What are your thoughts on Republicans in Obama's cabinet?

Please elucidate.

Lugar might be a good choice considering he did not demand Obama to take his appearance in the campaign ad out.

Here is a piece in our local paper.

Lugar, loose nukes and Obama

There aren’t too many things longtime political reporters find startling, but the cameo appearance of Republican Dick Lugar on a campaign commercial for Democrat Barack Obama is one of them.

When Obama released the video last week of the ad that will air in 18 states, including Indiana, there was lots of scurrying around to find out What It Means.

Was this Lugar – the most popular Republican in Indiana – quietly signaling his endorsement of Obama?

And Lieberman would totally take a piss on McCain if he thought there was a chance of that.

Edit - You know, I did hear something about Colin Powell under consideration and from what I heard, Powell is an Obama supporter but hasn't announced it officially.

FIRE HIS ASS

it is seen as weakness by the Republicans. I think it also further blurs what differences exist between the parties.

one soul person who is Republican or Democrat say they support 100% every single idea put forth by each party. Motivations, life experience, personal agendas all play a part and are wholly unique to each individual. That means that the people are not "parties" as so many like to believe. The people are individuals all in all who are looking for the best sort of existence with the cards given.

Politicians like to play politicking and dictate these differences that people fall as pawns into playing. I'd have thought some progressives would have seen past this and looked at the big picture rather than playing the same game that has been played for decades in this country with the American people.

Senator Obama needs to assemble a cabinet based on the most qualified, most intelligent, regardless of affiliation.

When Obama wins in November McCain will say, "it's time now to rally around "our" president." As should the electorate, but...

Republicans in debates in the house and senate, I don't want to see any Republicans anywhere near the white house..they're poison to the system.

from being "bipartisan" so far. Bush regime especially tells Dems to be bipartisan and then acts the opposite way themselves. It seems like a joke to them until election time.

Also I hope he does not PERPETUATE MYTHS by putting Repubs in Defense or Economic posts. They have destroyed our national security and our economy, so please don't perpetuate the "Repubs are strong on defense" crap any longer. They have been stupidly pro-bombing far too often. Smart and stealthy have greater long term prospects than grandiose, hugely destructive shock & awe campaigns.

Furthermore, the major Republican policy of privatization of military services has weakened our military tremendously and bankrupted our economy.

Your first statement is saying that if we have Repubs we are actually using them to get into the White House and we are not winning because of our policies and plans and that the Dems have the right plan for the American people and moving forward from this disastrous current admin.

I think by the first vote you're acting disfranchising the importance of the Democractic message and the needs of the people who are seeking solace in Democractic leadership. Having 1 or two Repubs wouldn't actually cause that much of a problem and if they are solid people with actually modern views...even possibly progressive ones why should we deny their aid.

Dems will win the house majority and the seat in the White House, I think this is inevitable and I'm thankful for it. So I see no reason for a few Repubs who are supportive of Obama, his message, and what the Dems put forth is anything wrong. Many people don't want to trust the Repubs and I don't deny them that, however, not everyone is Bush or a Bushite who are after world destruction. There are some people who might be standing for someething more and I think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Now, I've just been called a "Repub shill" and I'm sure this might get me more of the same. But I'm looking for progress and moving forward. The titles given to each party are non-sense and most of us know it. Not everyone allies themselves with Dems on all the issues, the same for the Repubs. I don't align myself with anyone since I have some conservative views and some extremely liberal views on top of that I don't think Government is all that necessary but has become a burearucractic staple. That being said, this is our nation whether a person is Republican or Democrat or Independent, that being said we're looking for all our best interests to the best of our ability.

Not one set over another set or versus another set the way the Republicans have dictated and we have risen to the bait time and time again. Since so many in the US have fallen in line with the separatist ideal the President cannot and I wouldn't want him too and I feel his cabinet should be given that opportunity to show it's diversity in party, race, culture, and ideology in order to cater to the needs of the American people. Not just the progressives or just the Repubs.

it wouldn't be because you push Hagel on EVERY FUCKING THREAD and have admitted you're not a Dem, now would it? :eyes:

Get your facts. There was only one thread in which he was mentioned and I said I don't see him as Veep but I wouldn't be surprised seeing him in some other title with Obama. I wasn't advocating it, it was a thougth taht strayed.

