Obama, Schwarzenegger, and bipartisan cabinets

December 22, 2007

ABC News ran an item the other day that seems to have caused quite a stir in some circles.

ABC’s Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama has often said he’d consider putting Republicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. He’s added a new name to the list of possible Republicans cabinet members — Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Obama regularly says he would look to Republicans to fill out his cabinet if he was elected, but at a town hall event in Manchester, N.H., he was pushed to name names.

“It’s premature for me to start announcing my cabinet. I mean, I’m pretty confident, but I’m not all that confident. We still got a long way to go,” Obama said.

Obama, however, started naming names, pointing to Lugar (R-Ind.), Hagel (R-Neb.), and Schwarzenegger, who Obama said is doing some “very important” work on climate change. He added, “There are things I don’t agree with him on, but he’s taken leadership on a very difficult issue and we haven’t seen that kind of leadership in Washington.”

The notion that Obama would consider Schwarzenegger for his cabinet doesn’t seem to be going over well with some Dems. My friend Melissa McEwan, whose work I always respect and enjoy, said Republicans “don’t deserve to be included in a Democratic president’s cabinet,” and called Obama’s remarks “dumb.” Swopa, another blogger I hold in the highest regard, added that Schwarzenegger has no place in a Dem’s cabinet.

This is an interesting flap, with a few angles to consider.

First, the ABC News report was a little misleading — Obama didn’t specifically say he’d consider any Republicans for his cabinet. According to a transcript I obtained, he was asked at an event, “Are there any Republicans that you could tell us about tonight that you would like to be part of the Obama administration?” The senator responded that it was “premature for me to start announcing my cabinet,” and instead noted, “I can tell you Republicans I respect though.”

That’s when he mentioned Lugar, Hagel, and Schwarzenegger, not as likely cabinet picks, but just as Republicans he respects. The ABC News report left out the key sentence. (Whether any of those three Republicans actually deserve respect is another matter entirely.)

Second, I’ve noticed that this kind of talk has become surprisingly common this year. John Edwards recently said he’d want Republican for his cabinet…

John Edwards is running as possibly the most partisan of the top-tier Democrats, but one promise he made [two weeks ago] in Iowa could help him appeal to more independent voters, too — that he would make sure to have some Republicans in his cabinet.

“Here’s why: because I’m looking for the strongest, most capable, most independent-minded people I can find,” Edwards said, then drawing a strong contrast with President Bush. “I want people around me who will say, ‘You’re wrong about this, and you could do grave damage if you do it. Mr. President, you need to change your mind.’ Because I’m not perfect, I’m capable of making mistakes.”

…and Bill Richardson made the same pledge.

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson promised today to provide a new style at the White House with a positive, bipartisan administration closely linked with common people.

He said he would bring Americans together by appointing a Cabinet of Democrats, Republicans and independents.

I’ve been looking for similar remarks from Republicans, pledging to put Dems in their cabinets if elected, but I haven’t been able to turn up any examples. (Lieberman praise doesn’t count — he’s not a Dem.)

This isn’t exactly a hypothetical question: why are leading Dems vowing bipartisan cabinets, but leading Republicans not?

I suspect it’s part of a broader strategy — Dems hope to appeal to on-the-fence Republicans who may now be open to voting Democratic — but it’s noteworthy that Republicans aren’t even bothering to try the same strategy in reverse.

Could this be the sign of a return to normalcy? Haven’t most past administrations reached across the aisle in the B.R. (Before Rove) era?

  • The center of the Republican Party is far from the center of the nation’s political spectrum. The Democratic Party is closer to the center, and gaining strength as moderate, centrist/secular and “liberal” Republicans jump ship.

    The major Democratic candidates for the nomination all face the problem that they are perceived by low-information “swing” voters as being Left of the Democratic Party as a whole. The perception of low-information voters is that the Democratic nominee will be farther to the Left than the Republican nominee is to the Right, of Center. Weird to contemplate for political news junkies, who, of course, know better.

    But, the Democratic candidates know the polls, and so, Hillary and Barack are signalling that they are safe choices for relatively conservative voters, trying to overcome the perception that they are to the Left of their own Party. This is both to draw more moderate/centrist “Reagan Democrat” types back into identification with the Democrats, and to secure the low-information swing vote in the general election.

    I think that high-information types, radicalized by what they know about the crimes and outrages perpetrated by the Republican, need to be cautious about reading too much into the tactics of either Barack or Hillary.

  • John Edwards would have Republicans in his cabinet “because I’m looking for the strongest, most capable, most independent-minded people I can find.”

    Someone should inform John that capable, independent-minded people in the Republican party are about as rare as pearls in a cow patty.

  • Whenever someone pisses on me I buy them a beer so they can not only piss on me again but never, never take responsibility for their actions. Republicans are responsible for Bush Inc. and the damage (can sombody say ‘mass murder’) they have done. To ‘reach across the isle’ to them is to be an accessory after the fact to their crimes. Anyone who sucks up to them is as bad as they are.

  • Dems know how to play the bipartisanship card; it’s not a threat to them, and it allows the overall discussion to include a higher number of participants. The ReSkunk Imperial Court, however, is all about secrecy, power, and maintaining absolute control over everything they can get their little hooves on. True bipartisanship violates their principle of “owning it all.” Bipartisanship offered by Dems is just as dangerous, maybe even more so; it becomes a direct threat to their power if the opposition offers their rank-and-file members a better seat at the table and a bigger piece of the pie.

    To the GOPer top management, truly-democratic bipartisanship is nothing less than a nuclear weapon—aimed right at that little spot between their eyes. It promises the “ultimate exit wound….”

