ties to the oil industry. Tillerson, Perry, I mean there's lots of others. And in addition to oil company, if that wasn't tickling your fancy, lots of ties to...

0:39:45 Thomas: Goldman Sachs, so it's a, it's sort of a good, those are all those, those elements. I just brought up, not the most encouraging signs. Maybe the military, the heavy military experience being, I mean, maybe the least egregious thing to have. I mean, other than that, having ties to Russia, ties to oil companies, ties to Goldman Sachs, and in general just not people who are are competent for the positions that they're in. Some were, to be in all fairness, a few had the requisite experience and qualifications that you might want, ignoring politics, which is hard to do, but ignoring that. But yeah, lots of people who are business people. That's another thing, people who... I think a big theme and another thing I want to look at going forward is how the government is not a business.

0:40:34 Thomas: I am not entirely opposed to cutting a lot of the waste. I mean, again, to bring it up, I worked in government. I did until Friday. I guess if If you're hearing this on the normal time last Friday, there's a lot of waste. Certainly there's tunnel waste in government. I wouldn't mind cutting some of it. I don't know that these are the people to do it. I don't know that it's actually going to happen. I don't know that cutting entire departments makes any sense. That's probably something that I think you'll find. I think Rick Perry will find when he starts to look at the Department of Energy, oh, wait, this does useful things that we need. Maybe not getting rid of an entire department that I can't even remember. Maybe that's not a good idea. So we'll see. Those are the things I kind of am keeping an eye on.

0:41:21 Thomas: Right, well, that's all for me for today on the Trump cabinet picks. Like I said, lots more research we could tap if you guys are interested in more of this, but, uh, if not, I mean, we'll have to keep an eye on how the confirmation hearings go, uh, what happens, and I'll certainly maybe do an update show at that point on what went down in those hearings and if it was anything interesting and if the right, right questions were asked, uh, and what the answers to those questions were. So that'll be, that'll be, I'm gonna keep an eye on this. This is, I want to keep an eyes on all of this. I think that during this process of doing this research I went through another mini phase of kind of denial about Trump. I I kind of reopened that wound a little bit, just the idea that this guy is populating these cabinet picks and these important positions in our government, and he's in charge, and And he gets to sit up there and tell his people, oh, yeah, here, I want you to, he gets to be the big guy.

0:42:18 Thomas: He gets to be, that's what I think Trump has always wanted. He's wanted to be THE guy. That's why I never thought he was doing this on a whim or a lark or whatever. I never thought it was a joke. I never thought it was just a promotional thing. No, he wants to be the guy. And Trump gets to be the guy now. And appoint these people, these really incompetent, unqualified people to important positions. So, it was kind of painful watching this again and going through all of this. I admit it had kind of normalized for me a little bit, this whole Trump presidency. It had kind of at least stopped hurting a little over the holidays. I was distracted by too many things, my job, the holidays, the podcast, all that stuff. But this opened it up again.

0:43:04 Thomas: So, I, I think the best thing we can do, and what I intend to try to do, is be vigilant and keep an eye on what's going on, and when some nonsensical thing, like say, I don't know, nominating Rick Perry to be Energy Secretary, when that happens, I think we all need to make as much noise as we can, and that's how we'll just have to get through it and hope we survive four years. So that's my plan. Thanks for listening to Serious Inquiries Only, and I will see you guys on Thursday, Thursday.