Obama tells Charlie Gibson: My cabinet would be bipartisan
By SilentPatriot Thursday Oct 30, 2008 4:15pm
One of the things I've always admired about Senator Obama is his almost instinctual pragmatism. Although the right has endlessly tried to paint him as some sort of radical, he's demonstrated time after time throughout his career that he's less of an ideological, knee-jerk ideologue than he is a pragmatic, bipartisan problem-solver. In his interview last night with ABC's Charlie Gibson, Senator Obama spoke about his post-election pre-planning and what the makeup of an Obama cabinet might look like.
ABC:
Obama told ABC News' Charlie Gibson that he didn't have a list of people he wanted to bring into the government but said "I've got some pretty good ideas about the senior Cabinet of government officials that I think could perform very well for the country. ... I have a good idea of who the candidates would be."
Obama said he would reach across the aisle on a range of issues, from energy independence to health care to education.
"On a whole host of these issues, I think we need Republicans, not just as show pieces," Obama told Gibson. "In some cases, Republicans have good ideas. And, you know, I've always been more than happy to steal good ideas from whatever the source."
The genius of Abraham Lincoln was that even after a bruising primary and general election that was rough even by today's Rovian standards, he brought into his cabinet many of his political opponents. Unlike George Bush who insulated himself with "yes men", Lincoln understood the importance of hearing all sides of an issue, even if he disagreed. That's an important quality we should all look for in a President. The ideological blindness with which decision were made under George Bush couldn't prove that point any stronger.
For more on the genius of Lincoln, check out Doris Kearns Goodwin's fabulous book, "Team of Rivals."
Login or Register to post comments.
Modeling Voter Supression; Obama still wins
mcgramps only lead in the polls is the "war" on terrorism, will he be on your cabinet?
In what respect, Churlie? (As Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, sure. But I'll take a Team of Rivals to a Team of Clusterf..Mavericks anyday.)
This just in - very bad news , IF true. TREASON.
Am big Obama supporter, but, how are we going to get ANY change if this is true ? With this piece of garbage ??!!
McShame WILL get ahead, unless Obama's campaighn will deny this.
Obama Approaches Lawmaker About White House Post
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 30, 2008
Filed at 10:40 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama's campaign has approached Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel about possibly serving as White House chief of staff, officials said Thursday as the marathon presidential race entered its final, frenzied stretch with a Democratic tilt.
................
The Democrats who described the Obama campaign's approach to Emanuel spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to be quoted by name..
cont...
Get over it. Obama is an imperialist. He is a different kind of imperialist than McCain. Therefore, it would be trivial for him to take on members of the more fascist of the two right wings of the single party state.
When Obama cuts the military budget by 80%, dismantles the security theatre of the DHS, institutes national health, and ends the fantastically stupid war on drugs, then I'll believe what he has to say. Until then, I only support him because he's better than McCain.
true. What is your solution?
It'll come down to whether he is more interested in 8 years in power with cosmetic change or real change and the risk of doing the right thing for four years and damn the consequences. If he is as clever as he seems, he may just do what is right and let the Republicans fight about it like Bush did to the Democrats at the far end of the his pendulum swing. It is pretty hard to undo rational and logical policy.
What kinds of miracles are you looking for? You must have at least 100 more.
Sorry, Jerry Rubin, Che Guevara, and Dr. Sevrin aren't running this year. You'll just have to suck it up and either hold your nose and vote for Obama the imperialist-lite, or enable McCain the fascist by staying home on election day. (You might also consider trying to talk Chomsky in to running, and I might even vote for him myself, but that's just speculation at this point.)
Whether Obama is an Imperialist at heart I do not know.
What is clear, he is smart and he understands how the system works.
Is Obama a closet liberal who will carry out a populist program. I doubt it.
He is facing a $ Trillion plus deficit, because of the 'bail outs' which HE voted for, there will be almost no room for new programs, or new funding for the old ones gutted by W.
He would need to cut into the obscenely bloated 'Defense' budget, it won't happen.
NO PRESIDENT has stood up to the Military Industrial Complex.
We are going to spend ourselves into bankruptcy, even without substantial new social programs.
Here is Bill Moyers with James K Galbraith, economist and author of the 'Predator State', that is what we have, a Corporate Republic.