As a matter of fact there was several posters who brought up Hagel and I made it a point to say otherwise. You might want to check out Phred42's thread and muy posts there.

I don't mind you calling me names because that's neither here no there for me. However, I would suggest you keep your lies to yourself because you're not pushing any truth. I have not advocated for Hagel in any way shape or form but I cannot help if I'm seeing in so many places and hearing his name that he doesn't seem to have some clout.

In any event, I'm done wasting time on you...~sigh~ However, I am starting to admire your stalking since it's groundless.

If I want repiglicans in the government I'll vote for them. They are responsible for bringing this country to the brink of catastrophic ruin. They have no ideas, no morals, and the the lowest polling numbers in the history of polls. Why would you include them into the cabinet? Why give any rethuglican any chance at redeeming any part of their fascist agenda? With as large as the democratic party is we can't find enough talented people who actually believe in the party principles? Disgusting. Revolting and stupid to let the rethuglicans to even get their toe in the door of the government. If Obama is going to put a goddamned republican in his cabinet then I want a socialist and a green party member in at higher levels.

This moving to the center is bad enough already.

n/t

There are no qualified Republicans.

Your brain is fried, you are looking for favors, you hate paying taxes, and you think there is nothing wrong in America that needs fixing.

No Republican can convince me they are serious about solving problems as part of Obama's administration, unless they become in Independent or a Democrat and tell us that BEFORE being appointed.

My votes somehow don't get recorded here, I get an error message.

William Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett

This whole deal about "reaching out" to Republicans reminds me of how victims of spousal abuse behave. After all these years of reprehensible far right policies- ANYONE who chooses to associate themselves with the Republican party is either a person of poor character or none too bright, neither of which Americans need in any position of power.

However, we're not Repubs in the first place, so who gives a fuck what they do. We take office we're going to make the country right where there's no chance for a Repub in the future. Especially considering what we can get done, the repubs are probably gonna turn Dem or at least the voters can change their affiliation.

Of course he was a Clinton DLC appointee, so he probably wasn't all that Democratic to begin with. :evilgrin:

aren't token- and they're not in any way progressive on most of the important issues.

All these Chuck Hagel fans lately...... The idea of him even being considered as VP makes me vomit, but I don't see how he could fit in the cabinet either. So he finally admits Iraq was a clusterfuck?? Well good for him, but WHY does he think so?

Because the very idea of the war itself, and the sick PNAC foreign policy which led to it was wrong?

Or because we should have sent "more troops" and had a "better" war?

I would guess it's the latter. And that means Hagel wouldn't be a good Secretary of Defense, or pretty much anything else either.

and was for a time under investigation from the ethics committee for having willfully failed to disclose his ownership of ES&S- which provided computerized voting in his own electorate when he was running for office!

In other Western nations- Hagel would be behind bars for that behavior.

examples of the western nations that put people behind bars for unproven allegations?

And you can thank your hero Chuck Hagel and his criminal machines for part of that.

But I admire guts and smarts. I also believe in fair play and being informed. I also like chocolate ice cream. The last part maybe the only one we have in common.

End of dialogue, by the way.

Senator Hagel Admits Owning Voting Machine Company
Friday, 31 January 2003





Politicians may get away with conflicts of interest and breaches of fidiciary duties in the states, but other nations take them seriously.

Note: this doesn't even begin to look at probable computer voting fraud (then again, most other western nations aren't stupid enough to trust their democracies to proprietary compters and software- so that issue would never arise).

you would try to do some reading, your posts would be much improved and more in touch to reality.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But I'm seriously fed up with that one and the other "sensitive" troll spreading this particular brand of manure.

who may or may not deserve to be VP or have a cabinet post (very arguable), but who certainly don't deserve to be bashed for standing up to their party at times, or for publicly helping Obama and the Dems win this election. Just because you happen to think Hagel isn't a good guy, or isn't an exception to Republican jackassery, doesn't mean that those of us who do are "trolls".

