Would you be offended if Barack Obama selected a Republican or two or three to be part of his cabinet?
Keep in mind that it is fairly rare for a president to select members of the opposite party to serve in their cabinet. George W. Bush kept Norm Mineta on as his Secretary of Transportation (he had served as Secretary of Commerce in Clinton’s last year in office). Clinton tapped moderate Maine Senator William Cohen to be his Secretary of Defense. The most notable case of a president staffing up with members of the opposite party is FDR’s 1940 decision to hire Henry Stimson as his Secretary of War and Frank Knox as his Secretary of the Navy. At the time, the Republican Party was split between isolationists (especially their leader, Robert Taft) and people that wanted to assist the enemies of Nazi Germany. FDR, through Knox and Stimson, gained badly needed bipartisan cover for policies like the Lend-Lease Act of 1941.
Likewise, Secretary Cohen calmed the Republicans when Clinton bombed Sudan and Afghanistan in an apparent ‘wag the dog’ moment during the height of his Lewinsky travails. There is some value in having a member of the opposite party in the national security team, if that member is trusted. For example, Richard Lugar is very well-respected by Republicans. Lincoln Chafee is regarded with suspicion. You can have a veneer of bipartisanship, or you can have the real thing. Also, as president, you set the policies. If you trust a member of the other party to carry out your directives and you see some advantage in having them lend credibility to your policies, I see no reason not to employ them.
Or, you can have a completely different criteria. Matt Stoller says “the only circumstance I would support a bipartisan cabinet, [would be] if you could get a Republican Senator to leave his seat to take a department.” Stoller’s criteria would rule out Richard Lugar (because he would most likely be replaced in the Senate by a Republican) and even Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chafee (because they will both be retired). The way I see it, Obama (if elected) should pick people that are qualified, that he trusts, and that add value to his administration. The make-up of the Senate should not be a major consideration.
What say you?
Update [2008-10-7 14:55:16 by BooMan]: Continuing on with this thought experiment, let me offer you the following scenario. Let’s say that Obama has narrowed down his choice for Secretary of State to Senator Dodd of Connecticut and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. If he chooses Kerry, the replacement will be selected by Democratic Governor Deval Patrick. If he chooses Dodd, the replacement will be selected by Republican Governor Jodi Rell. Should Obama choose the person he most trusts and feels is best qualified, or should he reject Dodd because it would cost the party a Senate seat? For me, it’s easy. Pick the one you want and worry about the Senate later.
Depends entirely on the individual Republican involved, and the reason for making the appointment. If the person is among the most competent candidates for the job, and will not try to subvert the administration, then why not?
I was going to post something similar to Hurria’s first half “Depends entirely on the individual Republican involved”. But then I thought about it a bit more and changed my mind.
The individual Republican pretty much needs to be “not a Republican” at this point. If he can find a sober, intelligent Republican who believe in good governance and making decisions based on reason, with results supported by a preponderance of evidence, and who believes fundamentally that whatever position they have should be in support of an Obama-directed administration, then by all means appoint that mythical creature to your cabinet. And while you’re at it find a leprechaun to sit as the Secretary of the Treasury – because that pot of gold will come in handy.
The honest Republican pols have mostly left the Republican party at this point – and the ones who still cling to the party aren’t worth a damn in a cabinet seat. Because if they’ve been willing to wallow in the fecal matter for this long, they’re either sympathetic to it or they’re such political opportunists that they can’t be trusted. Even the vaunted Chuck Hagel has basically only been right about Iraq – there’s no telling if he’d make the “correct” decision about a new war or if he’d be working to press an agenda behind Obama’s back that was incompatible with our current needs.