The machinations of FISA et al are the work of the Corporate Controllers, it is internal security as much as anything that worries them. The natives may grow seriously restless if they begin to understand in large enough numbers what the hell is going on.
I am not optimistic.
"NO PRESIDENT has stood up to the Military Industrial Complex."
That depends on how you define "stood up." Both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton reduced the size of it, and Clinton even forced the Army to accept gays (as long as they didn't talk about sexual preference). To me the don't ask don't tell policy that Clinton brought in was a major push back against the Army's mentality. I've haven't seen a president do anything that gutsy with the armed forces since Truman mandated racial desegregation of the army.
Now, the only thing left to do is address the size of the GDP that the Army gobbles up. The U.S. spends about 4% of its GDP on the army (last time I checked, anyway), and that was at least TWICE that of the nearest rival, which was Russia. All the other G8 countries spend somewhere between 1% and 2% of their GDP on the Army. Not only is this counterproductive, but also dangerous. As we've seen, to a man who's only tool is a hammer, every problem has to be a nail. That's been a historical constant for the last 5000 years. The contries/states who spend a disproportionate amount of their resources on their armies, always end up invading other countries. Usually in an effort to stop their economy from collapsing. Let's not beat around the Bush here (snark). Of the three main reasons that were floated for invading Iraq (1.WMDs, 2.Spread secular democracy, and 3. free up the oil), the freeing up the oil argument is the only one that hasn't been debunked yet.
What you say would be correct except for the privatizing of the military which was begun in earnest under Clinton and carried even further under W.
Here by Jeremy Scahill from Aug 2007 in the Guardian is a description of the 'very private war'.
160,000 troops but 180,000 private contractors. The budgeting numbers of the outsourcing is purposefully difficult to track down. It completely obscures the cost of the 'war'.
Here the Washington Post cites 100,000 contractors but doesn't count the subcontractors.
In the first Gulf 'War' of '91 there were 10,000 private contractors.
We now have what Naomi Klein calls the hollow army. That follows our hollow government itself which has significant outsourcing in every department.
It also extends to intelligence, the most ominous of areas for private outsourcing.
Obama may withdraw regular army from Iraq but leave the private contractors or even increase them. It would be classic Washington smoke and mirrors.
What James K. Galbraith calls the 'Predator State'. The Government functions to transfer the wealth of the country to private hands. They are doing a bang up job.
Tell me when the Democrats have resisted one 'war' funding bill in earnest.
Here is a piece on World military spending.
The Europeans count things in their budgets that we include in the civilian realm.
Likewise the Russians and Chinese have different sets of numbers included.
The Pentagon is probably the worst at cooking the numbers.
Here is a piece on the 'cooking' of the Pentagon numbers.
As far as the only tool being a hammer, thus everything is a nail:
The vast military does not exist for the security of the country but rather for the interests of the Corporations of the Corporate State.
It will not be tamed until the system changes.
He walks like a king, so self assured. This may be my last election on earth and I'm so proud to vote for him, my daughter is voting for him even after her father tried drilling rush limbaughs racist lies into her head. My grandson may inherit a country where all men are equal and foreign countries look at us with respect. I want my country back.
The genius of Abraham Lincoln was that even after a bruising primary and general election.... he brought into his cabinet many of his political opponents.
Yeah, so did Bill Clinton and look where it got him.
Where did it get him?
Eight years in the White House, eight years of access to the bully pulpit, eight years of making executive appointments, and eight years of vetoing bills, half of which were sent to him by Phil "Mole People" Gramm, and Newt "Little Adolph" Gingrich. (I'll grant you that he obviously didn't veto ENOUGH of Gramm's bills, but still...)
I can't think of any Repugs who aren't ideologues.
totally corrupt, compromised, complicit partisan hacks?
He's probably gonna name Robert Rubin, for the love of shit, as Treas. Sec. You remember Robert Rubin? He persuaded his former boss, the Clenis, what a GREAT idea it would be to repeal Glass-Steagall, then left the Cabinet to join Citigroup and make several billions of dollars exploiting the system he'd help design the ass-rape of...
Rubin.
Colin Powell may find a place in that cabinet and I, for one, would be happy to see him raid the moderate part of the Republican party for some talent. The talent pool may not be large but it exists.
What you are saying makes a great deal of sense.
But I dislike his moral lapse at the UN with the white powder.
and it makes me want to puke. Powell is a war criminal. I am sorry to anyone who thinks that he was hoodwinked but this is a smart, smart man who out and out lied to the UN Security Council.
Great, he came out for Obama and will bring some Republican's into the Dem fold. That doesn't take away what he did and how many lives have been impacted by it.
If Obama gives Powell a role in his admin, which I fear is going to happen, it will sicken me.
Want to know what kind of Cabinet mccain would have. Well first you have to know what the inner man of mccain is all about.
Have a look at his record of how he goes wild in the Senate.
for the link, BB.
Sadly, this is a good reference.
a ballot. Unquote
By the same token, if Obama COULD change the system, he'd never have gotten this close.
This is a blatant sell-out. There is not a GOPuke in Congress who is not a throroughly compromised, corpoRat soldier. Specter? He's dying. I defy you to name another with even a tiny, visible vestige of principle ataching to their sepulchral carcasses. And he's not that great, let's face it. Arlen is anything but courageous.
If he reaches into the "bidness" community, it's indistinguishable from hiring Mafiosi.
Any chance to draw from a leftist-leaning academic community was effectively torpedoed by the Bill Ayers flap.
Obama hates the '60s anyway.
If the Dim party cannot offer adequate numbers of people with sufficient qualifications to bridge the relevant divisions, then what the fuck are we doing electing the sons of bitches to begin with...
Fuck this "bipartisan" crap...If Obama thinks the run of GOPukes we know today are satisfactory representatives to address the problems he will face, all the rhetoric of 'change' is sheer crapola. If they could have been instruments to fix things, they should already have records indicating such.
Bi-partisanship is motherfucking pandering...
Wouldn't be going back on his word.
to congress. There are governors, mayors, etc. who might be who he is looking at.
I am all for getting the best people to run this country and at this point, I don't care if they are R, D, I, G or what have you. We need help.
I hadn't thought of that.
I would love to see the Republicans punished en masse, but they must have some ringers, somewhere.
We are in truly deep doodoo and we need the best and brightest to get us out of this mess.
Punish the criminals, scold the rubber stamps, enoble the useful, lead by example.
Not likely...
We already have a mass of people, who over the last 20 or so years, have been brainwashed by the Limbaugh's of the world, that dems are evil and liberals are trying to eat your children.
How fast would it shut those fuckers up if Obama was to pick the best people around, including Goopers? What legs would they have to stand on to continue their rabid bitching?
Don't get me wrong, they will, but I think it would be just too fucking sweet...one giant cup of STFU to the lying Limbaughs, Hannitys and O'Reilly's of the world.
Aside from getting rid of the Republicans, and making it impossible to halt and burry any investigations into the Iraq war and Don Spiegelman case by following a Republican administration with another Republican administration (the way Ford secretly burried all the dog turds that Nixon left in the Oval office), that's my main interest in an Obama Administration. By electing a young, black, male, liberal Democrat to the White House, and NOT having the world come to an end, we'll have broken the back of right wing scare tactics and fear mongering for good.
Just think, it's been 21 years since Reagan got rid of The Fairness Doctrine, allowing the conservative movement to take over the radio waves, and substitute Conservative Hate Radio for music. It's also been 30 years since they brought in the Heritage Foundation and all of these bogus 'think tanks.'
For 30 years they've been fear mongering and appealing to xenophobia and (white male) identity politics, and claiming that the world will end if a liberal/non-white/Democrat is ever elected president. Even Clinton knew this, and when he managed to FLUKE his way into the White House thanks to Ross Perot, he basically RAN AWAY from the world 'liberal,' and either re-labeled himself a centrist, or a progressive (or a 'third way' politician). Once a black liberal democrat takes office, and the world doesn't end (...or, more likely, gets BETTER, given that, after Bush it couldn't possibly get worse)...the wiring to that particular right-wing reflex button will be torn out for good! They'll have spent 30 years, and hundreds of millions of dollars buying newspapers, think tanks, research chairs, radio and television networks, all with the purpose of building up a reflexive fear associated with liberals, Democrats, and non-whites. POOF! GONE! Thank you George Bush for f-king up the world SO BADLY that even people in Virginia and North Carolina are willing to put a young, black, liberal Democrat in the White House, rather than a Republican.
That's basically why they're pulling out ALL the stops with the stupid, childish fearmongering and xenophobia in this election. Why not? After all, they know they'll never be able to USE those tactics again, EVER!
Has done more for liberals and liberalism than any dem could have.
I can't recall any president in my history that fucked up this country as bad as it is now.
I hope conservative becomes a permanently retired brand. It is well deserved. And take all those asshole neocons with you. (spit)
Were you ever a fan of the old 1976 mini-series "I Claudius?" Do you remember how the emperor Claudius was secretly a republican, and wanted to restore Rome to being a republic. (Not that it was ever a republic as we know it.) So, he made his lunatic step son NERO his successor in the hopes that Nero would be such a horrible emperor that the Rome would return to being a republic for good. (It didn't work.)
Well, there are times I think that maybe that was George H.W. Bush's idea, too. I think George H.W. Bush was really a secret a half-liberal, and when his own party stabbed him in the back for not being reactionary and conservative enough, he decided to destroy the conservative movement for good by giving them his menace of a son to be the ultimate conservative president.
seriously...Kevin Phillips...
Top to bottom, local to fed, the GOPukes have been remarkabl;e for party discipline...
which means they'll fuck you when it's in their interest, when you think they're acting in 'good faith.'
When here are only two parties, it is IMPOSSIBLE to become "post-partisan."
Clinton had Republican William Cohen as his Secretary of Defense, and Cohen never screwed Clinton. (Presumably because Clinton didn't butter his bread on that side. The women in his cabinet weren't so lucky. Even Albright was nervous most of the time.)
Interestingly, you never hear the right wing nut-jobs whining about how William Cohen never caught bin Laden, or got revenge for the USS Cole bombing. That being said, however, it's actually pretty smart to have cabinet members from the other party. It provides some political cover. I think Clinton would have taken a lot more Republican criticism on defense if he hadn't had Cohen running the Defense Department.
just three is all, whom you'd trust NOT to be treacherous, co-opted sellouts at the first chance...
Where do you folks get the idea that compromise is what's wanted?
You can't compromise with folks who want you GONE!
You think for an instant the Pukes are going to become "good faith" partners?
Newtie's gotchall by the short and curlies...and you think he's picking nits...
Since I do not know many Republican's at the state level, I cannot answer that. But it is unrealistic to simply say you want them gone.
There is reality and there is fantasy and you are in fantasyland.
"excess of optimism."
wait to see who he is talking about.
And take a fucking prozac already.
I couldn't have said it better.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!
Wow. So Magic Bullet Specter is principled.
God save us.
This whole thread is scaring the shit out of me.
You people have no clue how fooled you are and how fucked this country is.
I just saw a brief excerpt of Rachel Maddow's interview with Obama and her discussion with Keith Olbermann and Obama made it very clear that he wasn't going to have an ideologically driven cabinet, and wasn't going to denigrate the Republican Party or, for that matter, conservatism.
see videos: Bogus Flyer tells Dems to vote day after the election and Clear Cut Media Bias: MSM Continually Deceive Voters
I just hope he doesn't pick Liarman. ManOMan, that would push me over the edge.
After Obama gave him quite the tongue lashing with a bit of a hand to chest action...I would give that about a -1% chance of taking place.
I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder.
Chuck Hagel also comes to mind. He's already said he likes Luger.
This makes me wonder about his SCOTUS picks.
I know where he stands on choice. But there have been some issues in recent months that make me wonder.FISA for one. I would hope that he would rescind that.
I'd like to see Obama om the SCOTUS. :-)
That would be wonderful and a great place to end his career.
I was thinking about that as I watched him with Maddow talking about how he would talk with potential SCOTUS candidates. It was brilliant.
He ended with some bullshit that McCain would have the same kind of conversations and I thought to myself, McCain doesn't have the capacity to do so. How do you ask constitutional questions, those which are not loaded, when you do not intimately know and understand the constitution.
MsJoanne:
That's an interesting idea, I suppose. I really don't know how I'd feel about that.
