I am against a bipartisan cabinet. Why legitimize a party on its deathbed?

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

Marginalize them. The voters have. Why even hint that they have anything to contribute? Why put them in positions of power when the voters have decided enough is enough?

And, most importantly, which specific republican policies actually can help move this country forward? Who's brilliant republican ideas do we need to implement?

[Tarc]

1. Because you pick off the few sane fruits and leave the rotten ones to wither

[ramapo]

7. Somebody has to make politics work again

Not all Republicans are evil assholes. Obama can truly change the way politics work (or more correctly, doesn't work) by reaching out to those on the other side who are willing and able to help Obama implement the much needed directional shift that we all want.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. "Not all Republicans are evil assholes."

Really? Which ones in the current Republican party are not?

I'll give you the two ladies from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Who else?

[WinkyDink]

21. Sure, they are, at least the ones in power. Which Republican tenets are worth defending, pray?

[TexasObserver]

25. Nicely done, sir!

[Barack_America]

2. Assisted suicide?

:shrug:

There's still a good 40+ percent of Americans who choose them.

[iamjoy]

3. Have You Forgotten 2004 Already

Geesh!

Four years ago some pundits were writing the Democratic Party's obituary. Look at us now.

And we must remember just how quickly fortunes can change in this country. A good portion of the American electorate is fickle.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

6. 04? what happened in 04?

of course I remember 04. The republicans just tried to run like it was 04 all over again. That's why so many of them are making Ryder reservations.

[WI_DEM]

4. most cabinets have a few members of the other party in it

it's nothing new. I doubt Obama's will be overwhelmingly so.

[WinkyDink]

22. And Bush's Democrats would be...? His father's...?

[dflprincess]

42. And the rest can be conservative Democrats

because he won't need to think about the left again until 2012. :sarcasm:

[Doctor_J]

5. Bringing in unhappy Repukes will marginalize the remaining ones

Jim Leach, Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, David Iglesias would be rubbing salt into the wounds of last Tuesday

[sandyd921]

26. Haven't most of those people

already been disowned by the base (i.e., the repuke crazies)? I don't think there would be much impact there. They've already written most of them off.

[Doctor_J]

29. That's what you want.

I certainly don't want Gingrinch or Inhofe or some other loony tunes in the admin. Appointing sane repukes will push the others to the edge.

[SwampG8r]

43. after they came over they were written off

after
the "base" loved them all until that moment
they can bring some of that "base" with them
most republican voters are not evil degenerate assholes
they are just afraid
they see a world changing before their eyes and react poorly
they arent "bad" people
they are your aunts and my uncles
our grandparents
brothers and sisters
they are sitting next to you on a pew or a bus seat
they are pushing the cart down the publix aisle getting pasta
they are afraid of a world gone off kilter from what they believed it was
and they react poorly

[fjc]

9. It doesn't legitimize the party. It does the opposite.

The people being considered are the rejects of the party.

[liberalpragmatist]

10. You co-opt the moderates and thereby neuter the rest

By bringing in sane Republicans -- mostly liberal ones, but also some traditional, fair-minded conservatives -- you do the following:

(1) You assume the mantle of high-statesmanship, and leave the other guys looking small.
(2) You make any arguments the opposition has fall flat -- how can they attack your administration when you have reasonable people from their side agreeing with you?
(3) The rump remaining Republicans are marginalized as extremists.

And no, the idea isn't to bring Republicans to run a shadow-administration internally. Rather, you bring in Republicans in specific areas where there is agreement. For example, in foreign policy, there are plenty of realist-rational foreign-policy types in the Republican party (i.e. Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar). It would be very easy to bring them or people with their profiles into the administration. Or, he might pick Sheila Bair as Treasury Secretary -- she's the head of the FDIC and is actually a registered Republican, but she has very progressive views on financial market regulation that have actually brought her into conflict with the current administration.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

15. may I please have the ONE single good republican policy we need to offer up?

