Romney's Possible Cabinet

In the event that Mitt Romney is elected to the oval office, he will face some of the most consequential and difficult choices any president has faced in the modern era. Probably the first of those choices will be the selection of a cabinet. And while it’s highly unlikely that Romney, who still has to chart a course to victory, has started making up serious lists for these positions, his advisers are almost certainly thinking about it. As such, we wanted to start taking a look at potential people that Romney might choose, in the event that he’s elected. Therefore, this article will be the first in a series of articles examining the various people Romney could choose to replace President Barack Obama’s current cabinet.

For this first article, we take a look at the most apolitical of Romney’s potential cabinet appointments – that is, appointments that received unanimous support from the United States Senate when President Obama made his choices. Three cabinet positions stick out in this respect – namely, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Veterans’ Affairs (VA). In selecting candidates, we narrowed the choices down to three people, one of which would be the “safe choice,“ one of which would be the ”exciting choice,“ and one of which would be a ”wild card.”

Why? He’s the co-chair of Romney’s Agriculture Advisory Committee, and has already done the job once under George W. Bush. He knows his way around the Agriculture Department, and has had three years in the Senate to build connections, making him an easy confirmation.

Why not? There’s no guarantee Johanns would take the job again. And even if he would, Romney might not want to put any Bush appointees in his cabinet, given the former president’s acrimonious reputation even among Republicans. Moreover, even if Romney were willing to take that risk, appointing Johanns could lead to messy political theater, and provide the Democrats with their first talking point “proving” that Romney is really just bent on going back to the “failed policies” of the past.

Why? Romney clearly trusts Putnam, so much so that he’s also a co-chair of Romney’s Agriculture Advisory Committee, alongside Johanns. However, unlike Johanns, he’d bring some new blood to the table, and would be a pick consistent with Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate. Putnam also has Congressional experience, meaning that he could easily interface with Republicans in Congress.

Why not? No private sector experience, and Romney could be hesitant to elevate someone from being agriculture commissioner for a single state (albeit a populous one) to being agriculture commissioner for the entire country.

The Wild Card: Chuck Conner, President and CEO of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

Why? He’s a former deputy decretary of agriculture. He’s a CEO. He‘s on Romney’s Agriculture Advisory Committee. He’s a former farmer himself. That covers pretty much the entire checklist.

Why not? Despite his impressive jack-of-all trades status, he’s not a co-chair of Romney’s Agriculture Advisory Committee, and doesn‘t appear to be viewed as a leading figure in thinking about the topic among Romney’s surrogates. He has the most recent relevant experience, but he’s not the only CEO with Agriculture Department experience Romney could pick, and it’s difficult to see what makes him unique. Respect as a leader from the president is key, and we don’t see much evidence that Conner is seen this way anymore than any other agriculture adviser Romney has.

The safe choice: Senator Richard Shelby, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

Why? Shelby has been following these issues as a Senator since 1986. He also is unlikely to want to run for Senate again, since he next comes up for reelection in 2016, by which time he would be in his 80′s. Picking him gives the Alabama GOP time to put in place a younger incumbent, and provides a good capstone to Shelby’s lengthy career in public service.

Why not? Besides it being unclear that he’d take the job, Shelby is viewed by many as a moderate Republican, and may also be considered too old for a cabinet position. If the GOP takes the Senate, he may also want the Committee Chairmanship more than the Cabinet.

Why? Baker is already Romney’s key Urban policy adviser, according to Forbes. He’s also written a book describing a form of “conservative urban revitalization that can work anywhere.” He’d be a strong ideological choice, but would also be able to get some support from urban Democrats, given his ideas about investing heavily in downtown areas.

Why not? Going from being mayor of a city to being national Secretary of Housing and Urban Development will involve a steep learning curve. His conservative ideology could also provoke barbs during the confirmation process.

Why? Because Romney has floated the idea of abolishing the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a budget-cutting measure. It would send an early signal that he really isn’t afraid to cut fat, and would inspire confidence among the ideological core of his own party.

Why not? Abolishing HUD would be a nasty political fight early in Romney’s term, especially given that Romney’s father used to run the Department. Democrats would fight tooth and nail, and Romney might calculate that the battle would drain too much political capital.

Why? Burr is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. He’s been surveying this issue since 2005, and presumably knows a ton on the issue. He also has four years left on his term, which would be more than enough time for a replacement to make a name for him/herself and gain the advantages of incumbency, in a state that has been drifting Republican this year. He has little private sector experience, but knows the relevant actors, and for Romney, that might be all that matters.

Why Not? Burr’s lack of any identifiable diversity and lack of private sector experience could make him look too much like a go-along-to-get-along nominee for an administration that may need to make drastic choices about Veterans’ care, and like a step back in terms of racial diversity relative to the current Veterans’ Affairs Secretary, Eric Shinseki.

