Would Obama Really Appoint Republicans?
by Matt Margolis on March 2nd, 2008 at 10:51am
Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate, allegedly “hopes” to appoint Republicans to his cabinet, if God forbid, he won the presidency. We shouldn’t be surprised at these claims… Anyone running for president will tout any efforts they’ve made in their career of reaching out across the aisle. Even the divisive Hillary Clinton has touted her past efforts working with a select few Republicans.
This sounds more like a story that should be coming out during the general election, but obviously Camp Obama, recognizing John McCain’s broad support that includes Republicans, Independents and Democrats, he sees the need to increase his support among independent voters now.
But, the thing is, I remember a while back Barack Obama making another one of his empty promises about not appointing only “yes-men” into his own inner circle. It’s probably safe rhetoric for him, since his supporters will naturally recognize those words as campaign rhetoric meant to broaden his appeal. And what could Hillary Clinton possibly say to make it hurt Obama, the same man who generates thunderous applause for blowing his nose.
Still, it’s hard to take anything Obama says seriously. We know his rhetoric on NAFTA is merely rhetoric that cannot be taken seriously, are we supposed to believe that Barack Obama, who is even more liberal than Hillary Clinton, would seriously pick Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) as his running mate? Hagel may oppose the Iraq war, but he’s otherwise very socially conservative. Would the pro-partial-birth abortion Barack Obama really pick Hagel for anything? Would Hagel even consider it?
Such talks of any bipartisan ticket shouldn’t be taken seriously, and neither should claims of bipartisan cabinets.. and certainly not from Barack Obama. I could see John McCain with a bipartisan cabinet before I could see Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton with one. Some have suggested that Joe Lieberman could even be McCain’s running mate, or even serve on his cabinet. I can’t see either happening, but Lieberman, who has already been thrown under the bus by his former party, would be far more likely to be John McCain’s VP or Secretary of Defense than Chuck Hagel would be likely to be Barack Obama’s VP or Secretary of Defense. But, again… both circumstances seem highly unlikely.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Notice his appointments would take Republicans out of the Senate. Oh such generosity.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
Politicans running for any office should never have their campaign rhetoric taken serriously. Don’t you remember in 2000 Bush promising us a “humble foreign affairs policy” and “no nation building” ?
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
neocons in Earbama’s cabinet? No way…
///sarcasm off///
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
PoetryInMotion | March 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
True those tied in any way to the neocons would not be welcomed in any Democratic administration by party loyalist. This is why a McCain Presidency, although more liberal than most is unacceptable. He sometimes has difficulty pointing out the neocons. Neocons must be rooted out of every corner of government.
There are some great Republicans out there. Senator Hagel as Secretary of Defense or Senator McCain as Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be fine with me.
President Clinton worked side by side with a Republican Secretary of Defense, Senator Cohen. Democrats believe in open government and not the secretive type that now invades the White House.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
plainjane - so you want conservatives to be forced to wear little elephant patches on our coats so we can be rounded up and sent off to the camps?
You know, your rhetoric reads a lot like the stuff a certain party was saying about the Jews in the late 20’s and early 30’s. Look what happened in the late 30’s and early 40’s as a result.
Drop the hate. It makes us buy guns.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
That last thing we need is radical liberals in our government. If Hillary or Obama were to get the presidency, our country would be doomed.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Wasnt it Nancy Pelosi that promised a more Bi-Partisan govt after the 2004 elections?
That worked out well, I cant imagine that BO would be any less trustworthy than Nancy
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
[...] BartBlog - The Blog of BartCop.com wrote an interesting post today on Would Obama Really Appoint Republicans?Here’s a quick excerptHagel may oppose the Iraq war, but he’s otherwise very socially conservative. Would the pro-partial-birth abortion Barack Obama really pick… [...]
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Is it really necessary to “appoint” janitors, gardeners, and cooks? Don’t you just hire people like that? And who cares what political affiliation these people have; except maybe for the cook. You don’t want an elephant in the kitchen.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Perhaps the nominee of each party should pick the other as their running mate. That ought to make for an interesting campaign.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Kahn | March 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
plainjane - so you want conservatives to be forced to wear little elephant patches on our coats so we can be rounded up and sent off to the camps?
