I'm happy to admit: I was wrong. I said (based on a Washington Post article) that Charles Stenholm was up for the Secretary of Agriculture job. I was wrong. I also said Sebelius might get it - again, based on the Post. She doesn't want it. And before that I was worried about Collin Peterson... again I was wrong.
The other 3 names I've heard are Sanford Bishop, Dennis Wolff, and John Salazar. Most headlines are now saying that Salazar's the likely pick. Compared to nightmares like Stenholm, I'll take him. But he's certainly not the optimal choice that is going to give me all of that hope we were promised during the campaign. If Obama chose Gus Schumacher, THEN I'd have hope.
I'd like to comment briefly on why I think it IS so important to take rumors seriously AND why it's important to all of us to pay attention to who ends up in charge of the USDA.
My last diary was probably the most harshly criticized diary I've written, perhaps ever. I basically listed the 3 Ag Sec candidates according to the Washington Post (plus John Salazar, who was listed by other sources) and gave reasons why I am strongly opposed to particularly Dennis Wolff and Charles Stenholm. Plus, I wrote a previous diary about why I'm opposed to Collin Peterson for the job (or for ANY job).
I'll be the first to say I was wrong. I saw the rumors, I freaked out, and I cried "Wolff." But I'd also like to explain WHY I wrote the diary and why I think it's important to respond to rumors - even if they are just rumors.
In my opinion, rumors should be treated as trial balloons. Remember in the days before the VP pick was announced? Evan Bayh, Tim Kaine, and Joe Biden were all named as probable choices. Those WERE trial balloons, to the best of our knowledge. Bayh and Kaine got negative reactions and Biden got a positive reaction. Then Biden got the job.
So when prominent newspapers or insider sources say that Peterson, Stenholm, Wolff, or any other entirely crappy choices are up for the Ag Sec job, I feel we should treat those rumors as trial balloons and make DAMN SURE that the Obama people know we are opposed to them. And I would say the same for any other cabinet position or executive appointment (i.e. Larry Summers).
One person in the comments brought up the fact that appointing Salazar to the USDA would get a "Bush Dog Dem" (which he is) out of Congress. Thankfully Raatz responded by saying the best way to get rid of conservative Dems is to PRIMARY THEM, NOT APPOINT THEM TO THE CABINET!!!! Oh, how I agree!!! And I forget who made the point but someone noted that a Bush Dog Dem can be far less destructive as 1 vote out of 435 in the House than as a cabinet secretary.
Another person brought up that I shouldn't complain about potential appointments until they are already announced. Umm, hello?? Then it's too late. When someone replied by saying that, the original commenter brought up that they would need Senate confirmation and therefore we should rely on that process to get them thrown out. Well, we've got a massive majority in the Senate right now... do you really think they would fail to confirm anyone Obama chose?
So was I entirely wrong that Stenholm or Peterson were up for consideration for the USDA job? We won't ever know most likely. Because maybe they WERE up for consideration and the negative reaction their names received killed their nominations. Or maybe I just got all upset over nothing. But one way or another, at least they won't be in charge of the USDA.
Another comment I received defended conservative Dems as good choices for Ag Sec. They pointed out that the person (Salazar or Stenholm, I forget which) was a Democrat, a farmer, and very knowledgeable about ag issues. And to that I say: So what.
About being a Democrat, I am not a Democrat the way a Packers fan loves the Packers. If another viable political party came into being that better represented by beliefs than the Dems, I'd switch in a heartbeat. I wish we could have an entire government full of Bernie Sanders. And just because someone is a Dem doesn't make them perfect to me. We need to see what the individual person actually stands for, regardless of whether he or she has a D or an R next to his or her name.
About being a farmer and knowledgeable, well, that's the problem that got us where we are today. Few of us farm but all of us eat. And all of us live in our environment. There are tons and tons of great farmers who are incredibly knowledgeable and caring about good food and a clean environment and I would LOVE to see THOSE farmers appointed at the USDA. Jon Tester comes to mind.
But consider a potato farmer I heard of who grew his own private stash of spuds behind his house and ate those, freely admitting that he would NEVER eat the potatoes he grew for sale, knowing the nasty practices he used to grow them. Is that a farmer you want to put in charge of American agriculture?
The very VERY sad truth is that many land grant universities support absolutely disgusting agricultural methods - methods that harm the environment, produce sub-standard food, and don't even necessarily give farmers the highest yields or the most profits. Everything is just all sold out to Big Ag, so much more than it should be.
Some farmers are brave enough to give up the chemicals (or even avoid adopting them in the first place) but many are not. They probably aren't bad people... they are probably just doing what they feel is required to make a living.
Consider one instance I heard of where the USDA threatened to yank a scientist's funding because his study results showed greater yields and greater nutrient value in organics. Because of cases like that, it's hard to get the message out there that there's a better way than dousing your crops in fertilizer and pesticides. So can you necessarily blame these farmers for using all the chemicals they do?
And at the same time, that is EXACTLY WHY we need someone with fresh, new ideas at the USDA. We need someone who would broadcast that study showing that less chemicals can increase yields and nutrients (in this case it was in pecans) so everyone could learn from the methods used to achieve that. Not someone who buys into the idea that the chemicals are needed and just rejects anything that says otherwise.
We need someone who can represent the 100% of Americans who eat, not just the 2% or so that grow our food, often using methods that harm the environment. And will John Salazar be that guy? Probably not. Even if he's not the worst choice out there.
My hunch is that he'll represent mostly the status quo with perhaps a slight improvement, like support for Country of Origin Labeling and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program (which gives fruit & veggies to school kids). But in a time when the USDA could be instrumental to improving Americans' health and combating global warming, even though there are some good things about Salazar, he certainly won't go far enough to do what we need.