Obama could choose from many acceptable Republicans for his cabinet

[ruggerson]

Chuck Hagel is not one of them.

Hagel is wrong on almost every issue with the exception of Iraq and some national security questions.

If someone is hellbent on Obama having a Republican or two in his cabinet (which I'm not at all)

What about -

Bill Weld
Lincoln Chafee
Susan Collins
Olympia Snowe
Chris Shays
Jodi Rell


and on and on. Chuck Hagel (and Sam Nunn, who's as bad as Hagel, except he has a D after his name) should be kept far, far away from an Obama administration.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Why? Are we fresh out of democrats?

[ruggerson]

2. Just responding to the little "Hagel and Nunn" boomlet we have on DU

[TwilightGardener]

3. Here's your problem--it's not up to you, and Obama and Hagel like each other.

Obama trusts him enough to take him along to Iraq, where every eye will be upon them. That's no small thing, so it's likely he'll be somewhere in Obama's administration (unless he does something to let Obama down on their trip--hope not).

[ruggerson]

4. It's not up to you either

and I'm expressing my views on a message board.

And just because you don't care about human rights and civil rights issues doesn't mean other democrats don't.

Obama can like the man. I assume he likes a lot of people. They don't all need to end up in his cabinet or as Veep.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Since when don't I care about human rights and civil rights?

[ruggerson]

6. If you would advocate putting Chuck Hagel in a position of power

over women and gay people, that is a logical conclusion to draw.

I realize you're from Nebraska and you have good feelings for the man, but that is not the case for most Democrats.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Um, no--not a logical conclusion to draw. He may not vote to your liking, but

that's a far cry from being a vocal nutcase or activist against women's issues and gay rights. He represents a constituency here--this is a pro-life, very traditional state, and they expect him to vote that way. Actually, he's pretty good overall on human rights, for a GOPer--opposes torture, supports habeas corpus for detainees, wants to close Gitmo, pro-immigrant, very concerned with global poverty (sponsored a bill with Obama to combat it).

[ruggerson]

13. civil rights,/human rights/GLBT rights are non negotiable

we would not entertain the notion of electing or appointing someone who had routinely voted against equality for African Americans or Latino Americans. We should not be rewarding someone who has routinely voted to keep GLBT Americans second class citizens.

[WinkyDink]

21. Why hasn't he become a registered Democrat? This site exists to promote DEMOCRATS.

[ruggerson]

23. Because he's a rightwing Republican on almost every issue

except the war.

[JoFerret]

54. Woof.

is your problem distemper?
It will be Obama's choice for sure. But one can keep hope alive that he chooses dems and works out alliances with "reasonable" republicans.

(Is reasonable republican an oxymoron??

[mcatherton]

7. there are plenty of

good DEMS. We don't need to compromise

[katmondoo]

8. Why should he

I for one am so sick and disgusted with the Republicans I can't stand to hear or see any o them anymore

[terrya]

9. I have this feeling he might choose Richard Lugar as Secretary of State

I believe Obama has mentioned that when he was elected to the Senate in 2004, he regarded Lugar as a mentor on foreign policy.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Biden is a far better choice for the job

Lugar is a decent guy as far as Republican go, but his views on foreign policy are just too fundamentally different from Obama.

[Overseas]

11. But HE DOES NOT HAVE TO -- that is old Republican and DLC propaganda

Oh golly, Democrats need to be bipartisan. But somehow Republicans don't seem to need to do the same. Republicans and conservative Democrats have pushed Dems to concede too much and act in a bipartisan manner. Then Republican talking points criticize Dems for being weak, wimpy and wishy washy.

DEFINITELY DO NOT put a Republican in for any national security department head. They have totally screwed up our national defense once again, and smashed our economy at the same time. Enough is enough. WAR PROFITEERING has not made us more secure. Yet another Republican administration has weakened our country. Stop now.

[Schema Thing]

12. Obama's gonna. And not for any old canards about what Dems "need to be"

He believes in it.


For Obama, the compromise would be to NOT utilize some Republican's in his cabinet.

[Overseas]

16. Those "old canards" are quite persistent. So don't add a Repub in defense sector.

What I think is a completely discredited old canard, that Dems are weak on defense and national security (because they want to spend money on social safety nets like national health insurance!!), still persists and so I sure don't want Obama choosing a Republicker for any defense or national security spot.