No we can spot the neocons among the Republicans the very first time they open their mouths.
Kahn I believe you have made post after post stating it is ok for President Bush to put in place only good Bushies in the Justice Department.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“If Hillary or Obama were to get the presidency, our country would be doomed.”
Matt, A little over the top, don’t you think? I’ve heard the same thing every election for the last 48 years, yet our country has been strong enough to survive no matter who was in charge.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Yeah, Obama’s the most liberal senator…if you think an Office of Government Accountability is a liberal idea…
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“If Hillary or Obama were to get the presidency, our country would be doomed.”
Wait a minute — isn’t it the lefties who are supposed to be the doom-sayers and fear-mongers? You’re not going lefty on us, are you Matt? Or is it just the brand of doom-saying and fear-mongering that gets you labeled as a lefty?
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“Perhaps the nominee of each party should pick the other as their running mate. That ought to make for an interesting campaign.”
What, the campaign has been boring you so far?
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
LiberalNitemare | March 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Wasnt it Nancy Pelosi that promised a more Bi-Partisan govt after the 2004 elections?
True, but it takes two sides to be bi-partisan, such as the phrase bi. Congress asked the President to take a look at the recommendations of the bi-partisan commission on Iraq. The President thumbed his nose at that suggestion and escalated our involvement in the Iraqi civil war.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
our country has been strong enough to survive no matter who was in charge.
Not this time, Casper.
This election is crucial to the survival of America, you’ve got two Marxist Hitlerites on the Left this election.
–Jeremiah–
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
plainjane,
The conservatives-as-victims like to talk about how Democrats have supposedly scorned the President’s extended hand. The reality, of course, is that for this President bipartisanship means that Congress complies with his every demand. Unfortunately, most of the time, that is exactly what he’s gotten.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Casper: What, the campaign has been boring you so far?
Well, boring wouldn’t be the word. But anyway, I just thought I’d take the topic to its absurd conclusion.
Except as absurd as it is, it’s not really that absurd. After all, there are credible reports that McCain seriously contemplated switching parties a few years ago. There was the 2004 Kerry speculation as well. And just a couple of weeks ago McCain’s senior ad-man indicated that he would quit the campaign if Obama becomes the Dem nominee.
Similarly, McCain attracts considerable support from Dems. Lieberman is the most obvious example (although technically he’s an independed now), but there are others. Likewise, McCain’s willingness to work with people on the other side of the aisle is well-documented. And Obama campaigned rather aggressively for Lieberman in 2006. So there’s that connection, too.
Of course, because they’re the presumed opponents this time around, there isn’t likely to be much by way of kumbaya between them. during the campaign. So the notion that they’d name each other as running-mates is indeed absurd. But I find equally absurd the notion that neither one of them is unlikely to reach across the aisle to fill senior level positions should they win the election.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Ricorun,
If Hagel were to go into an Obama cabinet it would actually just poison his relations with GOP and conservatives. That would be Obama spitting in our eyes - kicking us when we’re down. To reach across the aisle, Obama would have to actually reach across to conservatives - much as President Bush reached across the aisle to ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind. In other words, “reaching across” requires that the base of the “reacher” be offended at least to some degree. Appointing Hagel in a spirit of bipartisanship would be akin to McCain appointing Lieberman - it simply wouldn’t work, and would likely backfire, if true bipartisanship is the goal (which, given that Obama is a liberal, not only is not the goal, but CAN’T BE THE GOAL).
If Obama wants to surprise us, impress us and give himself at least a year where we’d go easy on him, he’d have to do something along the lines of appointing Senator Brownback head of Health and Human Services; or Newt Gingrish as US abassador to the United Naitons; or General Petraeus’ as SecDef…
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
We are not doomed. If either Donkey candidate makes it into the Whitehouse, the US will go on hold for 4 years. All these “dreams” and “hopes” in reality cannot be achieved unilaterally. Bills have to pass in the House and Senate. There will be filibusters and other tactics to keep the more radical bills from getting anywhere. There will be gridlock. The hopes and dreams will meet reality and end up the same way they started: as just words.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Mark: If Obama wants to surprise us, impress us and give himself at least a year where we’d go easy on him, he’d have to do something along the lines of appointing Senator Brownback head of Health and Human Services; or Newt Gingrish as US abassador to the United Naitons; or General Petraeus’ as SecDef…
To be perfectly honest, I don’t think Petraeus (or Powell) as SecDef and/or Gingrich as UN Ambassador is out of the question. The Brownback thing though — that seems a bit over the top. But what if he names Tom Tancredo to head up a team to re-negotiate NAFTA? Actually, I don’t think that’s very likely either. But I bet many on the far right would be very conflicted about it. And I would say there’s a difference between working with a solid member of the opposition on one or more specific issues on the one hand versus naming a solid member of the opposition to a senior level position within your administration. What do you think?
While we’re on the subject, who do you think McCain should tap among the solid members of the opposition for senior level positions in his administration? How about Richardson as Secy of State? Or Feingold as AG? Or Kucinich as SecDef? Lol! Okay, scratch that last one. Seriously, who do you think McCain should “reach across” to that would, as you describe, require the base of the “reacher” be offended at least to some degree while surprising and impressing the liberal faction of the reachee party?
At any rate, when the time comes I would like to know who is on both candidates’ short list of prospective nominees for cabinet and other senior level positions. I think the people a president surrounds himself with is every bit as important as the president himself. It will very definitely affect my vote.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
“Matt, A little over the top, don’t you think? I’ve heard the same thing every election for the last 48 years, yet our country has been strong enough to survive no matter who was in charge.”
We have a war on terror now… it’s a different world. I don’t think we can afford the mistake of a Hillary or Obama presidency.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“We have a war on terror now… it’s a different world. I don’t think we can afford the mistake of a Hillary or Obama presidency.”
And in the 60s, 70s, and 80s we were on the verge of nuclear war. Now we have to worry about a few thousand nutjobs. Sorry no comparison.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Remember he, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is the “magic Negro”.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Matt (and Mark),
“If Hillary or Obama were to get the presidency, our country would be doomed.”
You both keep saying things to this effect. I’ve asked before, and I ask again now: Please lay out, specifically, what you think our country would look like in 2012 if one of these two were elected. How, specifically, would they bring America to its knees?
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I haven’t kept up on this thread, but I was just scanning thru the comments. This is about as foolish as it gets…….
If Obama wants to surprise us, impress us and give himself at least a year where we’d go easy on him, he’d have to do something along the lines of appointing Senator Brownback head of Health and Human Services; or Newt Gingrish as US abassador to the United Naitons
So if he were to appoint a Hagel, you think that would be awful. Why? Because he isn’t a “TRUE” Republican. You’d only be happy if he reaches out to the ultra-righties of a Brownback or a Gingrich? That is damn funny.
Just admit it Mark. Even if Obama is an overwhelming success as a President, you will be one of those 19%-ers that would still say he is just flat out awful. Amazingly enough, it would be the same 19%-ers that think Bush has been one of the top 3 Presidents in our history.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Matt (and Mark),
“If Hillary or Obama were to get the presidency, our country would be doomed.”
I disagree. I know what it’s like to see our country in a helpless downslide into the land of “doomed”. It’s called 8 years of President George Bush and you guys are the ones who voted for him twice then loved him so much you kept this blog going to support them and spin all their failures and negatives into some sort of positives and successes.
Matt and Mark,
This is the reason why you guys aren’t really credible.
That’s just common damn sense.
You are the guys who back the failures so why would anyone take your word anymore? Why would anyone even want advice from people like you in terms of who to vote for in the next presidential election?
You sure were right with Bush. You must certainly be spot-on with McCain.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
SteaM, let me tell you something.
You have no credibility regurgitating liberal talking points bashing the 8 years of President Bush. President Bush united this country after 9/11, Democrats divided us… He signed tax cuts which resulted in record economic growth. He has kept us safe and has led the war on terror.
I am proud of our President, and his record. Your problem is you believe Democrat talking points and ignore reality. You will call anything he does that you disagree with a “failure,” because you are too stupid to do anything else.
I stand behind President Bush. I may not agree with everything he’s done, but I support him. You are no different than the liberals who bashed Ronald Reagan for 8 years.
I guess I can only feel sorry for you.