Why? Robles has it all. A Republican Latino with private sector experience in the insurance industry and 28 years of Army experience. He’s both a veteran and the kind of Mr. Fix-it that Romney would probably love to have at VA, especially if Romney plans to overhaul the broken Veterans’ health system.

Why not? To begin with, it’s dubious that Robles would want to leave USAA for this post. Also, while he may be a Republican, Romney might not look kindly on his support for Romney’s erstwhile rival, Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Why? Even President Obama didn‘t toss out his predecessor’s entire cabinet. Shinseki was confirmed unanimously, and has escaped the kind of politicization that many other appointees have received, and could be an easy, low-cost choice that enables Romney to retain the image of being bipartisan.

Why not? He’s an Obama appointee, and depending on how aggressively Romney wants to overhaul the VA system, Shinseki could be a roadblock to Romney’s agenda.

On Wednesday, we brought you the first part of a series on who Mitt Romney might pick as his presidential cabinet for three of the lesser-known but still relevant cabinet positions. Now, we dive a little deeper, taking a look at a few medium-level posts that are still likely to attract genuinely high-profile figures to serve in them – namely, the people who Romney could select to fill his Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and Transportation.

Each of these has implications for Romney’s agenda, with his Commerce pick being able to define the White House’s approach to new technology, including the expansion of internet access, while the Interior Department pick would signal a Romney attitude on the environment, and Transportation would give us a window into his thinking on how to maintain the country’s infrastructure.

Why? Hutchison’s retirement leaves her former post as ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee vacant. What’s more, there‘s no need to fill Hutchison’s seat, given that the election to fill that seat is also this year (hence Ted Cruz’s likely victory). As a charismatic, relatively moderate female official with years of experience covering these issues, Hutchison would be an easy compromise pick for Romney, and probably wouldn’t mind capping off her career in Washington with a cabinet appointment.

Why not? Hutchison has no private sector experience, and no management experience, both of which Romney has said are key things he will look for. Moreover, Hutchison is damaged goods ideologically. Her thorough destruction in her run for Governor against Rick Perry already alienated conservatives in her home state, and it‘s not clear that she would hold to the sort of hardline positions at Commerce that Romney’s team might want.

Why? Aside from being a popular, successful Hispanic governor whose political futures are compromised by governing a non-state, Fortuno fits the mold of the commerce secretary picked by Romney’s Republican presidential predecessor, George W. Bush. In fact, Carlos Gutierrez, one of Bush’s former commerce secretaries, is advising Romney, so it’s likely that Romney would look for someone in that vein to take the job. Fortuno’s name has also been mentioned in connection with both this position and the Interior Department.

Why not? Fortuno is young, and may lack the foreign policy chops necessary to take a position so focused on trade. Romney may prefer to put him at the Interior Department.

Why? Trump’s name has been floated in connection with this post before. And once you get past his bombastic public image, that makes sense. Trump is a highly successful businessman, with very clear opinions on trade (especially with China), and is familiar with managing international partnerships for the sake of commerce. He’s also an outspoken Romney ally, even if his methods of advocacy don‘t always make Romney’s supporters feel safe. That’s not a resume to sneeze at, controversy or no.

Why not? The confirmation hearings would be a circus, and he‘s already said he wouldn’t take a White House job.

Why? As mentioned above, Fortuno has been mentioned in connection with this post, or with Commerce, by Romney’s team. Given the abundance of strong candidates for the Commerce job, it seems more likely that he’d be placed in this position. Fortuno has been a steward over one of America’s most beautiful territories, while also encouraging economic growth – a key mix, given how Romney’s Interior Department will have to thread the needle between utilizing our national resources and exploiting them. He’s also used to dealing with liberal criticism in this context.

Why not? Romney may decide he’s a better fit at Commerce, after all. If he isn’t in the Cabinet, though, that would be surprising.

Why? Inhofe is one of the most high profile advocates for increased energy production in the Senate. He is also one of its most vocal climate skeptics. An appointment of Inhofe would send a clear signal to environmentalists that this administration is not interested in catering to their demands, while still being less controversial than appointing Inhofe to a post like EPA Administrator, which would be a complete slap in the face of the Left.

Why not? Inhofe’s views on the environment, and especially on climate change, are extremely controversial, and a confirmation hearing for him would have the potential to turn into a public relations nightmare.

Why? Picking Manchin would be a move of true political jujutsu. In one fell stroke, Romney would make his cabinet bipartisan, send a signal that his administration will be pro-coal (in contrast with the Obama administration) and open the way for a less popular replacement senator to be nominated in Manchin’s place, who could easily be picked off down the road. Never mind that regardless of party, Manchin would be qualified for the position, and has the kind of managerial chops Romney might want. After all, he came to the Senate after being governor of his state.