Republican policies have once again destroyed our national defense and economy, so I do not want to see any of their people heading those departments.

[lojasmo]

14. Hagel'd be okay for Sec. Def.

Nothing else.

[WinkyDink]

20. How about a DEMOCRAT in that position? Just a wild thought, here.

[lojasmo]

22. Sure, whatever....

Just saying.

[tishaLA]

30. But there is a special problem with a republicon as Sec of Def

it cedes the argument that defense is the purview of republicons and Democrats are too weak to manage it. If a republicon has to be in the cabinet, it would be better if he or she were in HHS, education, or something like that--although it would obviously have to be a "moderate" con.

[ruggerson]

32. The other thing people forget

is that the SOD has real impact over military family's lives. He issues directives about healthcare, makes decisions about who gets discharged for what. It's not just about "getting out of Iraq." It's about managing our entire defense structure and all the people and families that support it. For that reason alone, someone who has consistently voted against the Democrats on family/social issues should not be considered.

[tishaLA]

35. Right. I wrote a reply to you last night

on another thread about Hagel but chose not to post it. I'll send you a PM because it would take the convo woefully off-topic

[TwilightGardener]

37. The SecDef gets his orders from the President. Gates doesn't have the leeway

to make policy decisions that run counter to the Chimp administration's defense agenda. He'd be fired if he went off the rez and subverted the President. Your problem is that you don't trust Obama to run a tight ship, or make good choices or policy, apparently, because you didn't support him to begin with. You're afraid that his appointments will run roughshod over him, and over what you want. Those of us who REALLY support Obama trust him to make good personnel and policy decisions.

[ruggerson]

39. why do you keep trying trying to rehash the primary wars

to defend your particular agenda and try to score cheap political points?

It doesn't really help your case.

Tish has a great point in that Democratic presidents shouldn't be appointing Republicans as Secretary of Defense, because that is where the Republican party consistently tries to make us look weak. Appointing someone like Hagel is akin to saying, see, we don't have any tough, strong minded defense experts in our party, so we had to go to the party that is strong on national security to pick from their talent.

[TwilightGardener]

42. I think your concerns have nothing to do with a particular cabinet pick, I think

it has more to do with not trusting Obama to make wise decisions. And who knows who Obama will choose as SecDef? If he thinks a GOPer would be best for the job, he'd be doing a disservice to the nation if he went with a lesser Dem choice just for image purposes. And on a side note, we are not going to have an easy time getting out of Iraq and dealing with Afghanistan--Obama has a very difficult defense road ahead of him, and I'd much rather a GOPer gets the blame when things inevitably take turns for the worse, as they will sometimes.

[ruggerson]

44. I don't "trust" any politician that I don't know personally

and that includes every single person that ran this year.

I've been consistent in my opposition to Hagel and Nunn from day one, and it has nothing to do with my faith in how Obama would run the government.

It has everything to do with standing for our principles and not rewarding those who have been tireless foes of our collective agenda.

Reread the OP.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Well, I trust Obama to make decisions that will be to the benefit

of the ENTIRE country, not just to the benefit of a platform or agenda or party or special group. That's where you and I ultimately differ.

[ruggerson]

52. No actually I think that's where you have it backwards

You're already expressed to me that you like Hagel because you think he helped keep your husband out of Iraq and has been good for military families. Thus, you like him, because he has been good for YOUR family.

I have expressed to you that he has voted against MY family for years.

I told you that if Obama, or any Dem President, appointed a cabinet member who had voted against the best interests of military families, your family, I would join you in being outraged.

Yet, you cannot say the same back to me.

There are plenty of Republicans who have a record of supporting both your family and mine. My suggestion has been to fish in that pool instead of the one that only benefits you.

You are supporting your narrow, selfish interests for your own family.

I am supporting both my family's interests and yours.

So, who has the best interests of the entire country at heart?

[TwilightGardener]

53. Sorry, I don't care if someone voted against my interests in one area, or two areas, or

even three areas, if they're being tapped to serve in a job that does not primarily concern those areas. William Cohen almost certainly voted against my interests sometimes, just being a Repub, but he didn't bother me as SecDef. I don't take it personally. What I WOULD take personally is for Obama to put, say, a neocon (Lieberman, McCain, Jon Kyl, pretty much anyone on the R's side) in charge of foreign policy or defense. Or to put an anti-environment GOPer in charge of Energy or the Interior. That would be about the only thing that would upset me--if the appointee ran directly counter to my views or interests in that particular area.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Running the Pentagon from the White House would be an administrative nightmare

The President sets the tone and makes the major policy decisions but he doesn't have time to do much beyond that. Assigning White House staffers to mico-manage the Pentagon and potentially undermine the Defense Secretary would lead to endless White House/Pentagon bickering since technically only the President can give orders to the Secretary of Defense.