And there are no “useless” or “safe” cabinet positions right now. Every office is going to need someone at the head that is going to be willing to root out the rot that the Bush administration has put there. And every office is going to need to fight for its share of the budget to make itself functional again. Put simply – this is not the time to have people who don’t believe that government can ever be the solution in charge of government offices. Now’s the time for people who actually believe in what they’re doing to be in charge. Because it’s going to be long hard work for the next four years just to fix the damage of the last 8 – and they’re only going to really have 2 years to convince folks that they’re on the right track. By the 2010 midterm elections things need to be turned around enough to convince voters to give the Obama administration another 2 years. Otherwise they’ll put Republicans back in the House and we’ll be in for a reprise of ’94.
The honest Republican pols have mostly left the Republican party at this point – and the ones who still cling to the party aren’t worth a damn in a cabinet seat. Because if they’ve been willing to wallow in the fecal matter for this long, they’re either sympathetic to it or they’re such political opportunists that they can’t be trusted. Even the vaunted Chuck Hagel has basically only been right about Iraq – there’s no telling if he’d make the “correct” decision about a new war or if he’d be working to press an agenda behind Obama’s back that was incompatible with our current needs.
exactly. and given hagel’s views on abortion,/a>, ,a href=”http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm#Civil_Rights”>civil liberties including rights for gay people, wiretapping, and affirmative action, and a host of other issues, why would ANYONE consider him (or any of his colleagues) for anything other than White House dishwasher.
My first reaction to the question of “why not?” is that there are many Dems who went out on limbs early on to support Obama (Shea-Porter and Hoades in my home state of NH – not that I’m recommending them for anything – I want them right where they are) who are qualified and deserving of positions in a Democratic administration.
Picking one of the R senators from Maine might be smart. Both are moderate and facing what looks like several years of D control of the Senate. D Governor in Maine would appoint a Democrat (Tom Allen if he loses to Collins?)
Other than that, I can’t see a single cabinet-level position that I would want Obama to staff with a Republican. There are just far too many qualified Democrats, and, quite frankly, we have a wide range of views among good Dems.
The makeup of the Senate SHOULD be a major consideration to an Obama administration. If we reach 60 (I can dream), the legislative agenda can be executed.
That’s pretty much what I was thinking. Are there any other Republican Senators in states with a Democratic governor where the choice could do the twofer of bettering control of the Senate while also giving Obama some bipartisan cover? That’s about the only way I can see approving such a choice.
If you’re looking for Republicans with Democratic governors, there’s always Voinivich from Ohio. It would be nice to oust him from the Senate before he goes up for re-election in 2010. He’s well liked in the state and would probably win office again.
But as I said above, I wouldn’t do it. Voinivich is like Arlen Specter – he talks about bi-partisanship and unity and moderation, but in the end he wallows in the muck and toes the party line as much as any Republican.
How about this: Offer cabinet posts to both McCain and Lieberman. Then once they’re confirmed and they quit their Senate seats, fire them.
If you can think of any where he would do a good job and couldn’t cause trouble. Then again, it’s like putting Zell Miller in your cabinet. You could never trust him not to leak damaging info to Fox News.
If they sold tickets to the termination procedure, I’d fight to get one. Fantastic idea!
I’ve got better things to worry about than who Obama puts in his cabinet. Like seeing that McCain doesn’t steal the election first. And yes, it could still happen.
However, I do think he should put Lieberman in charge of the Transportation department. Or HUD. He’s essentially a Republican and that would help Democrats in the Senate.
I don’t know much, but I know this: Lieberman gets nothing from Obama. I think Obama has made this pretty clear to Lieberman.
I think Lieberman is about to find out what Senate loneliness is all about.
Can’t happen fast enough, nor to a more deserving person.
Make him Postmaster General
We’d probably discover that Lieberman could fuck-up the Post Office pretty badly. Wouldn’t surprise me if he’d do it out of petty spite either, the jerk.
What about an ambassadorship to somewhere fun but non-essential to our foreign policy? I don’t know if such a place exists these days, but perhaps we could send him there? Ambassador to Luxemborg or something – gets him out of the Senate and off the Sunday news shows. (Sure he gets replaced by a Republican, but at least it would be a Republican that wouldn’t be pretending to be a Democrat criticizing other Democrats.)