I have some concerns about whom he'll appoint to the Court. I really don't know. I'm often skeptical of those who teach Constitutional Law (though I admit I don't know his actual methodology or philosophy), since I tend not to agree with how our Constitution has been interpreted. In a way, Obama's pragmatism scares me when it comes to Constitutional interpretation.
I am not going to say that I think for one second that Obama will make me happy 100% of the time...I will be happy with 75% which is probably unlikely.
Since there is little I can do, other than put faith into him at this point, that is what I will do.
I will say that I HOPE he makes the right decisions.
Ms. Joanne:
Oh, of course. I'm in exactly that boat.
And there's nobody with whom I'd agree 100% of the time, except me, and I'm not even sure about that. ;)
On the other hand, I don't see Obama's election (may it come to pass) as an ending to the darkness, but the beginning of a new chapter in which all of our participation is demanded.
After the 4th, I will hopefully be celebrating, soaking in what happened, and relaxing. For a few minutes, at least.
And then I'll be out working to keep the new government accountable, and working hard on electoral reform.
Funny. I don't always agree with myself, either. I think WAY too much (I over think way too much).
Did you read this? http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/fear-an...
Check it out...this is what the religious right has to say about an Obama presidency.
Fucking lunatics.
MsJoanne:
Same old apocalyptic nonsense spouted by the fearful. I've seen it all before. :) And I'm sure I'll see a lot more in my lifetime. :(
I love how they're so concerned about judges that "legislate from the bench." I'm so sick of hearing that from these lunatics. Read the aptly named Slaughterhouse rulings, and tell me whether it's liberals or conservatives who legislate from the bench. (They largely gutted the Fourteenth Amendment immediately after the Civil War for anyone who doesn't know, clearly ignoring the plain meaning of the words for their reactionary and absurd ideas.)
I want to see judges who'll truly construe the Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to protect equal liberty. I doubt I'll really get that from Obama's appointees, but I KNOW I'll get nothing of the sort from Gone InSane's.
It is only legislating from the bench if you don't agree with the decision.
MsJoanne:
Oh, I know that that's what they mean. If they disagree with any decision, they argue not simply that they disagree, but that the decision was somehow inarguable and improper. As I always say, while progressives believe in objectivity, conservatives believe that anything not explicitly in their favor is biased against them.
But I do think there's a good conversation to be had about the proper role of the judiciary and legitimate methodologies for interpreting the Constitution. Unfortunately, because of the way the loony right has behaved, because they label any verdict not to their liking as "activism," I fear that liberals might conclude that all concerns about disciplined methodology are illegitimate.
I read a frightening statistic: something like 65% of all US judges are conservatives.
That does not bode well for social justice, IMHO.
"I'd like to see Obama om the SCOTUS. :-)"
Now this ^^ made me laugh.
I honestly believe he would pick Hillary, I mean come on, you know there had to be some back room deal.
The Republicans in the House and Senate must be shunned and marginalized- lock them out the buildings if needed- they have caused such damage to this country, their hate group must be purged.
Obama should NOT work with Republicans, he should make sure they have NO influence or voice.
.Have them feel the tables turned for awhile
just perpetuate the current sad state of affairs.
Republicans are the ones who want to strip away our freedoms by eroding the seperation of church and state, by taking away a woman's rights to her own body, by depriving gays the rights afforded to every other citizen. Republicans want perpetual war, and their violent anti immigrant rhetoric is thinly guised racial hatred of Hispanics...
This 'turning the other cheek' habit of the Democrats is noble.That really helped John Kerry and michael Dukakas, didn't it?
EVERY time we extend an olive branch to Republican filth, they try and rip off our arm.I am sick and tired of their B.S.
F**k the Republicans, they had 8 years in power, and made a mess of things. Good riddance to them.
I understand some may argue 'this will make us no better than them'- that may be true, but there is no compromise with republicans- they will NEVER work with us- Rush Limbaugh said we should be destroyed- Let's not give them the chance.
I'm gay, and am proud of who and what I am- Why would I want Pres Obama to do any buisness with a hate party that conciders all gays less than human?
In the words of the great Mike Malloy, the Democrats need to throw the Republican scum out the door
...if they beg forgiveness and wait for 12 years.
Bipartisanship is cool sometimes, but not with this party. It will take 12 years of DICTATORIAL one-party rule to clean up the mess that was made. Only then can we get back to normal governing. And the republican party 12 years from now had better not resemble today's party in the tiniest way.
In this country we forgive, but we also convict and sentence. Do the time first. Then, welcome back.
that by having goopers in the admin it might provide legitimacy to convictions? How will the right wing claim it is partisan if there are their own in the admin.
Not that I think, for one second, that we will ever see justice for these fucking criminals...but that is besides the point.
That would be cool but won't happen. I mean sentence the republican party as a whole for what they've done to this country. 12 years of wandering in the wilderness.
Gotcha.
I still disagree, though. ;-)
MsJoanne:
Heh, that's easy. They'll just claim it.
When predicting Republican behavior, it helps to abandon logic. Learn to be a little less like Alice, a little more like the Queen of Hearts. Try to believe a few impossible things before breakfast.
They can spin it by calling the cabinet member a traitor. They can spin it by saying that the cabinet member has been duped, and that Obama only has him there for window dressing. They can spin it however they feel like.
Or, they can dispense with spinning it, and just claim it.
Whatever the merits and faults of a bipartisan cabinet, wooing the true believers in the current Republican Party to act like normal human beings is a futile endeavor.
You are a little too good at that Queen of Hearts thing. ;-)
MsJoanne:
I'll take that as a compliment, a critique and a total non-statement not even addressed to me. :)
Point made! :-D
And what would we accomplish doing that?
I am sorry, I loathe the GOP as much as the next dem (for I am probably farther left than many) but I want a functioning country and participation and buy in gets things done.
And we need to get things done.
that the US rather desperately needs to get some things done and right now. For the good of us all. Unless there is a filibuster proof senate majority co-opting people like Hegel or even, in the short term someone like Gates is not the worst solution. Powell may carry too much baggage to be of much use. I think one has to make the distinction between the current lamentable ideology of the Republican party and some of the individuals who are members of that party who are clearly unhappy where it is being taken. Most people are either Democrats or Republicans based on the politics of the family they were born into. Given inspiring leadership to follow some Republicans could make the necessary changes easier to achieve.
Let's, for a moment, assume we reach that magic 60 number. Great! We have a filibuster proof majority.
Except, not all Dems agree on everything, which has always been the good and bad about Dems. Goopers stand together no matter what (Reagan's 11th commandment). Dems tend to vote based on what they think is right and while we may get more done, that magic number of 60 is not a magic number at all.
mean to imply that such a majority would justify locking out the Republicans just that it would make that alternative somewhat more viable. A more generous strategy of working with the proper Republicans would certainly yield faster results.
did you know that a Democratic party congressman from Georgia led the John Birch Society in the '80's. I know what you mean about party politics.
I didn't until just recently.
As a northerner, sometimes I just shake my head at things I cannot cognitively comprehend.
But I think we NEED that bipartisanship to show those who will not feel that Obama is THEIR president that he is OUR president, not jut the president of us lefty, liberal, pinko fags. :-)
I must respectfully agree with you.
Add to the many reasons I adore you. :-)
I put up a new Caption Contest today...thought of you as I did 'cause I remember you liked them.
http://livefrankly.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/c...
Check it out.
You are so friggin funny.
MsJoanne:
Simplistic indeed.
Frankly, we're in range of what we want, which is hovering around 60. That's all we can realistically achieve at this point. And that's really not bad considering where we've been.
But it's not quite filibuster-proof. It's not going to be filibuster-proof even if we reach 60, 61 or even 62.
There is a huge blue-dog coalition in the Senate. They're going to cause us problems. No matter what. We operate in a silly duopoly of Democrats and Republicans. In some senses they're just two factions of one party. In another, they're loosely connected coalitions of factions that have little in common. Just watch the Democrats scuttle a lot of what we want to get done.
Moreover, there's Traitor Joe Lie-to-Dems. Anyone think he's going to be caucusing with the Democrats in the next Congress? Even if he doesn't officially join Republican ranks, his presence means that any tally of 60 is really 59.
In any case, Republicans are not exactly united right now either. And if we reach 58 or 59, some filibusters can be overcome by seeking the one, two or three Republicans who want to be on the right side of history for their next election.
Not to mention that the Democrats should absolutely dispense with the gentlemen's filibuster we've been operating under, and force any minority that wants to filibuster to talk until they drop.
This bullshit over the filibuster has driving me nuts for more than two years. I was working in DC at the time they actually DID filibuster and watched it for a couple of hours. I wound up talking briefly with Pat Leahy and then went to an anti war rally and hooked up with some MoveOn and TPers (I was even on CNN in one of the crowd scenes and am sure I am now in some federal database).
Make them filibuster. Fuck the threats. It might have stopped the bullshit and gotten more stuff on the record because too few, wonks like us aside, know the level of republican obstruction.
Why he should pick a republican. None what so ever.
Especially if the Dems take a vast majority.In both houses.
I want a functioning country. I am sick of partisanship. Enough. For the people...that is what we need.
how about the war?
the economy?
Social jutice and fairness?
Just what is it about partisanship you don't like?
There aren't pro-choice goopers?
There aren't any goopers who have any idea about the economy? Social justice?
Come on. You cannot lump every person in every state who is a gooper as an evil Bush crony. I don't believe that.
Fiscally sound.
Period.
And I am ALL for that! It does not mean cutting social spending, it is about spending wisely.
And a Bi Partisan Gov't is the best way to go.
But the other side of the aisle kept there mouth shut when they should have objected. Most of them were all for Boosh's policies.
Yes there were some Repub's who spoke out. After 6+ years. Too Late in my book. I also feel we need to get rid of some Dem's as well. For not fighting hard enough when they should have.
Who is the THEY you are talking about? He hasn't named anyone yet?
Damn near every single one of them.
Campaign donations.
But there is no uncompromised reason for it.
I just ask you to remember Robert ubin, the Clenis' Tereas.Sec, who fobbed off the repeal of Glass-Steagall as good economics, and then departed Govt to lead Citigroup and make himself a tidy pile of BILLIONS manipulating the system he'd just bureaucratically ass-raped...
And with Obama being pretty strict about lobbyists not being allowed to be in the campaign, do you think he is going to sell out now?
Sure, it is possible, but I am HOPEful. We don't know how it will play out but at some point we need to give him some trust.
I am at least. And I will bitch and moat and call and write should that trust be violated.
of he wholly helpless.
Get some prozac. It might make the rest of us feel better.
How about Paul O'Neill for Tres.Sec.? He is a moral man as far as I can tell in reading about him in Ron Suskind's book, "Price of Loyalty".
That is the Repub strategy, not Obama’s.
If you wish to dismantle the GOP failed policies, it only makes sense to remove the divisiveness which has been so effective as well.
This doesn’t mean we should coddle and condone all those who have been complicit in the corruption, only that those who are best qualified to lead this change should be given the opportunity.
The walls that the divisive politics creates, creates wars – on many fronts. I don’t like those walls, and don’t like those kind of wars.
Buenas noches, mi buen amigos y amigas...
We can go on and on and on and on and on about who he might pick.
Won't change a thing. Lets find out first so we can do the research ourselves.
on this subject. While many of you don't see any room for a Republican in Obama's cabinet (and I can respect your bitterness, it's based on recent history) many of you are prepared to discuss likely candidates. I'd just like to remark that if the shoe were on the other foot I can think of no right wing blog where such an idea would even be entertained without derisive dismissal. That's why I like to hang here.
Yeah, but, are there any republicans worth hiring?
I can only think of two. They would be DRAFTED/MANDATORY as grave keepers,body wrappers, VA room sweepers etc. and of course that would be bush/cheney.
Going by the West Wing rule of parallel universes, Obama will have to offer McCain Secretary of State. :)
One of the rumors I've heard is that Joe Lieberman might be offered a cabinet position. Is that the kind of pragmatism anyone who frequents C&L is going to find deserving of admiration?
Is that the kind of pragmatism anyone who frequents C&L should find deserving of admiration?