Fucking A... is this another boiler room operation, like the PUMAbots?

Hagel is an election stealing criminal with a voting record that puts him just slightly to the left of Pat Robertson. Colin Bowels LIED to the United Nations and tricked them into passing the resolution which Chimpy used as his pretext for an illegal invasion of Iraq.

How does either one of them qualify as a "good guy"??

Because it's just too easy to go along with the program, and stay silent, and continue sucking up the gravy and the power and the perks that come with being non-controversial and a lockstepper within the GOP. Both men could have done that, but instead spoke out against some of the GOP's policies that they felt were wrong. Both have been punished in various ways by their party. They don't speak out against ALL Repub policies, because then they would be Democrats--I can accept that. Everyone is a shade of gray to me--neither all good or all bad. I'm not obsessed with party affiliation or voting records--I judge character instead. I prefer the Dem position on most issues, which is why I'm on DU, but I can often see the other side's point--I even married a Repub (gasp!). And I'll refute unfounded charges when I see them (such as election-stealing). That's not trollish, that's just being fair-minded, IMO. I don't bash McCain because he is a Republican, or voted Republican in the Senate--I oppose him because I think he's a craven-opportunist power-hungry war-mongering old fool who has no justification to be Prez beyond having once shown some tenacity and bravery...40 years ago.

or is it trolline? Are there female trolls? Because if not I am afraid I would have to start saving for a sex change to fully qualify as a troll, and I am not in the mood for surgery right now. :hi:

:hi:

:puke:

But are you feeling sick? I am worried.

And absolutely NOT as VP!

Problem is, are there any "decent" republicans left?

Sure as fuck ain't Colon Bowels or Chuckie Electro Fraud.

and those cats come in all shapes and sizes and wear many clothes, Dem, Repub or Independent.

since change from this administration means a huge left turn across the board.

Just because someone is left or right doesn't mean they can do any job in government competently. Its time competent government trumps absolute political orthodoxy. I don't want the flip coin of George Bush....

in the smallest sub cabinet office, decisions are made every day that are ideologically infused.

The Sec of Education has to make a decision about a PBS cartoon rabbit who visits various neighborhoods in different episodes. Religious rightwing groups are up in arms over the rabbit because in one episode the cartoon rabbit visits a lesbian couple and their children. Is the Sec of Education going to ban this episode from being shown in jurisdictions she/he controls? Is the head of PBS (another presidential appointment) going to yank funding for the show?

Both ideological sides would and could act COMPETENTLY. But the question is not about competence, it's about what kind of country one believes in IDEOLOGICALLY.

(something akin to this actually happened. I don't remember the specifics, but Ed. Sec'y Margaret Spelling, a "competent" woman, decided to wage war on the cartoon rabbit.

Sorry, that's what we had for the last 8 years. Maybe we give the term "ideology" a slightly different meaning, it's possible... To me it means almost the same thing as letting preconceived ideas be the main guide of your decisions. And being competent is of course not a 0/1 thing. Spelling may be more competent than Brownie, but if she waged war on a cartoon I would grade her at most a .5 on the 0 to 1 scale. I want people in the .9 to 1 range that are as little ideological as possible (we all have some bias, some are better than others at ignoring their personal bias when trying to reach important decisions).

I agree on the other hand that many executive decisions are infused by ideology. Again, it is not 0-1. And I think that, as in so many cases, what the people at lower levels do and how they react in specific situations is to a large extent determined by what the head of the pyramid does.

Funny that DUers are so gung-ho about that same happening to an Obama administration.

If you voted for him - you could be put in charge of education in Iraq or homeland security even if you were still in college and never held a job. I don't want to replace incompetent ideologically pure republicans with incompetent ideologically pure democrats. I want government for the people and not just for the next campaign and their chosen litmus test constintuency

To read some posts on DU about it, that's the "change" we're supposed to be supporting: bringing us all together, not just by embracing republican policy, but by putting a republican next in line for the presidency.