Why not? Manchin’s still a Democrat, and might not particularly want to be put in charge of the Interior Department under Romney. He’s bucked his party on issues specific to his state, but a move like this might be considered a bridge too far, both for him and Romney.

Why? Mica is the current Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, but due to term limits, will lose his gavel at the end of this year. Putting him in this post would enable him to gracefully give up his old seat. His name has been mentioned by the Romney team as one of the leading contenders for this post, and given his nearly 20 years of experience, he’d be a steady hand doing it.

Why not? Mica‘s name isn’t the only one the Romney team has mentioned in connection with this post. Nor is he the one whose qualifications line up most neatly with what Romney’s team might be looking for in a future Transportation secretary. He has no private sector experience or managerial experience, for instance, and the fact that he’s been targeted by the Tea Party might make him too moderate.

The exciting choice: Marion Blakey, CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association

Why? Unlike Mica, who would likely be nominated for a post like this out of a desire to smooth over his loss of one political position, Blakey would bring very little political baggage, if any, to the post. She would increase the diversity of the Romney cabinet, while also beefing up its private sector/management-oriented character. Her two past government positions – head of the Federal Aviation Administration, and Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board – would preserve her from the charge of being completely untried.

Why not? Blakey’s nomination would open her and the potential Romney administration to charges of corruption. A 2007 USA Today story mentions that after leaving her post as head of the Federal Aviation Administration, Blakey was assailed by critics for accepting a position with an organization that lobbies that very same body. If Romney wants to send a message that he’s not going to play the same access games in his cabinet, she’s the wrong pick.

Why? “His excellency,” as McDonnell is apparently called in Virginia, will be term limited out of his job come 2013 (Virginia Governors cannot serve multiple consecutive terms). As such, if Romney appointed him to this job, it would give Romney a campaign ally and Virginia Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling an inside track on incumbency. Besides political favors, however, McDonnell could be a strong choice given his infrastructure-dependent home state.

Why not? McDonnell’s appointment could be seen solely as a game of political favoritism precisely because it puts Bolling in office, depriving Virginia Attorney General and Tea Party favorite Ken Cuccinelli of a fair shot. Romney might want to avoid the appearance of cronyism.

On Wednesday, we brought you the last of the departments where a hypothetical President Romney could avoid a messy confirmation battle for his nominees – namely, the departments of Commerce, the Interior and Transportation. Now, we begin to enter controversial territory, with three departments where the liberal vision and the conservative vision are irrevocably at odds: The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services and Labor.

There’s no way around this: These three departments are integral to enforcing the dominant progressive vision, thus any of them could be used to break it. A Romney Department of Education would face the prospect of reining in teachers’ unions and reinvigorating national standards in education, if Romney would even want to keep this department around in the first place. A Romney Department of Health and Human Services could be charged with dismantling Obamacare, piece by piece, using bureaucratic workarounds if full repeal can’t get past Congress. A Romney Department of Labor would face the challenge of reining in labor unions and possibly even enforcing nationwide reforms to collective bargaining. Here, arguably more than anywhere else, Romney will need administrative competence and steady hands.

He will also face a Congress polarized like never before and possibly even a deadlocked or Democrat-controlled Senate. He needs the best. Fortunately, he has a highly qualified set of people to choose from to fill these posts, though many of them would not have an easy time getting past the confirmation process.

As with our previous two lists, we have broken these down into the safe choices, the exciting choices, and the wild cards. However, these distinctions will look increasingly blurry as we get higher and higher up the food chain, with many choices getting increasingly safe in terms of qualifications, but also increasingly exciting or unpredictable in terms of ideology.

Why? Pawlenty’s name has been mentioned in connection with this job by the Romney team. He certainly has the political clout with that team necessary to get a job like this on mutual friendship alone. His record on education in Minnesota is respectable without being excessively controversial and given his mild-mannered demeanor, he would be less likely to provoke a firefight in a tense confirmation hearing.

Why not? This hasn‘t been particularly reported as Pawlenty’s area of expertise, and it could come off as a patronage appointment. He also might be deemed too timid for an ambitious education agenda.

Why? Christie‘s claim to fame in the Republican party is his willingness to savage teachers’ unions, both on-camera and in the New Jersey statehouse. He even mentioned the subject in his RNC keynote address. His executive ability is well-known, his willingness to work across party lines (for instance with Newark Mayor Cory Booker) is well-respected and he’s well-regarded in the private sector.

Why not? Much as Christie’s supporters would love a Youtube moment of Christie dressing down self-important senators, Romney might not. It’s also possible that Romney would want Christie to resume his old job as a lawyer, which would leave him well placed to be Attorney General.