Hagel could be a decent Secretary of Defense in all aspects involved, but he has yet to show it, IMO. If he starts talking about holding KBR and other contractors accountable then he will have my attention.

[terrya]

41. Bill Clinton named a Republican as his Secretary of Defense.

William Cohen.

[tishaLA]

43. I know. And I think it was a mistake. It just furthers the meme

that we are weak on defense.

I prefer that we take seriously what Rachel Maddow has suggested: that Sen Obama seems to be advocating what she calls a "muscular" defense policy for Democrats, which she feels breaks with the recent past. If she is right--and I think she is--it would be better to have a Democrat enact that policy, rather than a republicon. If a con heads the Pentagon, the notion that we are weak on national defense issues (a notion abetted, if only implicitly, by the Cohen appointment) will remain firmly in place for at least another 4 years.

[Buck Rabbit]

15. Excellent Idea on any Republican Senators where we would have a chance at grabbing their seat.

Add Gordon Smith of Oregon if he is re-elected in November. I would rather see him as Secretary of Agriculture and a sure to be Democrat replacement taking his Senate seat.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. ruggerson I'm with you on Hagel not serving as VP, he might be an okay Secretary of Defense

But with certain conditions, that obviously include his cooperation on repealing DADT. I also want the next Sec. of Defense to be fully committed to holding KBR and other contractors accountable for the death of our soldiers by electrocution. That's why I find the idea of keeping Bob Gates on (even for a short time) to be absurd.

[WinkyDink]

19. "many acceptable Republicans"?? W. T. H??? EACH word is an affront.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Has it occurred to you that Obama doesn't care who's a D and who's an R

when thinking about his cabinet--that he's just looking for smart people to fill those roles, regardless of party? I don't think he's just checking a bipartisan box, I think he sincerely wants the best people around him. Why worry about it?

[ruggerson]

25. as I mentioned to you in another thread

It's pretty easy to be bipartisan and find Republicans who have not voted consistently to damage your family or my family or the environment or a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice.

I listed a few of them in the OP.

Were Obama to select a Veep or appoint someone to his cabinet who had regularly voted to damage military families, I would join you in outrage.

I hope you would reciprocate if someone was appointed who had consistently voted to damage other core democratic constituencies.

Why does it have to be a divisive Republican who disagrees with the vast majority of Democrats on a vast majority of issues?

[TwilightGardener]

26. I think it would be strange for Obama to put a conservative Repub

in charge of, say, Education or Health and Human Services or Interior, UNLESS he or she happens to be a "maverick" and an expert in those areas--in other words, if that GOPer's Senate record showed a belief system that ran counter to Obama's goals in those areas, he wouldn't put that person in that slot. He probably wouldn't put a DEM in that slot if that Dem disagreed with him. I just don't think Obama's looking for a "token Repub"--you list people that are moderate to liberal R's and are "acceptable" to you, but unless Obama likes them, has a working relationship with them, and has a compelling reason to appoint them, he's not going to pick them just because they have an R after their names. Obama wants the best, he's a pragmatic guy. If it's Hagel, Lugar, Powell, etc. that he considers to best fill a slot, it won't be because they're a Repub, or in spite of it--it will be because they're best for that job. It's that simple. Whether or not any of these folks are "divisive" is a matter of personal perspective only, and not an important consideration.

[ruggerson]

31. Obama is also friends with Tom Coburn

Under your criteria, it would be acceptable to put Tom Coburn in his cabinet, because he likes him and works well with him.

But the problem is Tom Coburn is Jesse Helms redux.

Look at all the posts the Hagel balloon has provoked. There are many, many Democrats, if not most, who do not want this man in an Obama administration. We are the ones who will put Obama in office. Democrats. Shouldn't we be heeded?

Bipartisanship and olive branches are one thing. Giving authority over people's lives to public officials who have worked against the issues the Democratic party represents is quite another.

[TwilightGardener]

34. I don't like Coburn, but if Obama thought he had some sort of particular

skill in some area and trusted him to do a good job, that would be fine with me. It's not up to me, and I don't see the point in getting upset. And most folks on DU and elsewhere are NOT upset that Obama might choose Hagel for an administration post, same as I haven't heard anyone who was upset that he's accompanying Obama to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ruggerson]

36. Well then you haven't been reading too carefully

Hagel is a non starter and there are a ton of Democrats who feel that way.

[TwilightGardener]

40. Well, maybe as VP--I don't have a problem with it, but I can understand many who do.

But an administration slot? Not seeing the controversy, sorry. Hagel is well-respected in the Senate, not divisive, respectful of Democrats, and very competent. He's highly regarded by everyone who ran in the primaries: Obama, HILLARY, Biden, Dodd, and Edwards all have spoken well of him, and Hillary considered him for VP herself. Jim Webb is one of his closest friends, as are Biden and Jack Reed. John Kerry chose him to be in his new foreign policy think tank. If our best, wisest Dem Senators respect him and think he's a terrific guy, then I doubt he's Attila the Hun. He'll do a good job for Obama if chosen. End of story.

[ruggerson]

48. He's your senator, you seem very committed to him

but inside the beltway accolades do not impress me. Hagel is not acceptable to many Democrats in any position where he will have authority over people's lives and families to supposedly implement and support policies that he has very publicly opposed and voted against for many years.

Obama may appoint him. I have no way of knowing his mind. But there will be a lot of very angry people if he does.

[lonestarnot]

27. What about none of the above.

:eyes:

[ruggerson]

28. I'm on board with that

but there seem to be many here in vocal disagreement with us.

[Orangepeel]

29. Hagel might be very good "Secretary of Getting Out of Iraq"

It isn't like he'd be considered for Secretary of Labor or Attorney General. But if having an anti-Iraq war republican on the cabinet will make it possible to naivete the political hurdles of withdrawal, then Obama would be right to consider him.

[ruggerson]

33. See post #32

[terrya]

38. Arnold Schwarzenegger is offering his services as Obama's "Energy Czar"

For what that's worth:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080713/pl_politico/11710

[tishaLA]

46. if it stops him from running for Senate...

it might be worth it. I'm afraid he'd somehow manage to win if he ran because Californians are not tuned into how much worse the state is under him than it was pre-recall.

[Bjorn Against]

47. I don't think the man who convinced GM to make the Hummer a civilian vehicle...

would be a good choice for energy czar. Yes, Schwarzenegger has gotten better on energy issues lately, but his promotion of the Hummer disqualifies him from any position dealing with energy consumption.

[Solon]

49. I really wish our government would appoint people for jobs they can do, not because of politics....

An Energy "Czar", or Energy secretary, should be a scientist who specializes in fields that deal with energy, and be a good administrator. Politicians are simply unqualified for such posts. Generally speaking, we do the same for Attorney General and Surgeon General, in addition to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, why not for every other cabinet position as well?

[Bjorn Against]

50. I could handle Lincoln Chafee getting a cabinet position...

But I don't think Obama needs to put any Republicans in his cabinet. The Republican agenda has been such a massive failure and we need change. The way to bring about change is not to put people in who want to do things the old way.

[muryan]

51. Many of you are missing the point

The reason he would appoint a republican to a major cabinet position is so he would have someone who adheres to a different political ideology, and thus would challenge a lot of the decisions Obama would make. That is something that absolutely never happened in the white house under Bush, there was no questioning or dissent.

We cannot allow our presidents to sit in a white house bubble, never hearing the other side of any argument.

[Alexander]

56. Chris Shays sucks. No thanks.

Lincoln Chafee is the only one on that list who would be useful.

I'm also opposed to Chuck "ES&S" Hagel being anywhere near a Democratic administration.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

57. agreed on Chafee, Snowe, and Jeffords...I loathe Hagel

[Tutonic]

58. Oh my Lord, seeing stars...

Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, Chris Shays, Jodi Rell? Hell to the NO! When the going gets tough for the Republicans, these fence sitters have always fallen onto the Republican side.

[AlinPA]

60. I agree, totally. Especially Collins and Shays.

[AlinPA]

59. Chafee is the only one that might work. The others are very loyal R's.

[UTUSN]

61. Why? Is that something called "CHANGE"?!1 n/t