Please! No! I work for the Post Office (US Postal Service).
BTW, rumor is that the USPS will declare insolvency and be privatized with the Union contracts invalidated. Lots can happen before January 24.
I absolutely oppose Obama making any effort to name a “bipartisan” cabinet. Bipartisanship as a goal, rather than a tactic, is intellectually bankrupt and at odds with the Enlightenment ideas that this country was founded on. I wish Obama would get off it already.
That said, I’d have no problem with him naming Reps who see things my way on specific issues, like Tommy Thompson at Transportation, for example. Or Nader as AG, maybe, or energy. But I don’t see the point of naming limp “moderates” like Collins when you can have an actual liberal/lefty.
After the past 8 years, I detest Republican enablers as much as anyone else does. But both Collins and Snowe are more than limp moderates – I expect that both (assuming Collins wins her senate race) will work well with a Democratically controlled Senate.
Either would make a good choice for a low-level cabinet position.
BTW, Nader as AG would be an unmitigated disaster. What a loose cannon he would be. Thompson also. He’s the one who withheld the true cost of the Medicaid reform bill from Congress.
I guess after the lapdogs Bush had as AG, the idea of an indpendent one, ie a “loose canon”, is appealing. Seems to me that’s what AGs are supposed to be, especially if we’re really wanting “change”.
As to Thompson, he’s not a good guy, but he loves trains and as Sec of Trans would probably do more than any Dem to start shifting from the car/air system to rails and public transportation.
“…he’s not a good guy, but he loves trains and as Sec of Trans would probably do more than any Dem to start shifting …”
False. Jim Oberstar (D -MN), Earl Blumenauer (D- OR), just to name two would be far better choices than Thompson. As you point out, he’s not a good guy. I don’t care if he likes trains.
Nader has done much good for our country, nobody can deny that. My intuition would be, if there is a roll for him, it would be in developing product import standards. Admittedly, I have a hard time saying his name without blanching in memory of the 2000 election. You can’t say it didn’t matter with the benefit of hindsight.
Nader accepting a position in government would be the end of Nader. At this point his existence as a consumer safety advocate is long past and his role is as the “pox on both your houses” guy who runs quixotic vanity campaigns for President every four years. He’s a punchline, sure, but he’d be even less than that if he actually were put into a position where he had to make real compromises to get a real agenda put forth. His rep would never recover.
It would be a nasty, nasty thing to do to him, actually, and I don’t think that Obama’s actually that cruel. Too bad, because I’d like to see some of my friends who get swayed by his purity troll schtick get a wake up call when he sells out something they think is important to get something done that he thinks is just as – or more – important.
As to your first point, what do Collins and Snowe offer that dozens of Dems don’t? Like I said, I detest the whole idea of “reaching out” just for the sake of bipartisan cover.
We have a difference of opinion. It helps both strategically and tactically:
A legislative bill crafted by a cabinet department led by Collins or Snowe gets bi-partisan support.
A gain of a vote in the Senate (Democratically controlled Governorship.)
Demonstrates Obama’s willingness to cross party lines to get the job done.
It would be nice if we could run the world on principles alone. But we can’t. Appearances, perceptions, compromise, and concessions all play a roll, and, outside of Dennis K. on the left, and Ron P. on the right, I don’t see anybody on the horizon that would try to change that.
BTW and not for nothing, standing on principle got Jimmy Carter early retirement.
Only if that Republican is Ron Paul.
Or, I would accept a Charles Grassley (one of two Republicans I have voted for) or an Arlen Spector as long as they fully repented their sins.
I am fine with compromise as long as it is reasonable. I can deal with reasonable Republicans. But there haven’t really been many in the last couple of decades.
If Obama wants to reach out he should reach out to the people that used to be reasonable Republicans in this country–the conservative Democrats like the Clintons and the Liebermans and like Obama himself. But these people will be overrepresented in an Obama administration anyway. We don’t need to reach out to more “moderate” conservatives–that’s who we’re voting for!!