Why? If Christie is well-known for taking on teachers’ unions as a governor, Rhee is known for actually setting education policy in some of the most difficult areas in the country. With a job record that starts in DC and continues through Florida, and with an almost celebrity-level status among education reform advocates, Rhee would be a cabinet-dream for many. She’s also a Democrat, which would complicate things.

Why not? If Christie’s confirmation hearings would be electric, Rhee’s could go nuclear. She‘s been accused of practically every imaginable sin under the sun already and teachers’ unions would lobby against her like no tomorrow. Romney might also dislike the idea of being overshadowed in this area by a cabinet member.

Why? Jindal‘s name has been mentioned in connection with this job by Romney’s team. It’s not difficult to see why. He was Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bush, and focused on these issues during his tenure in Congress. He’s young, well-liked and has the managerial experience that Romney’s looking for.

Why not? Jindal’s views on social issues could prove to be a lightning rod, as could his supposed experience leading an “exorcism.” Romney might also prefer someone with congressional connections.

Why? Barrasso is one of three doctors in the United States Senate. He’s also the leading voice against Obamacare in the United States Senate. Barrasso’s 24 years of experience as an Orthopedic surgeon would make him a steady, expert hand at HHS, especially when it comes to reforming the costly healthcare system with a comparatively light touch. He‘s likely to win reelection this year and Wyoming’s Republican Governor could easily pick a celebrity replacement like Liz Cheney.

Why not? Barrasso has no executive experience and is comparatively little known outside the senate. He also hasn’t been particularly tied to Romney since the campaign started.

Why? Like Barrasso, Rand Paul is another “senate doctor.” He’s less monomaniacally focused on issues relating to the medical profession, but his scathing attacks on Obamacare during the Republican National Convention combined with his chummy relationship with Romney could easily net him consideration for a cabinet job. This one in particular would enable him to trim a lot of the fat he’s been so hostile towards in the Senate.

Why not? There’s no guarantee that Rand Paul would want a cabinet job in a department he probably considers constitutionally illegitimate in the first place, without strong assurances from Romney that it’s fine if he dismantles his own department. Those assurances are unlikely to come.

Why? For starters, he‘s the chairman of the Romney Campaign’s Labor Policy Committee. He’s clearly trusted by Romney. He also has taken a very high profile by fighting the National Labor Relations Board on behalf of Boeing and written about his troubles. He used to serve as legal counsel for the Department of Labor and has a distinguished record on labor issues. He has an ideologically useful resume, plenty of DC connections and not much baggage.

Why not? He’s quite an unknown, even given his high profile case with Boeing. Confirmation hearings could easily get sticky with pro-labor Democrats.

Why? Haley is from the state where the Boeing case originated and has been vocally tearing President Obama’s record on labor relations down ever since that case began. She’s a more conventional and more recognizable pick than Kilberg, and also one who could spice up the Romney administration even further in terms of diversity.

Why not? With all the top flight talent Romney could choose to be in his cabinet, he might decide to leave a star like Haley at home in South Carolina. Her calls for the NLRB to be disbanded could also get unwelcome attention.

Why? Put simply, Walker is the one Republican governor in America with the best record of bringing labor unions to heel. He has also survived practically everything the labor union political machine can throw at him and would be able to brave similar circumstances at the national level if he were offered the job. With Walker’s style of union legislation becoming popular with GOP governors, he would also be a good person to interface with state-level authorities to push the administration’s agenda.

Why not? Walker is a wild card for pretty much the same reason Michelle Rhee is a wild card — he’s already a miniature celebrity and a polarizing figure. Romney might decide it’s not worth the bother to be associated with him. He also might not want to leave Wisconsin, or fight again so soon.

Over the past week, we’ve been bringing you predictions about who could end up serving in a Mitt Romney administration. And now that the Republican National Convention is over, that question is becoming more and more live. Our last installment looked at the hyper-political departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor. This time, we look at two departments that not only shouldn’t be political, but can yield disastrous results when they are politicized in the service of an agenda that may run contrary to their stated mission.

Those two departments are the Department of Energy, currently overseen by Secretary Steven Chu, and the Department of Homeland Security, currently overseen by Secretary Janet Napolitano. Both of these current leaders will provide an example to a potential President Romney. That is, both have been mired in controversy of a kind that Mitt Romney will almost certainly want to avoid. As such, in looking at Romney’s choices here, once more divided into the safe choice, the exciting choice and the wild card, one generally has to err on the side of Romney picking the “safe” choices, even at the expense of ideological perfection.

Why? Where to start? Gerard is trusted by Romney, has been mentioned in connection with this job (this, or White House Chief of Staff), has a combination of a relatively low profile and sterling ideological bona fides, and arrives with a gold plated resume, both in terms of experience with government and management. He is an overwhelming favorite.