"Make an effort to APPEAR bipartisan." Why is it so hard for you and for many others to believe tha Obama TRULY believes in bipartisnaship?!?!? Even that is not exactly true, he seems to believe in NON-partisanship. He has his own beliefs and ideas, but accepts that other people may think differently and reach different conclusions. And he is willing to listen and possibly learn. That's not called caving in, it's called being smart and pragmatic. You cannot be an effective politician (and by effective I do not mean getting elected, but actually DOING something GOOD and USEFUL in the elected position you hold) by being a purist and an ideologue. You have to find the common ground and work from there. And as a president, suround yourself with people that are smart, knowledgeable, and that have a similar approach to getting things done. I think that a whole bunch of people here and elsewhere are setting themselves for a rude awakening once (I hope and pray) Obama wins and then gets into office.

Basically, it's because I don't believe that Obama's WEAK and STUPID.

If the past 8 years haven't taught you that no good ever comes from coddling Republicans- that bipartisanship is code for giving the far right what they want, I don't know what will.

Obama is indeed neither weak nor stupid. Anything but. And because of that he understands that in spite (or maybe even BECAUSE) of what happened during the last 8 years, now is NOT the time for revenge. Not all republicans are evil or narrow-minded ideologues and neo-cons, nor are all dems and liberals saintly fighters for pure ideals. It's not US vesus THEM, for God's sake! Don't you and the others who :puke: at the idea of non-partisanship,, republicans in the administration, etc., don't you understand that this is EXACTLY how the most extreme right wingers think? Where is the difference? That we are right and they are wrong? They think the other way around, and they are not all morans! And I am not arrogant enough to think that I have all the right answers. And neither it seems is Obama.

and non-ideologues. Cite some historical examples.

(and this isn't "push" polling as I offered a broad array of responses and invited differing viewpoints.)

All had members of the opposition party in important cabinet positions (Defense, Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, if I'm not mistaken). I'd say they were all fairly successful as Presidents, given their time in office.

was even remotely non partisan.

FDR was partisan to the extreme. He was loathed by Republicans. He tried to stack the Supreme Court in a fiercely partisan battle with congress to implement his ideological agenda.

Kennedy was another partisan. We could argue how successful he was, as his presidency was cut short, but he hammered at Republicans constantly. He may have been a centrist Dem, but a bipartisan one, no.

Clinton spent his entire Presidency fighting the Republicans. The Repukes were furious that an ex-hippy had become Prez and the underlying furor against him and his administration was the culture war that originated in the 60's.

The only extremely successful President on your list is Roosevelt. And he was the most partisan and ideoligical of all the names you mention.

You can hold very "pure" Dem or Repub positions and have a very pro-Dem or pro-Repub agenda, and still welcome talented members of the other party to aid in making and implementing policy. In that sense, these Presidents set aside their political ideology and opened up certain important policy areas to members of the opposing parties. Presumably, these cabinet members didn't run amok and subvert the President's agenda, but perhaps offered a different perspective or brought unique talents to the administrations that transcended politics.

He appointed Henry Stimson, who had served as Hoover's Secretary of State, as his Secretary of War in 1940. He also appointed William Woodwin, a Republican, as his Secretary of the Treasury in 1933 because "Wall Street slept better knowing a Republican was watching over their money."

president on the previous poster's list and how'd that work out for the Republicans?

Eisenhower comes coasting into office in 1952 on the wave of public anger over Korea, corruption, and Communism - and with a GOP House and Senate elected as well.

Eisenhower chooses not to play the role of party leader; chooses not to articulate a vision for his party.

In 1954, the Democrats retake both houses of congress.

In 1956, Eisenhower becomes the first man elected to the White House in over 100 years whose party fails to take either house of congress.

