Why the Secretary of Defense needs to be a Democrat

[dorkulon]

Most here have probably heard about what Democrats call "the mommy problem." That is, that voters see Republicans as the Daddy Party (whom you run to when you're afraid) and Democrats as the Mommy Party (whom you run to when you want something). This unfair notion, that Republicans are better-equipped on defense and security issues, is the underlying reason why, when pundits speculate on which of Obama's cabinet appointments might be Republicans, they immediately think of positions like the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense.

Obama has a chance to subvert this perception, by appointing smart, competent Democrats to these positions. Appointing Republicans, or even just keeping Bob Gates on, only supports this Tough Republicans/Weak Democrats meme, and further damages the brand, whereas eight years of smart national security strategy, orchestrated by Democrats, would do much to dispel this unfounded myth.

There are too many names to mention, but it's clear that the Democratic Party is bursting with qualified candidates for Secretary of Defense, State, and Homeland Security. I understand the concept of appointing some Republicans to promote a sense of bipartisanship, but let's not bolster a pro-GOP falsehood in the process. Find a couple of decent Republicans (there must be at least two), and assign them to non-defense-related posts where they can't do too much damage. But this time, let's show this country what smart defense policy can do for them.

[theboss]

1. I think it pushes the Party of Compentency theme we are building

Democrats will keep a successful defense secretary in place during two wars to avoid an awkward transition. Republicans would have immediately appointed an idealogue.

[dorkulon]

2. I won't mind if they keep him on for a few months

until they get their administrative act together. But Gates should be gone by the end of a year IMHO.

[lazer47]

3. The Secretary Of Defense should be neither Dem. or Republican

[dorkulon]

4. Well that eliminates almost everybody.

What, you want a Whig?

[lazer47]

6. No,, I want someone who puts defense before party,

[dorkulon]

7. I get it. But all of the candidates belong to one or the other.

Regardless of their dedication to their duty to country over party, they will indeed be either a Democrat or Republican,, and their performance will reflect upon that party.

[Winterblues]

12. I heard somewhere that Gates is not registered to any Party

He lists himself as an Independent, but that does not mean I am in favor of keeping him on. I know of nothing terrible he has done other than be appointed by Bush* and that alone puts a huge blemish on him..

[dorkulon]

14. Everyone said Mulkasey was a straight shooter too

but the DoJ is as much of a travesty as ever.

[tibbiit]

5. the reason why sec def needs to be a democrat

Clinton's head of the FBI... republican who screwed him over and over. I forget his name but he was a spy/extreme troublemaker from the get go for the Clinton whitehouse. Its okay with me to name a good pug to some office but not one that is crucial when they might be a spy for the pugs.
tib

[shadowknows69]

8. Gates has got to go, quickly. Fresh blood, fresh ideas.

[dorkulon]

9. Anyone appointed by Bush can't be very principled.

He wouldn't appoint a non-loyalist.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Yes, everybody has been saying precisely that for a week.

[Fireweed247]

11. This is the position that needs to be changed the most

We want to end the stupid ass wars, why would he keep on the same Secretary of Defense? WE need to get the war mongers out of the DEFENSE department and change the focus to one of a peaceful intelligent country.

[JI7]

13. i agree it sends the message that we need a Republican for defense issues