Why not? The only scenario in which Gerard does not get this job is if he becomes White House Chief of Staff. Otherwise, consider him a lock. His confirmation hearings might be contentious, given the American Petroleum Institute’s relationship with the oil industry, but based on Romney’s short list for this job, he’s not afraid to spur controversy where it comes to energy.

Why? If Gerard ends up White House Chief of Staff, look for Hamm to be the nominee. He is Romney’s most trusted adviser on energy, one of the richest men in America thanks to his fortune accumulated in the oil industry, and someone with a long history of involvement in politics. As a down-the-line businessman without any apparent enemies in Washington, and plenty of lobbying firms he could bring to bear on his behalf, Hamm would have a relatively easy time clearing confirmation. He would also be an exciting nominee due to his unknown commodity status in Washington.

Why not? Gerard may be the pick, which would wipe Hamm out of contention. Beyond this, Hamm may not want to be get stuck in the bureaucratic tangle of a White House position, and his oil tycoon status could generate an image problem for the administration. He also lacks legislative experience.

Why? Like Gerard and Hamm, Barton has been mentioned in connection with this post. Unlike them, he is an old legislative hand on energy issues. He has chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and has had a hand in shepherding energy legislation to passage. He is a powerful voice on energy in the Republican house, and would be the most ideologically solid and legislatively experienced person Romney could pick.

Why not? Two words: British. Petroleum. Back when the Gulf Coast was reeling from the BP Oil Spill and British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward was getting dressed down in front of Congress, Barton not only declined to join in pressing Hayward to clean up his mess, but he apologized to Hayward for his treatment. Whether you think that apology was warranted or not, it would come up in confirmation hearings and be mocked to the ends of the earth.

Why? Kobach is one of Romney’s closest Homeland Security advisers, and has a sterling record as an attorney and public official tackling immigration especially. In fact, so influential a figure is Kobach on immigration that many Leftist writers are already accusing him of being the man behind the curtain when it comes to Mitt Romney’s stances on immigration. He is trusted by the nominee, has experience on an issue on which Romney will need to define himself, and is a relative unknown, making his confirmation less likely to draw unwanted press in its initial stages.

Why not? Kobach is only a state-level secretary of state, and Romney might decide he’s too thin on experience to hold the job. His status as an anti-immigration crusader might also make the Romney team skittish.

Why? This choice would almost be poetic in its irony, given that Brewer’s immediate predecessor, Janet Napolitano, currently holds the post. And for all the reasons Napolitano was considered a smart choice for President Obama to tap as the nominee, so too is Brewer a potentially smart choice for Romney. It doesn‘t hurt that she’s emerged as one of the party’s most pugnacious voices on immigration, and is considered a reliably ideological conservative on most other issues.

Why not? The confirmation hearings would be vicious, and Brewer would quickly become a lightning rod for criticism a la Napolitano. She might also be seen as too undisciplined.

Why? This choice is admittedly unlikely, but something like it could happen if Romney makes the political calculation that Americans are sick of the TSA’s brand of security theater, and Napolitano’s brand of ideological enforcement, moreso than they are worried about illegal immigration. In those circumstances, Paul would send a signal that Romney is interested in effective enforcement, not theater.

Why not? Romney may not want to abandon security theater or immigration issues altogether, which Paul’s aggressively libertarian views would all but force him to do.

Why? Holmstead has been one of Romney’s advisers on energy policy for some time, and his former post as an official in charge of air quality at the EPA under President George W. Bush means he knows this department very, very well. Considering the EPA’s recent decisions to treat global warming as an air quality issue, Holmstead’s selection would send a signal that the Lisa Jackson era of unilateral and expansive interpretations of the Clean Air Act are over. His close relationship with the campaign makes him a likely choice.

Why not? Holmstead is loathed among anti-pollution advocates, and his selection could spur a very costly lobbying knife fight over his confirmation. He has said one or two things on issues like Mercury poisoning that could get in the way, as well.

Why? Connaughton has been mentioned in connection with the Energy Secretary position, but his past as an Environmental Adviser for former President George W. Bush arguably qualifies him more for this post. His experience in and out of senior cabinet positions at the White House would make him a strong confirmation prospect, and his relationships with members of Congress could be easily cashed in. Despite his relative lack of obvious ideological commitments, Connaughton’s qualifications make him a very strong choice, and he would be likely to push whatever agenda the Romney administration finds most economically beneficial for the EPA to pursue.

Why not? Connaughton is arguably overqualified for the job. He could also be a surprise pick for Energy Secretary.