[liberalpragmatist]

16. Lugar and Hagel agree with negotiating with Iran

That's not a "Republican" policy -- it's just smart policy that a couple Republicans happen to agree with.

Likewise for financial market regulation and greater progressive taxation, which Sheila Bair believes in. Is that a "Republican" idea? No, it's a progressive idea that has the agreement from this particular Republican.

[always_saturday]

11. I agree with you. Bipartisan shmipartisan.

The only thing that will do is throw up roadblocks and speed bumps.

I didn't VOTE for any repugs, and I don't want ANY of them gumming up the works.

[suston96]

12. Deathbed? You mean like after Nixon/Watergate? nt

[TheKentuckian]

13. I see it as surgically removing the non-cancerous cells

further marginalizing the vast loony contingent, and an act of statesmanship.

Of course their policies are worthless but the experience and point of view of some of the saner ones adds legitimacy to the eyes of the few remaining sane Republicans and independents.
The ability to parade a few pukes out to blast the idiots is also invaluable.

[madmadmad]

14. please. throw them on the dustbin of history.

[gravity]

17. A bipartisan cabinet marginalizes the republican opposition

You get the moderate republicans, who are open to compromises, to work with your administration. The secret in politics is to take control of the center of the country, which involves working with the opposing party on some issues. It gives you more credibility and marginalizes the opposition.

If you say FU to all the republicans (about half the country) then you are just legitimizing them as the opposition party and it gives them power to attack you.

[Number23]

18. Isn't it sad that this has to be explained?

A bipartisan cabinet marginalizes the republican opposition. You get the moderate republicans, who are open to compromises, to work with your administration.

This would appear obvious to most people. Even if there are only 10 Republicans and only 5 Rep policies that you want to keep/see implemented, that is a highly effective tool in marginalizing the rabid idiots that are growing even more insane as they realize their grasp in the Repub party is growing weaker by the day.

Folks in this thread have mentioned Snowe, Lugar, Hagel and Collins. These are exactly the type of folks that Obama should (and more than likely will) work with. I remember when Chafee openly admitted he hadn't voted for Bush in 2004. It would also be a good idea to have these moderates in high positions in Obama's administration as well. The right wing fringe has to be made to see that their policies go against the will and principles of the vast majority of Americans and that only by dragging themselves into the 21st century, will they play ANY role in the governing of this nation.

[BrklynLiberal]

41. ..and that might be a good way to keep the other moderate Republicans voting

for the Democratic candidate in 2012...and perhaps even beyond.

[WinkyDink]

23. So let's give them positions that Democrats have earned. Whatever.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

48. nope. you legitimize a party by giving it positions of power....

and it's not like they've earned it. I still haven't heard ONE republican policy that deserves a face in the cabinet for representation. Not one. But you still want to offer up chairs at the table for a party with nothing to add.

[qwlauren35]

19. I think you don't get it.

Why do you say that the voters have "marginalized" the Republican party when over 40% of Americans voted for McCain? EVEN with Palin for a running mate?

I would RATHER have Republicans in a cabinet than in the Senate. They cannot "filibuster" in a cabinet position. They literally have to work FOR the President.

Any Republican who would take a Cabinet position is saying to the world "I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO FULLY SUPPORT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION".


I have no problem with such a Republican.

I think you are too angry at the party as a whole to accept the idea that some Republicans can be an asset to our nation, because they are good, competent INDIVIDUALS.

[Gregorian]

38. I like this answer.

This is real world.

Just watching Obama has been a lesson in politics. And I still have little idea what is going on. But no doubt there is a depth that this gifted man has that few of us see. I keep thinking of three dimensional chess. Obama realizes that there will never be all white or all black pieces. It's a two party system still.

I also agree with your point on bipartisanship. And here's why. Abu Ghraib happened under Bush's watch. The Bush sentiment flowed downhill. That would have never happened under Obama. What I'm saying is the same person will behave differently under different leadership. I am suggesting that McCain, or others could suspend or even transcend their beliefs, and behave quite differently than under a Bush regime. I know this can happen. I'm hoping this is what Obama is doing.