In 1958, the Democrats take a SUPER-MAJORITY in both houses of congress - putting the Republicans in such a deep hole that it took them until 1994 to climb out of it, and put the Democratic Party in the position to pass the "Great Society" legislation of the 1960s.

And this guy's supposed to be a model for what we should hope for?!?

primarily based on the immediate partisan payoff (or lack thereof) during his tenure, rather than his achievements in office? In that case, by your yardstick of success, Bush was a TRULY GREAT Prez until 2006, and even somewhat thereafter--after all, the GOP has gotten its way for the last 8 years. The dominance of one party or another during any given administration is not necessarily an indicator of good policy, or of how well or poorly history will judge.

as I mentioned above, history does speak volumes on this very subject.

I wrote about this extensively, during the primaries, about why I believe partisan and hyper-partisan Presidents make far more effective leaders than conciliators. (it was one of the main reasons I supported Hillary.)

It's highly applicable to this discussion, rather than rewrite it all here, here's a link to an OP:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/ruggerson/5


I'll be interested in your thoughts.

I will have a look later (real life calls :-)).

FDR and Reagan both were influential enough, especially at the beginning of their tenures when the mood for change was strong, to quickly effect a good deal of change that undid previous policy. So I agree with your "movement" label on them. I think both Obama and Hillary would be "co-opt" type leaders. I didn't see any sign from Hillary that she would be any less a shape-shifter than her husband--she is no more a progressive to me than Obama--I think both hold some progressive views, but also have conservative streaks. I see them both as pragmatic politicians who don't mind compromise on certain issues if it means making some incremental progress--that's why they were locked in battle for so long. They just aren't that different, politically, and they couldn't paint each other into a ideological corner on any one thing, except perhaps the war. I happen to like the pragmatic approach to governing, myself--Chimpy was the definition of a hyperpartisan, and the result was disaster--and not just because it was the GOP that got its way this time. Ignoring George Bush the elder, Bill Clinton's pragmatism and centrism was perhaps a reaction to the Movement Guy, Reagan--and maybe George Jr. was a (harmful) reaction to the "mushy middle" of the Clinton years. Maybe, after complete gridlock and a massive red-blue divide, the pendulum is swinging back to a pragmatic, rather than ideological, approach once again. Maybe it is Obama's time.

Wish to alter the last sentence to replace the flippant "And this guy's" to the more respectful "And Eisenhower's".

I was somewhat peeved when I typed this and some of this attitude carried forward to this post. Otherwise, I stand by every word.

never mind his cabinet. These people are my mortal enemies, and would think nothing of propping me up to be shot so they could short their energy futures.

that's what we should hope for. There are so many super qualified Dems to come in, but a lot are senators who's leadership we don't want to lose in the senate, why not bring republican senators so long as they aren't neo-cons and they agree for the most part with Obamas policy in the general field their department is covering and especially if they are the oldest and most experienced conservatives you can find.

to me, it's seems the wisest thing to do would be to unite the country and give regular conservative people on the street the sense that even though they are out numbered they are still given a voice and that we actually do care about them and see them as people.

Unity is everything. A united people will get past the bullshit and vote down self-serving pols regardless of party affiliation.

to me the ultimate olive branch would be to offer McCain a place somewhere in there. I mean, he's the enemy for now, but once we've beaten him, why not the ultimate act of respect and magnamity?

Arnold from out here in Cali, is about to be termed out and has shown his ability to get behind some pretty progressive ideas. I've disagreed with him on a lot of things. But a lot of needed infrastruction work has been taken care of during his term, especially much needed improvements to the highways. I think he's just one example of a moderate Republican that actually can be put in a Dept where he happens to hold a more progressive view and would pretty much do what a progressive Dem would do in that Dept anyways.

plus I'd like to see Obama give Colen Powell a chance to redeem himself through service. That would be nice. Always thought that guy got a raw deal.

Yet I've seen his name tossed out for Secretary of Energy!

:crazy:

any longer, too old. But of course this has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here.

I am the only one to have voted that way so far :-).