Why? DiPeso is probably the last person most people would expect to become a major cabinet official in the current Republican party. Despite being a Republican, DiPeso is a vocal skeptic of current GOP environmental dogma, and his organization withheld its endorsements from former President George W. Bush (though they did endorse Arizona Senator John McCain in 2008). Nevertheless, DiPeso would be a possible stealth pick that Romney could choose to give himself cover on environmental issues and gain some bipartisan goodwill. He‘s a powerful voice on environmental issues in the GOP and can’t be ignored.

Why not? DiPeso would set off alarm bells with practically every major leader on environmental issues among the GOP in Congress. It‘s also unlikely that he’d take the job without some seriously questionable assurances from Romney on issues like climate change.

Over the past two weeks, we have looked at a President Romney’s potential cabinet appointments, and undertaken the difficult task of reading the tea leaves, sorting the chaff from the wheat, and naming potential rising stars. Now as this process draws to a close, we take a look at the superstar cabinet positions that usually are filled by close presidential confidantes.

With this entry, we take a look at the highest legal enforcer in the land and the position with the most powerful fiscal authority (with the possible exception of the Federal Reserve Chairman): The attorney general and the treasury secretary.

The people chosen for these positions will have the advantage of coming into office with relatively low expectations on the personal level. The treasury secretary essentially needs to prove he can file his taxes correctly in order to exceed the record of Timothy Geithner, and the attorney general needs to avoid any serious scandals. However, it is likely that Mitt Romney will look for people with further qualifications than that. He will probably draw these people from within the ranks of his closest advisers, and to that end, we have constrained ourselves mostly to Romney’s inner circle in selecting candidates.

Though typically, the candidates have been broken down according to whether they are “Safe choices,“ ”Exciting choices“ and ”Wild Cards,” in this case, those distinctions frequently only exist by a hair. The odds of Romney picking a genuine wild card for Attorney General are likely minuscule, and the odds of him picking an unknown commodity for Treasury Secretary are even lower. As such, there is not a single candidate on either of these lists who is not a “safe choice,” however they might be qualified. The only question is, how safe?

Why? Wiley is a co-chair of Romney’s Justice Advisory Committee, and a Washington veteran on most legal issues. With a distinguished legal career as a corporate attorney that has allowed him to represent companies such as Verizon and JP Morgan, Wiley has the sort of pro-corporate, Washington insider resume that Romney would probably look for in selecting an attorney general. As an executive at his law firm, Wiley also has the executive management bona fides that Romney is known to prefer among his closest advisers. He also has a relatively noncontroversial Washington legal career, focusing mostly on issues related to information technology, rather than something more controversial.

Why not? Wiley has not served in the Justice Department, and his area of expertise is not a major area of controversy for the Justice Department. Romney might opt for someone more outspoken, and more experienced with policy wars.

Why? Glendon is another co-chair of Romney’s Justice Advisory Committee, and unlike Wiley, her experience is deeply relevant to current controversies. Specifically, Glendon is an aggressive defender of religious freedom, and has served as United States Ambassador to the Holy See (IE the Vatican). Her experience as a Harvard academic puts her comfortably in the judicial “monastery” that usually supplies appointments like this.

Why not? Glendon is only an academic, and has also not served in the Justice Department. This means she has scant management experience, and is a relatively unknown commodity in Washington. Romney might save her for a Supreme Court nomination.

Why? Christie might be known as a scourge of teachers’ unions today, but he has a distinguished record as a prosecutor, and unlike the other people on this list, he has served as a US attorney for the District of Columbia. His closeness with Romney is well-documented, and his executive mettle is proven. He would be a celebrity appointment, but a justified one.

Why not? Christie might not want to leave New Jersey, and Romney could make the executive decision that Christie is more useful as an education secretary than in this post.

Why? Leavitt is considered a lock for one of the top White House positions, with this and White House chief of staff being his two main potential appointments. Given that Leavitt is apparently drafting the list of people Romney ought to appoint, it‘s entirely up to him whether he’ll want this job or the chief’s position, but as the former head of two cabinet departments, and one of Romney’s closest advisers, if he wants this job, it’s his.

Why not? He might want to be White House chief of staff. Beyond that, there is no reason he won’t be nominated for this position if he wants it.

Why? The difficulty of picking someone to hold this position is that both the president and vice president would themselves be strong contenders to hold it. Portman was on the short list to be Romney’s vice president at one point, and is known to have a cordial relationship with the candidate, suggesting that they would have minimal bureaucratic skirmishes. His name has been mentioned in connection with this position, and he has the resume for it. He is a former Office of Management and Budget director for President George W. Bush, a major voice on fiscal issues in the U.S. Senate, and a popular figure back in Ohio. Nominating him would also allow Ohio Governor John Kasich to create a new incumbent.

Why not? Portman‘s background as a Bush appointee could taint him in the eyes of Romney’s advisers. His lack of executive experience in the private sector could also hurt him.

Why? Hubbard’s name has also been mentioned in connection with his job, though he’s also being considered for Federal Reserve chairman. He’s a major Romney adviser on economic issues, though unlike Portman, his background is more academic than practical. With that said, he used to chair the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, so his Washington experience isn’t negligible, and as an executive at a school quite literally devoted to teaching people to run their businesses well, he would be a steady hand at this job. He also lacks Portman’s paper trail, and would be an easier confirmation.

Why not? Like Portman, the Bush connection might hurt him, and his academic background might be seen as too theoretical for Romney’s business-oriented administration.

Having handicapped most of the main figures that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney could nominate to his cabinet if he is elected president, this series now finally draws to a close as we consider the people who Romney might select for two of the most consequential positions in the United States government: secretary of state and secretary of defense.

In both of these cases, the nominee will have big shoes to fill. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has flown above the fray relative to other Obama advisers, and is respected across party lines. Obama’s two secretaries of defense — Robert Gates and Leon Panetta — have also been relatively nonpartisan and scandal-free, and at least one presided over the death of Osama bin Laden. Romney’s choices in these departments will not be risky or excessively controversial, and they arguably shouldn’t be. In at least one case, one of these people is several heartbeats from the presidency. As such, all of the choices listed below are what we have called “safe” choices. Their rank as “exciting” or as “wild cards” is based solely on how likely they are relative to each other.

Why? Zoellick is the only person thus far to have been mentioned in connection with this post, and his appointment is reportedly seeing as very, very likely among diplomatic circles. It’s not difficult to see why at all. He has held numerous stratospherically powerful foreign policy positions, and nearly every diplomat has probably coveted at least one of his former jobs at one point. He was president of the World Bank, managing director of Goldman Sachs, deputy secretary of state and U.S. trade tepresentative. His resume might as well be printed on diamond.

Why not? He might not want it. Other than that, there is no conceivable reason that Romney will not choose him.

Why? Kagan would be a logical second choice if Zoellick says “no.” As a well-respected foreign policy hawk across party lines — with appointments at the Brookings Institute, at Harvard, and on Romney’s foreign policy advisory committee — Kagan has the academic bona fides for the job, and is trusted by the candidate. He lacks Zoellick’s gold- plated resume, but is well-respected enough in the American foreign policy establishment, especially as a thinker, to be seen as a safe pick. His connections with Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol could also give him a high degree of support from likely Republican donors.

Why not? Kagan is a neoconservative’s neoconservative, and choosing him would ignite comparisons to George W. Bush like a brushfire. Moreover, some conservatives might even find Kagan to be an unreliable pick for his overemphasis on humanitarian intervention using American power, rather than believing in the straightforward maximization of American power.

Why? Bolton is a conservative celebrity pick, and a more risky pick than several of the other figures on this list, though not by much. His resume, which includes service as UN ambassador, is more practical than that enjoyed by Kagan, though it doesn’t quite rise to the level of over-qualification enjoyed by Zoeller. Moreover, if things go seriously awry, there is no doubt that he would be willing to assume the presidency. After all, he himself was considering running once.

Why not? Bolton’s never been particularly close to the Romney camp, and may be considered too controversial.

Why? Lehman is one of Romney’s more trusted advisers on defense already, and rather like Zoellick, his resume reads as almost too good to be true. A former secretary of the Navy under Reagan, a powerful investment banker and a major figure at the Center for Security Policy — which is something of a feeder for Republican foreign policy leaders — Lehman would seem to have the full package. He is skilled at Washington bureaucratic knife fights, as his time in the Reagan administration would attest, and is in many ways an ideal choice for Romney.

Why not? Lehman also has some of the liabilities of Robert Kagan — namely, he‘s a neoconservative’s neoconservative, and would be seen by many dovish opponents of a Romney administration as a return to Bush-style foreign policy. In fact, Bush was rumored to have been considering Lehman for the post after the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. He may want to stay out of the sun, given these facts.

Why? Hayden has been the subject of speculation for this position already, and his resume does seem to point towards it. Like Robert Gates before him, Hayden served as director of the CIA under a Republican president, and his long record of military service can’t hurt in making the case for him to be picked. He also served as head of the National Security Agency. Clearly, like Lehman, he also has a long record in Washington, and is a consistent pick with past practices.

Why not? Hayden’s private sector experience is thin, compared with Lehman’s. Also, where Lehman may be seen as too neoconservative to net bipartisan support, Hayden may be seen as skittish in areas where Republicans will want to be more aggressive. Specifically, he has expressed doubts about the idea of attacking Iran’s nuclear program, which puts him at odds with Romney’s more conservative supporters, and with some of Romney’s statements themselves.