[AlinPA]

20. I don't trust republicans.

[sampsonblk]

24. YES

To have a bipartisan cabinet is to give aid to a party on life support. I say NO.

[yardwork]

27. I agree.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

28. The public IS fickle

Let us not think that thus election is the end of the republican party. Next time around, if the Republican candidate get 40% of the Hispanic vote and 20% of the black vote, we might have a very different election.

Moreover, the Republican parties family value platform resonates with both blacks and hispanics. Maybe not to the majority, but to a big enough percentage of them and coupled with the 55% of the white vote that they usually get is a very formidable voting block.

[Binka]

30. Go Away

You smell Rex. Go destroy yourself.

[Maru Kitteh]

31. Because we only got 52% of the vote and getting too full of ourselves would be a stupid mistake

as was said by Joe Trippi today. Trippi's not my favorite puppetmaster, but I can't disagree with him on this one.

[mokawanis]

35. not to mention

that the public is best served when both parties act in our interests. If individual Repugs can offer anything positive I won't sneer at it.

[demwing]

32. Im so glad we don't get to vote on who the POTUS selects for the cabinet

Partisanship is not the ship you should trust to sail you through rough seas.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[LittleClarkie]

34. He's about unity. You WILL be disappointed in his choices

and some on the other side will be too.

But if he picks people like Hagel, I'm cool with it.

[Generic Brad]

36. Invite a Republican they all despise into the fold

Ron Paul must be good for something.

[Generic Brad]

37. Invite a Republican they all despise into the fold

Ron Paul must be good for something.

[RollWithIt]

39. Because we aren't going to govern like George W Bush did.....

We are real change. Not just ideologically. Overall. We listen to differing views. We take them into account.

[babylonsister]

40. Baloney. The voters have marginalized them? Check that out.

I'm all for PE Obama picking the best people, and I couldn't care less who is involved as long as they are smart.

Come to think of it, that might be a challenge.

[olegramps]

44. I understand the disdain that many Democrats rightfully have for Republicans.

Democrats and many Independents were appalled by the Republicans' rigid partisanship in which they rubber stamped every one of the Bush administrations disastrous policies. Even when these unpopular policies were bringing about the bankruptcy of the nation and the destruction of our military, they refused to abandon their uncompromising partisanship. Their allegiance was to their party first and secondly to our Republic. This polarization of the nation was engineered by some of the most evil people to have ever held the reins of our government. The last eight years has been an Orwellian nightmare. Daily the radio waves were saturated by messengers spewing hatred and division that echoed of the Nazi fascists' rhetoric.

I think it would be best to not follow their example of blind partisanship. It is clear that the vast majority of Americans are convinced that their policies have been not only been a failure but have put the nation in serious jeopardy. I am convinced that if racism wasn't a factor in influencing voters, that Obama could have captured 70% of the votes. It would in my opinion be a seriuos mistake to imitate the uncompromising partisanship that led to the moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party.

Nothing could be more effective in breaking the hatred and divisiveness of the cult that has captured the Republican Party than the denouncement of these tactics by influential members of their own party. Their party has become the party of exclusion that has far more in common with fanatical religious sects. Our future, and the future of the nation depends on our Party being the party of inclusion. This is why I hope that Obama can span this chasm that Cheney and his cadre of evil minions have created and reach out to those members of the Republican Party that have not been infected with their fascist message of division.

[DCBob]

45. Not all Republicans are evil morons.

Selecting "good" Republicans will legitimize them, not the party.

[madfloridian]

46. When good Dems are said to be too partisan after helping with a great win...

then I agree with you.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3071

Not that I am so much against Republicans, but I am against sending out ugly talking points against a faithful Dem.

Me, I am happily PARTISAN. Will remain so.

[bvar22]

47. I could support THIS bi-partisan cabinet:

One of the less offensive members of the DLC for a token representation of Conservatives/Republicans.

The rest of the cabinet would be composed of Democrats.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone