Edwards stumps in region (Says he'll have Republicans in his Cabinet if elected)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Fosters

By ADAM D. KRAUSS
Democrat Staff Writer
[e-mail]

PORTSMOUTH — To hear Seacoast residents tell it, Democrat John Edwards was courageous, inspiring and convincing enough to pull votes away from a chief rival during his Seacoast swing Sunday.

In Rochester, the Levi's jeans-wearing presidential candidate scored points with Barrington resident Daniel LaBossiere when he said he'd have Republicans in his Cabinet.

"He had the courage enough to answer it, which is difficult enough," said LaBossiere, who asked Edwards what he values of conservative philosophy. "I've never heard any other politician make that statement."

Edwards told a crowd of about 100 in front of the Rochester Common bandstand that he'll work with Republicans "in a principled way," acknowledging he ran the risk of alienating voters by saying the cabinet list "I've already made" includes members of the other party.


Read more: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/FOSTERS08/708270073

[Kutjara]

1. Republicans in his cabinet?

I hope he's talking about some cabinet in his basement.

[Cha]

41. lol! Maybe he was ..John

didn't have to tell them that, though.

[onehandle]

2. DLC! DLC!

Or some other pointless comment inspired by the peanut gallery.

[partylessinOhio]

3. This is the kind of statement that turns me OFF. No repugs nowhere no time.

:thumbsdown:

[JDPriestly]

7. Just a minute. There are Republicans and then there are Republicans.

Same as with Democrats. There are sleazy, crazy Democrats. Sure, there are a lot more sleazy, crazy Republicans than Democrats, but still, there are non-sleazy, non-crazy Republicans.

Bush would have been wise to include Democrats in his cabinet. It would have brought balance and acceptance. Clinton had a Republican Sec. of Defense, as I recall. If a person is really capable to the point they are the best person for the job, and if they are willing to be loyal to the American people and to be honest with the administration, imo, they should not be excluded just because they label themselves Republican as opposed to Democrat.

Now, I say that with the caveat that I think it is time for Democrats to have the opportunity to show what we can do. I also want to say that I am an activist strong Democrat. I will not be voting Republican in the foreseeable future -- not for any level of office.

[dickbearton]

18. The Republican barrel is...

is rotten thru and thru. The party is rotten to the core.
Don't waste time looking for the exception.

[Odin2005]

32. I find some of the comments in this thread disturbing and very ILLIBERAL.

Just being a Republican doesn't make a person some evil demon. I swear, some people in this thread sound like would make every Republican a second-class citizen if they could. Yes, the leadership of the GOP are scum, but not every, or even most, republicans are like that. It's not very liberal or democratic to dehumanize people who we have political disagreements with.

[Autumn Colors]

38. If I vote for a Democratic president I'm voting for Democrats to be in the Admin

[iamjoy]

49. Thanks! Bet Obama Feels The Same

I am willing to bet Obama would listen to Republicans too. It's not Obama's style to be so direct right now, but this is the man who spoke about not splitting us into red and blue. He's also the one who seems the most willing to buck conventional wisdom and try new things.

That's a compliment to Obama. You seem to be reflecting the best of him here.

[liberalnurse]

17. It sure does!

Have we not suffered ENOUGH by the behavior of republicans? Please, not one more, PLEASE, DON'T........... :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[Tesha]

4. Golly! How wonderful for us. More Republicans.(NT)

[Connie_Corleone]

5. Now didn't he just say the other day that he wouldn't have republicans sitting at the table?

Now, he will have them in his cabinet??

What will the DUers who jumped all over Obama say to this?

[Inuca]

11. I guess the food...

... would be safer in the cabinet than on the table.

[emilyg]

14. LOL

[brentspeak]

22. No, he said he wouldn't have LOBBYISTS sitting at the table

[depakid]

24. Same Freakin' thing.

Precisely the same thing.

[brentspeak]

26. No, they're not the same thing.

Ron Paul is a Republican, and he has nothing to do with lobbyists. Same with Pete McCloskey (who recently became a Democrat).

On the other hand, there's a ton of former Democratic congressional aides -- and even a few former Democratic congress critters -- who are currently lobbyists in D.C.

[depakid]

29. Not saying that many DINO's aren't just as bad

It's a matter of policy and integrity. Some have it- and some don't.

As to putting ANYONE who associates with the Republican party into his administration- see my post below.

[Inuca]

45. I watched the clip

he did not refer to lobbyists there, the statement was much more general.

[mirrera]

58. I think that was corporate lobbiests he was talking about. n/t

[RoyGBiv]

6. As the frenzy begins ...

I would simply ask people to take a gander at history and look into some of the more successful Presidents in history --- successful from the point of view of "progressive" sorts anyway -- and then look at the composition of their cabinets, close advisors, etc. And, I don't necessarily mean by party affiliation or whatever, but who the people were, how they conflicted with or complemented the dominant political ideology represented in the chief executive, and what their being in the positions they held may have helped accomplish or prevented from being accomplished.

No argument being made here, just a suggestion for people to arm themselves with some actual knowledge of these sorts of things as the mosh pit gets going.

[Pastiche423]

9. Unbelievable that you would say that

after the past 6 1/2 years. It is a much different time in history.

Why vote for a Dem candidate when he's going to give us more republics?

[RoyGBiv]

13. What's unbelievable?

That I suggest people arm themselves with knowledge?

Oh. The. Horror.

Please note I said I wasn't making an argument about the issue at hand, and I offered several intentional qualifiers.

What is pointless, imo, is the frenzy itself, which will come anyway I know. I'm not delusional. Neither am I irrational. If I were to make an argument, I'd say I'd take Olympia Snowe in certain cabinet positions before I'd take some of my own homegrown, lifelong Democrats as White House janitors.

I realize Jacobin thinking is sort of in the ascendancy now. So be it. But a little knowledge for some could be helpful as well.

[JDPriestly]

48. Bill Clinton had a Republican Secretary of Defense.

Just sayin'

[Pastiche423]

51. That was before the republics took over all three branches of our guvmint

Just sayin'

[RoyGBiv]

64. Yeahwhatever ...

People who think purely in terms of this false dichotomy of D vs R have no understanding of our political system.

[Pastiche423]

65. People like you?

[RoyGBiv]

66. Ummm...

That doesn't even make sense.

[Pastiche423]

67. Neither do you

There is no political history in the U.S. that comes anywhere near what has happened in the past 7+ years.

[RoyGBiv]

68. Okay ...

Nice of you to advertise your ignorance.

OnEdit:

You know what's funny. I'm not even an Edwards supporter. I find his brand of populism similar in style to the Thomas Watson style (look it up) and so am not impressed.

But the people I see commenting on this "development" by and large seem not to have the slightest clue even what that means, much less what Edwards is trying to do. You criticize appropriately, but for entirely the wrong reasons.

[Pastiche423]

69. Backatcha

[RoyGBiv]

70. You're funny ...

Empty spaces.

Empty ... well, other things.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Like that really, really helped the "Democrats are bad on defense" meme

that is still floating out there everywhere....and why the "fear" card is used so often to defeat Democrats during elections.

I don't think that Bill Clinton helped us in a long run with that one! :(

[dickbearton]

20. That was then this is now...

The Corrupt Republican party is rotten to the core. If Snowe
had any self-respect, she would switch parties.

[RoyGBiv]

33. Yes, yes ...

I know.

No lessons from history. It's all irrelevant.

We're unique.

Move along. Nothing to learn.

[sueh]

8. Listen to me, J.E.

Abraham Lincoln made this work very well. However, the times they have a-changed. You must have figured out by now that the neo-Repugs do NOT play nice. Repeat. Repugs. Do. Not. Play. Nice. Scrap this idea immediately. Do not EVER re-visit it. Ever.

[JDPriestly]

50. Not all Republicans are Neo-cons. That is what you have to remember.

[sueh]

61. True. But the non-neocons will be pressured by the neo-cons to

put the repub party ahead of "we the people".

[olddad56]

10. Just keep the repugs out of public restrooms.

[Prophet 451]

12. I don't see that as a problem

Admittedly, if he's talking about neo-cons, that WOULD be a problem but if he's talking about putting in a couple of principled, sensible Republicans (admittedly, I can't think of any but there must be a couple left), I don't see that as a problem. I'm more concerned with what kind of people he's talking about than which party they're from.

[Dumak]

15. Very disappointed

Nobody is locked into staying with a particular party. You choose your party according to what kind of person you are. ANYONE who is still a Republican after all this should be shunned. These are vile, filthy, American fascists. The GOP is no more viable an organization than the Nazis. They've had their chance to be decent people time and again, and have repeated failed on every level. No more chances.

[dickbearton]

21. K&R.

[zalinda]

36. Let me suggest

Some people may not want to change parties because they couldn't be elected if they were of a different party. I don't have a problem with Republicans in the cabinet, as long as they have to answer to a Democrat in the White House. It could be a humbling experience for them.

zalinda

[ingac70]

16. Whoa! Hold up there John....

wait while I put you on my shit list.

[JVS]

19. That fucking blows!

[depakid]

23. Every time I start thinking Edwards might be getting on the right track

He turns around and pulls a stunt like this....

[brentspeak]

25. What's the problem? If a Republican were a Pete McCloskey type, you should be welcoming him

Not blasting him.

[depakid]

27. Anyone who associates with the Republican party after the past 10 years

is ipso facto a person of poor character- and the presumption has to be that they're either corrupt or complicit.

Boggles the mind that he'd even consider this- but then again, contradictions seem to abound in his campaign.

[brentspeak]

28. I'd say you are "ipso facto" wrong.

See under: Pete McCloskey.

[depakid]

30. errr -he's now a Democrat.

And I'll raise you ispo facto to naive.

[brentspeak]

31. You said "ANYONE...within the past 10 years"

Let's also include Republicans who are still Republicans: Ron Paul, Lincoln Chafee, Michael Castle.

[depakid]

34. Read it again.

I said after what's And YEP- I'd include that whack libertarian Ron Paul and enabler Lincoln Chafee.

As to Mike Castle- again, look that record up for yourself:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H0712103

Bottom line- if a person is still a Republican, then they are either ignorant or are people of poor character who care more about themselves than the sorry state of the nation that they helped bring about.

[Exiled in America]

35. I judge people by more than the letter after their name.

If they've got the right policies for the positions, then I support them, and I applaud Edwards for having that same vision.

If Edwards pick for Sec. of the Interior is great on policies relevant to that position, then I don't care if it says "R" after his name, and frankly I don't care what his opinions are on other issues not relating to his job.

[depakid]

40. So you think a Republican would advocate responsible policies

in any department?

Particularly as to the Sec. of the Interior. Sheesh.

It's like people never learn.

[Exiled in America]

43. Of I know its possible. We don't live in a black and white world.

Being actually involved in politics, I know that republicans are not all black hats and democrats are not all white hats. There are some republicans who are better on some issues right now that certain democrats. And historically, that's been even more the case the further back you look. And even if it isn't the case now, it doesn't mean it won't be the case in the future. So no, I'm not stupid enough to simply blindly dismiss someone for any position in government because they have an "R" after their name.

What some people never learn is that you need to stow dogmatic absolutes. Saying something like "I will never approve of any person who has a "R" after his/her name simply because of the "R" after their name, makes you look like a schmuck.

You oppose people for their political policy. Not a direct cabinet example, but lets take the recently opened AG position for instance:

There are plenty of Republican attorney's I personally know who I would be absolutely PROUD to have as Attorney General right now. I disagree with them on taxes, health care, social programs, labor unions, corporate reforms, abortion, etc. And yet, I would be proud to have them be attorney general because they believe the following things with fierce passion:

1) they believe their jobs are to uphold - not create, interpret, or politicize the law. I have personally observed their track record in upholding the laws even when their personal political views meant they'd like to see the law changed. I am convinced of their commitment to a higher principle of law that stand above their personal feelings. And that's a good thing, because neither would I want some Democrat refusing to enforce laws he/she didn't like.

2) they believe in law and order above all else, and they have zero tolerance for corruption or scandal - in fact they are almost more ruthless about their "own" than anything else.

3) they absolutely believe in the sacredness of the bill of rights, and of civil rights and individual liberties - in that one area they are almost libertarian in their strong defense. They believed Gonzales should be criminally prosecuted, they believe Cheney and Bush should be impeached. And yeah, they are republicans.

I would be 100% confident in their ability to do an outstanding job as Attorney General, even though they are Republicans. And the fact that you are so blindly, ignorantly partisan that you can't even entertain that notion is just incredibly embarrassing to me and sad for the party.

[depakid]

46. Being observant

and having been involved in politics and campaigns before (I wasn't born yesterday) - I'll say repeat what I said before. This is NOT your father's Republican party- and people are naive (or perhaps enablers, legitimizers apologist for far right policies) if they think so.

Certain things in the world are in fact -black & white. Whether that makes me look to you like "a schmuck" doesn't really matter. The FACT is that that if you're "proud" to have any Republican at this point, a reasonable person would have to question where your values are.

The evidence as to Republicans and what they are and what they stand for or will repeatedly advocate and tolerate couldn't be any clearer.

[Autumn Colors]

37. If this is true, he just lost my primary vote to Kucinich (nm)

[FrenchieCat]

39. Why can't we know who these cabinet "Picks" are?

Why did he make that statement but then makes the actual picks a secret? How does that help us Democrats? Or is John Edwards doing some "politicking" to repair his image prior to going south?

Sounds like we can speculate, since we don't get any particulars. :shrug:

[electricray]

53. If he tipped his hand now it might open up people to unfair criticism

and undue pressure to reject the Edwards statement. Would you want to be mentioned as a possible cabinet choice in a possible administration of a candidate currently polling third in the primaries? Speculation could cause a lot of unnecessary invasive media activity into someone's life when they may not ever have to endure it otherwise.

[Cha]

42. Depends on what repubs he would

have if given that choice..I bet Edwards could scour up one or two who are left over from the Eisenhower days. Wasn't Senator James Webb a repub at one time?

These assholes we're dealing with now are Fascists.

[hollowdweller]

44. Clinton had to reach back to some of CARTER's people. We need to train more DEMS for Gov't

Any Dem candidates need to commit to putting new, young dems in so they get experience for future Dem admins.

[defendandprotect]

47. Wow!!! Odd!!! Who's Edwards trying to assuage -- ???? --- ????

It would be dangerous to have any Republicans in the Cabinet --
It's time to fully that GOP can't be trusted ---

[electricray]

54. I don't know that his goal is to assuage, rather it might be responsible...

for him to consider people like Larry Johnson, Joe Wilson, John Dean, etc for roles that he could certainly dispense with them if they turned out to be bad seeds.

[PittPoliSci]

55. before everyone jumps down edwards throat...

kennedy had republicans in his administration too, and he overruled them frequently when his policy goals clashed with his. just because they are there doesn't mean they will be listened to.

[psychopomp]

56. He's thinking he'll need him when he takes on corporate USA

He seems serious about ending the corporations' strangle-hold on US politics:

Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.

(The system is) controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070823-hanover-speech/

Edwards Goes After the 'Corporate Democrats' -- Is This a Turning Point for His Campaign?
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on August 26, 2007, Printed on August 27, 2007
http://alternet.org/module/printversion/60748

[Mythsaje]

57. Any Republican willing to repudiate

the most noxious of their fellows, and work with someone like JE to make this a better country for all of us, I applaud.

I posted my "Declaration" on the Edwards blog and got some really good responses. A few were from Republicans planning on VOTING for JE. They took exception to a couple of the things I said, but that's to be expected. Some people don't like admitting they were so terribly wrong about so many things for so long.

But if they're willing to step up and help fix the things that have been broken, they SHOULD be welcome at the table.

[mirrera]

59. I agree. Good people can have a lousy boss and be complacent- not evil.

Edit to say I am gritting my teeth as I write TRYING to be understanding about the absolute horror I have when I meet someone who is actually STILL part of the GOP. Don't even get me going.

[Strawman]

60. Hypothetically, I have no problem with a competent liberal RINO in the cabinet

Depends on the person and the job. I wouldn't have had a problem if, for example, Jennifer Granholm had decided to make William Milliken her Lt. Gov. or head of the DNR here in Michigan. That would never realistically happen, but the idea of a Republican in the cabinet is not something I would categorically reject even though I would be suspicious of any Republican cabinet member.

I wonder who he has in mind.

[Auntie Bush]

62. I know who that Rethug will be...

Joe Lieberman!

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. Sound like these Republicans would be 'at the table'

;)

[november3rd]

71. "Republicans"

Maybe he was referring to Hillary Clinton and James Webb.

[Doctor_J]

72. Yes, "cabinet" is, in NC, a colloquial term for "jail cell"

So I'm all for it