Can we end this nonsense of using words like partisanship and bi-partisanship? Both terms are almost hallow with little true gravitas (same thing with maverick). I've always been in the mindset that people need their opposites. We need the yang to our yin. This might come from my adherence to dialectic theory. If there are no opposing ideas, there is no progress, and bad policy will probably pass (i.e. Bush Administration). When everyone around you just reverberates what you say and there is no dissent, you begin to lose objectivity on your own ideas and start becoming dogmatic in your thoughts. I know that the GOP isn't so great (actually, it's bloody deplorable), but we still need conservatives whom still adhere to conservatism as espoused by William F. Buckley, Jr. We need that opposing voice. I am extremely liberal in my thoughts, but I know that what is best for the country as a whole is somewhere between my liberal views and those of conservatives. No party or person holds all the best ideas, and when people say they do, they are charlatans.
OK, President Obama but there are 2 conditions:
1) Just because you're doing this DOESN'T mean investigations of the misdeeds of the BushCo junta will be squashed in the name of "moving forward."
2) NO neocons. Repubs, OK. NO neocons.
Then you can have your bipartisan administration.
Agreed. Agreed. Agreed!
Lincoln also had all his rivals in his cabinet to keep and eye on them. That's very, very smart. Highly recommend Gore Vidal's book Lincoln. It's brilliant, also his book Burr is great as well.
…will be meaningful only on the condition that he is speaking of the Democratic and Green parties.
christ o mighty...ive had enough of the dnc
i think obama should create a new cabinet position...czar of shit disturbers....appoint nader and ron paul as coczars....stick them in a basement office, and pay them to bitch and moan for 4 years
OK, don't take a page from the FAA handbook. There is no such thing as "pre-planning". To have a plan is to prepare. It is impossible to plan before a plan. That would still be called planning. I am cognizant that every Federal agency has suffered under Dubya, however, the egegious manner in which our Nation's fine Air Traffic Controllers have been treated is tantamount to treason and potentially disasterous in its inception. Having attempted previously to introduce the disaster to this blog and having failed precipitously was disheartening. Hopefully President Obama will right this ship before hundreds die due to malfeseance. Yes, hyperbole is all we have left. http://themainbang.typepad.com/ http://www.faafollies.com/ http://currentandundertow.blogspot.com/ http://gettheflick.blogspot.com/index.html
Lincoln only appointed LOYAL Americans to his cabinet.
Hopefully Obama understands that most Republican politicos are only loyal to the Main Chance, and not to America.
But, I wish him luck in recruiting Repugs to the Good Work. Clinton tried to kiss up to them and look where it got him.
No, no, no no. Obama isn't Lincoln and this isn't the Civil War. There is no earthly reason to have any Republicans in the cabinet. Period. Full stop. Why the fuck should they be in his cabinet? Why should he bend over backwards to pander to those fuckers? Why give them a share of power , especially when by all indications they will lose by a landslide? It would send exactly the wrong message: that the GOP is the Serious party, that Democrats need adult supervision. Well, actually the opposite is true- it's the Democrats who are the adults. Every new president brings in his own team. And we all know if McCain wins, he will act just like Bush did, and completely ignore the opposition. Nobody ever asks the GOP to be bipartisan; it's always the Democrats who are expected to compromise. Fuck that shit. I've had it with this bipartisan bullshit. If the GOP wants a cabinet of their people, let them win the election.
I think most sane Americans are fed up with the b.s of the republicans, with their lies, their greed, their war mongering. The Republican party is a *hate group*, plain and simple. What platforms do they run on?
*Hatred of gays
*hatred of immigrants
*Hatred of Muslims
*Hatred of science
*Hatred of civil liberties
*Hatred of liberals
*Hatred of academia
*Hatred of women
*Hatred of Europe
Republicans need to be marginalized and shunned
Republicans had their chance to make a difference, and lost. They should have *NO* voice when obama is president.
This should change though, if moderat Republicans drive the radical Christian fringe out of their party
"I've always been more than happy to steal good ideas from whatever the source."
FOX news lead story "Obama Admits to thievery"
Bill Cunningham "That's what black people do. They steal."
John McCain "My friends. I'm going to give you some straight talk. Senator Obama just admitted he stole all his ideas from me."
RNC "There needs to be an immediate investigation into Democrat Barack Obama's admission that he broke into Republican headquarters and stole untold numbers of ideas. We demand the election be suspended until Obama is convicted of this crime and all early vote be destroyed."
West Virginia elections official "Since Mr Obama has admitted to stealing his ideas from the Republican party we will be counting votes for Obama as votes for John McCain."
Login or Register to post comments.