Some months ago I would have bristled at your McCain idea but then said "why not?", now I only bristle. Seeing and learning more of him, and putting everything else aside, I just don't think he is very competent. Whether it's age or he has always been like this, I have no idea, but he just does not seem very smart. And I want smart and competent people that are guided by good will and a desire to serve for the common good, as oposed to incompetents and/or ideologues.

I don't know about Arnold... when he was first elected, I considered it as yet another national embarassment. But it seems I was too quick and superficial in my judgement. I still do not know enough him, but he certainly is smarter that what I thought based on his movies :-). And I think I agree about Powell.

Clearly some just want to pull a reverse Bush.

legislation! :grr: The only kind of fucking bipartisanship I want to see after we take the White House is the fucking Republicans signing off on OUR GOD DAMN AGENDA FOR ONCE! :grr:

It's absolutely PATHETIC to see bipartisanship on DU explained as Dems in power allowing Republicans to set the agenda and just vote on it. No filibuster, no attempt at building an opposition, nothing but giving them what they fucking want EACH AND EVERY TIME.

I've just about had ENOUGH of "bipartisanship". If Obama really wants change, then the only bipartisanship will be him slapping the Republican MINORITY into line and signing off on real change. Remains to be seen whether or not we will get this.

The other poster who pointed out that strength and leadership means more than bipartisanship when it comes to the executive branch had it right. No real change ever came from selling an agenda short to suit the opposition's taste.

What happened (or did not happen) in congress in the last year and a half IS a disappointment. But you do understand how the Senate works, right? You do understand that there is very little else that could be done and avoid hitting the 60 votes roadblock there? I understand the frustration, but do not agree with the conclusions.

Please take your Republican enabling talking points elsewhere.

Overall, I find the Fox News/neocon type repugs to be disgusting, bigoted people...

But I trust Obama to make the right decision with regard to that.

I am confident that President Obama will appoint the people that he is convinced are best able to help him advance his programs.

that's what I took the before last option to mean.

n/t

And appoint John McCain as its chairman and sole member.

I guess it's about time Grandpa McLoon followed him :evilgrin:

It prevents group-think. Having a devils advocate or two can only help a president make sure he/she has covered every base to come to the best decision.

the country for 8 years? Look what a shining beacon of greatness HE turned out to be. Why anyone thinks Obama should follow his bad example, and exact revenge on Republicans because "Bush did it to us" is beyond me.

and looking at the facts. Democrats are not right 100% of the time and Republicans are not wrong 100% of the time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6519660

Please knock it off with this shit.

over and over again? Do you remeber "no blue America, no red AMerica"? Why are you surprised?

"no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica" "no blue America, no red AMerica"

I don't listen to him. I'm immune to his power of suggestion.

little girls and/or boys and if they are gay they are out. So I guess that eliminates all of them- maybe not.

wholeheartedly, not so much about their voter registration.

No red vs blue america - just america, red all over.

If he's too weak to insist that his cabinet operate on behalf of his agenda, then we've got bigger problems than a moderate to liberal Republican in there!

I'm definitely among the group that sees no place for the likes of Chuck Hagel, for instance. There's a person who has demonstrated repeatedly that his values are NOT in any way in line with those of the Democratic party.

But Lincoln Chaffee when he was a Republican? Or a handful of others - mostly from the northeast, where there is a small hope of resurrecting the old NE liberal Republican type - I could see that.

Do you think Bill Cohen followed his own agenda, or that set by Clinton?

votes "yes" on FISA,
and turns forums like this into bushie type echo chambers, there'll be no doubt who he is.

I dislike the second choice Make an effort to appear bipartisan. I am hung up one the word 'appear' because for me it seems like an attempt to deceive.

find, that have long term vision that will benefit the nation in the Cabinet. That in itself rules out every neo-con, but leaves some room for an R if one can be found that truly fits the criteria.

What NO Cabinet should have is a bunch of "goggle eyed yes-men", that do nothing but laugh at the president's jokes and toe the line just because of some "loyalty" to the individual in the Big Chair. Precisely what happened in the current maladministration.