Why? Despite being a registered Republican, Petraeus would be seen as a bipartisan consensus pick for a very simple reason: He’s also an Obama appointee. In fact, he‘d be a prime candidate for this job in either Romney’s administration or if Obama is reelected, primarily because he’s seen as one of the last genuine war heroes in America. Like Hayden, he would come from a background that is par for the course with modern Defense Secretaries, being a former CIA Director.

Why not? He may be seen as too cozy with the Obama administration, though that‘s not the most compelling reason he wouldn’t be chosen. The most compelling reason is that he may simply not want the job, or might disagree with Romney too much to serve under him.

Why? Hubbard has already been mentioned as a lock for either this position, or for secretary of the treasury. Given the presence of other figures who could assume this role at treasury, and also given both Hubbard’s academic background and centrality to the Romney economic team, we believe he’s a more likely fit here. His economic worldview is amorphous enough that his selection would not set off panic in capital markets, and given his relatively unknown status, he would have the freedom to define the job in his own way.

Why not? He may be appointed as treasury secretary. His past as a Bush administration official who argued for financial deregulation may also be used against him by Democrats eager to collect a scalp by accusing Hubbard (and thus Romney) of corruption.

The exciting choice: Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics at Harvard University

Why? Feldstein is also a close Romney adviser, albeit one with a bit more ideological meat to him than than Hubbard. A former Chairman of Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, Feldstein has been very open about his skepticism of the monetary expansion that has taken place under Ben Bernanke, and his selection would send a clear signal that under Mitt Romney, there would be no QE4, QE5 or any other QE from this point onward. Appointing him would mark Romney as very willing to reverse course on the Obama administration’s fiscal policy and pursue a more aggressively anti-inflationary agenda. At the same time, Feldstein has been an aggressive defender of Romney’s tax plan.

Why not? Feldstein’s monetary hawkishness could be seen by the markets as likely to be painful. Romney would not want to spook markets that way.

Why? Mankiw is another Romney adviser with the academic and professional bona fides to be Fed chairman. However, ideologically, he is a bit more of a lightning rod than Feldstein or Zoeller would be, which would suit him well in the increasingly visible role that the Federal Reserve Chairman is coming to play in economic debates. Mankiw is no stranger to controversy, having argued that economic inequality is natural, and outsourcing is good. He could stand his ground in a way that Bernanke simply hasn’t.

Why not? Mankiw might have already made too many enemies. His comments on taxes and inequality would alienate Democrats, and his position on carbon taxes and inflation would alienate Republicans.

There should be no appointments to the departments of Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Education, Agriculture, or HUD. They should all be disbanded. The dept. of State should be cut back (no more ambassadorships to worthless, despotic countries), and Veterans Affairs should be rolled back under Defense where it belongs.

Bolton would be my first pick for SecState - agree there.

Newt is an inspired possibility for press secretary, but Dennis Miller would be fun to watch.

I’d really like to see Trey Gowdy as AG, cleaning house and going after the felons in this administration after they’re out of office.

So much depends on the margin of any Romney win and the makeup of the new congress. It would be a lot of fun just to see Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid huff and puff and threaten to filibuster nominees just a few short weeks after the RATs had their asses handed to them in the elections.

About half of these departments (or even more) shouldn’t even exist. How can I consider any choice “exciting,” for an agency that spends my tax money doing things that the federal government shouldn’t be doing.

I believe Rudy was too liberal at that time, thus did not really take with we conservatives, except for what he was doing in NY City. He did not fair well when he ran for the nomination some years back. Now, though, since the RINOs are in power, he would probably fit right in I guess. I actually never was all that high on him. He did not charge into any buildings that day, those brave men and women of the various PDs and FDs did all that, plus other brave citizens. They did the real dirty work. On a day like this, my thoughts go to all who gave their lives and who did not think for a second about themselves, they just charged in and did the dirty work. I don't think a stinking politician should open his mouth today. They should all just shut up and if anyone speaks, let it be those that survived and those who lost people. I could care less about what some empty suit has to say on this day!

That guy from Goldman Sachs shouldn't be anywhere near the administration precisely for that reason. Ditto oil execs, especially as chief of staff; we don't need to revive the "oil man in the White House" talking point.

In his acceptance speech, Romney made a big deal of having appointing woman as half his staff in MA. Modern cabinets have been a "diverse" mix of appointees. I would expect Romney to follow suit.

There should be no shortage of well-qualified candidates to select from with no reason for a list of potential Cabinet hires to be full of balding old white men.

I have no interest in Bolton and other Bush retreads, no interest in lobbyists, crony capitalists, Beltway buddies or Ivy League hacks. Romney should cast a wider net.

This list was obviously made by someone who is a liberal.
***************
I agree with that and with your reasons for saying so.

The person seems to think that anyone who served under Bush is tainted, and there were several Harvard prof. picks.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.