Anyway, I’m more concerned how Obama will reach out to liberals. Isn’t this a progressive blog? Where are the bones thrown to progressive? Oh yeah. I forgot. We’re supposed to STFU while Obama disowns us. Progressives sold out without getting a quid for their quo. The fact Obama would consider putting a Republican on his cabinet instead of a liberal is exactly why I wanted to nominate a real liberal and not a DLC Republican-lite candidate like Obama in the first place.
Here we go. Obama is going to decide how conservative his cabinet is. Great.
While the real liberals will probably get condemned on the Senate floor for our troubles. Obama is a coward and will always be owned by the corporate conservatives in Washington, D.C. When are liberals going to wake up and realize the pig in a poke they were sold is the runt of the litter.
Those two guys turned to mush every time Bush turned up the heat. Spector caved on warrantless wiretapping every time it came up.
Aside from maybe Lincoln Chafee, I just can’t trust any Republican in the House or Senate. Dick Lugar is too old to take a serious cabinet position, Hagel voted for the Military Commissions Act and therefore is not to be trusted.
There are too many qualified Democrats, and there are zero Republicans, zero Republicans who consistently stood up to the Bush administration.
Not that the Congressional Democrats acquitted themselves better.
No Republicans; nobody from Congress, Republican or Democrat. We can at least give the Democrats the opportunity to redeem themselves before Accountability 2010.
i like your thinking. I can’t wait til payday so i can pledge my $15.00 or so a month.
It’s not a lot, but it’ll add up.
I agree with you about Dodd and Kerry. As President, it would be Obama’s responsibility to pick the person most qualified. He has to put the nation’s interests above the party’s. We have seen how it works when you do the opposite, and while it may have allowed the Republicans some short term electoral success, in the long term it has proven disastrous for both them and the country.
I guess that answers your question about what I would think about a Republican in the cabinet too, but I honestly can’t think of any that are more qualified in a specific area that there isn’t a Democrat who is as qualified or more so.
No.
The GOP has proven time and time again they are not to be trusted: I think the vote on the bailout (regardless of whether you support it or not) is a clear indicator. The GOP leadership promised at least 100 votes, and delivered 60, all the while cutting ads to run against democrats. You can’t do business with those people.
A GOP cabinet member would be a source of permanent worry. And like Stoller, the only way I could tolerate it is if the GOP freak resigned his seat in Congress or the Senate first.
So no, absolutely no republicans. They’ve held the congress since the mid-1990s, and held all branches of government from 2000-2006. They have not been humbled by their losses, nor have they made one single effort to work across the aisle. I do not believe that they could handle the honor and responsibility of a cabinet post.
I don’t think Obama should take any Senate members from Republican governor states — period. We’ve seen how Republicans abuse the filibuster, we’ve seen how many center-right Democrats betray us on key issues.
There are plenty of non-Senators who can serve ably in a cabinet. Second, I really do not want to see a Republican Sec. of Defense, Sec. of State, Sec. of Interior, EPA, and especially Attorney General. It’s time to show that Democrats are better at running government.
I respect Chuck Hagel, but he hasn’t shown the guts to earn an Obama cabinet spot. He hasn’t endorsed Obama and he avoided taking a tough stand on far too many votes. He voted for that horrendous Military Commissions Act, which rules him out of any serious cabinet post in my mind.
Hagel or Powell at Defense wouldn’t offend me.
Christine Todd Whitman at EPA again wouldn’t offend me either.
no, No, NO, NO!
sorry, but putting an R as SecDef just plays into the stereotype that they are our daddies and we (Ds) are incapable of protecting the country.
I say fuck ’em all.
Maybe an exception for Hagel’s wife, but only if she dumps him. Maybe.
Also, all Fox News employees should be decredentialed and banned from the White House.
No neocons! But moderate Replublicans from business or academia in lower Cabinet posts such as Commerce or Transportation are OK. Likewise subcabinet posts such as Secretary of the Army, Treasury undersecretary, FDIC chairman.