One of the most powerful, and thank God, sane people that ever served under a president, (actually 2 presidents), was George C. Marshall. As the Army Chief of Staff, he had FDR's ear, and was an extremely trusted adviser. FDR had said he trusted Marshall above all others, precisely because he wasn't a "yes-man". Eleanor Roosevelt went to Marshall with the truth of what was happening on the fronts she visited, this gave Marshall a true view of what was happening, and he could make adjustments.

Under Truman as Sec of State, Marshall was trusted implicitly. The Marshall Plan was probably one of the most brilliant humanitarian and political moves in history.

Obama should take a lesson from history, Kennedy had, and made it a point of getting the "best and the brightest". They didn't always live up to that title, but we moved dramatically forward under JFK and Johnson, on the homefront. Johnson made the error of getting "yes-men" in positions of power, it killed him via the SE Asian fiasco.

And the Vietnamese got severely punished for it, no fault to them.

under the anti-communists.

I cannot be sure, but there is a good possibility that Kennedy might have begun withdrawl. I can be sure that under Johnson, things escalated to the point where we inundated that nation w/US troops. Nixon had a hard time trying to figure out a way, it was finally under Ford where the Congress said enough.

a commitment to the same goals.

I don't get the impression that Obama is the type of person who wishes to surround himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. You don't tend to have a reputation as a good listener if you're that kind of person.

If you don't realize that, you haven't been following this campaign very carefully.

it's truly astounding to read some of these posts. Never! Repugs for dog-catcher! No rethugs in the cabinet, never again! Whose campaign have these people been following? Kind of depressing, actually...

see post #89

thanks again for the civility :hi:

the question is whether one thinks the political implementation of bipartisanship is historically successful in the American construct.

An alligator is swimming along in a river, and the water is very swift – too swift for a frog to cross from one side to the other. So the alligator stops on the river bank and says to a frog that is waiting there, "I'll take you across."

"No, no, no," the frog protests. "You'll eat me!" "I just ate lunch," the alligator says. "So I'm not hungry. Besides, you are but a toothpick to me."

So the frog accepts the offer and hops on the alligator's snout for a ride from one side of the river to the other. Then, just before they reach the bank, the alligator flips up his snout and opens his mouth.

"You promised you would not do this!" the frog says. "I'm sorry," the alligator says, "but it's my nature."

One of Obama's main points is that Republicans are not by definition, evil.

They simply have some different points of view.

Different points of view are important in a good cabinet.

I don't think that's a good place for Herr Gropenator. He'd probably be safer in the EPA, if anything.

But if Obama saw a couple of Republicans who matched his values and supported his policies who he wanted to put in his cabinet, it's OK with me. NO Republican VP though!!

The ideology, not the letter R or D, is what I care about. In fact, the more liberal Republicans you can find, the better. Our agenda will still get enacted but we'll appear non-partisan.

Aside from him there are not too many other Republicans who I want anywhere near the White House.

Jim Jeffords, for that matter. But Republicans like those two are pretty much extinct anymore. On the state level too. And the neocons, religious reichers, and criminals (like Hagel) who have replaced them are not acceptable.

We've had enough of them for the past 7 years plus. I think we should take the reigns completely for awhile.

I voted for choice #1. Wasn't trying to vote twice!

Here on DU, it's kinda rustic & old-fashioned. One vote counts just one time.

the entire GOP party (the PARTY - as it has become) needs extermination

But not because we won fair and square.
Because its the first installment of a ton of righteous payback.
They've goose stepped our county into the abyss of fascism.
I don't care what they say.
Indeed, I think we have an excellent opportunity to score a kill
on the Republican party.
Its what they had in mind for us.
Let's give it to them.

I figure most of them are a complete waste but there are always exceptions.

A showing of bipartisanship would build trust in the electorate, so if a couple of the non neocon bent can be found, it would be beneficial.

seems to me like they already make up half the democratic party.

When the Right is pushed into insanity territory, being "left" means you're a centrist.