  • Persuade, say, Lieberman to be Secretary for Veterans Affairs or Voinovich to be Secretary of Transportation, and you’d get them out of the Senate and into positions where they might do some good, plus you’d get new senators (who’d run a decent chance of being Democratic) for seats that weren’t up for contention in this cycle.

  • It’s silly to get so upset about Obama’s comment. All he did was list some Republicans he respects. He never said he wants them in his cabinet. The AP story was completely misleading.

    John Edwards, on the other hand, has an issue on his hand, promising to have a GOPer in his cabinet.

    Samantha Power will likely have a key role in Obama’s administration. That would be awesome. Hillary would want O’Hanlon and Pollack so she can be seen as a Very Serious Person like them. Obama is not afraid not to kowtow to the Establishment because he’s disagreed with them all along and was proven right about Iraq. They are the ones who need to kowtow to him.

    Hillary can’t diss them because in many ways she’s joined at the hip with them and to criticize them is to admit her own misjudgments. And does anyone expect THAT to happen in this lifetime?

  • I see someone mentioned Lieberman. He has NO place in any Democratic administration. I’d take Lugar, Arnold or Hagel over that lizard any day.

    Here’s another argument for Obama. He has the longest coattails of any Democratic candidate. He has the best chance of expanding the congressional majority. With a larger Senate majority, we can tell Lieberman to stuff it and strip him of his Homeland Security chairmanship. How incredibly satisfying would that be?

    On the flip side, Hillary has the shortest coattails of the pack and is unlikely to help any downticket candidates and could actually hurt them. She’s already been used as a bogeyman in a special election, WHICH THE DEMOCRAT LOST. Think about it!

  • Republicans in a Democratic administration’s cabinet?

    Isn’t that like keeping on the top management of a corporation that’s plunged itself into bankruptcy? Isn’t that like rehiring the skipper of the Exxon Valdez? “Hey, we’re the ones who fucked up everything, so only we know how to save it!”

    Why reward bad behavior? A waitress drops a tray of dishes at a diner and she’s fired; these bozos fuck up the planet and they get a promotion?

    The message this kind of thinking sends out is: “There are simply not enough talented Democrats to run the country.” Just say no to this phony bipartisanship.

  • Bill Clinton had a Republican in his cabinet. It isn’t unheard of. It may even be good. The fact this Republican administration doesn’t include Democrats just means they are pigheaded zealots with no common sense.

    But putting Joe L in a mindless job with a nice title and getting him out of the Senate is not a bad idea.

  • Just to be factually accurate, even the Dumbya administration initially had a Democrat — he held over Mineta at DOT.

    That said, I think this talk of a bipartisan cabinet is neither purely political nor just rhetorical. It is a sign of the philosphical paradox that makes Democrats good people and good at governing, but makes them lousy at the current hardball style of politics. Democratic candidates are saying these things because they really believe that meritocracy outweighs party. A Republican would never think that, even for a moment. They are simply much more dedicated to both winning and the principle of winner takes all than the Dems are.

    That is both to our credit, and to our detriment.

  • With a larger Senate majority, we can tell Lieberman to stuff it and strip him of his Homeland Security chairmanship. How incredibly satisfying would that be?

    Considering that the president has no authority over Congressional chairmanships, and it would be a serious violation of the separation of powers, I’ll say, “About as satisfying as it was when Bush handpicked Frist as Senate Majority Leader.” But I concede your larger point re: Obama’s coattails.

    As for cabinet picks, I read an article a couple years ago pointing out that the practice of naming members of the opposite party is essentially a gimmick. Show of hands: How many Dems were reassured by the inclusion of Norman Mineta in Bush’s cabinet that Bush was committed to bipartisanship? And having William Cohen as Clinton’s SecDef hardly sure did a good job of mollifying the GOP crazies, huh?

  • You want people around you and in your cabinet that will promote your agenda not stand in the way of it. Dem candidates are idiots if they believe republicans in their cabinet would not just promote their own agenda and stand in the way of democratic progress.

    The president is bound to get plenty of advice and criticism from republicans without having them in his cabinet to retard his progress. What the hell is wrong with these people?
    This is pure pandering…I hope.

  • As a strategy for telegraphing that the Democratic party is one that is not afraid of a politically diverse administration, it probably works very well, but as someone said, above, there has to be some unity of vision and purpose, which presumably comes from the top, and if that is a requirement for a position in the Cabinet or elsewhere in the administration, that whittles the list of “qualified” Republicans quite a bit.

    But…that being said, I have to hope that Republicans being considered for such a post would be, for want of a better phrase, “B-list” – not A-list; it’s also important to see what the ripple effects are of moving someone out of his or her existing position, and into the Cabinet or other agency or department. Pull someone out of Congress, and you have to be mindful of whether that is likely to change the majority numbers – and in my opinion, having a solid majority in the Congress will be essential to legislating the president’s agenda.

    I have to admit that I am not completely ready to get all bipartisan about the next administration, but it’s quite likely that by the time those decisions are being made, I will not feel as skittish. I hope.

    The truth of the matter is that we really don’t want to be more like the GOP, we are more open to a diversity of opinion, and do not fear rational debate and disagreement; I have always viewed debate and discussion as an excellent way to hone one’s arguments, and more important, to learn something.

    Schwarzenegger makes my skin crawl, and I suspect there are a lot of California Democrats who feel the same way; that doesn’t mean he has nothing to contribute, especially in an area where his position is strongly in line with ours.

    I guess I’d just like us to win first – after which I suspect I will be feeling more magnanimous (or not, if it was a particularly ugly election) about cross-party appointments.

    Oh – and given the abysmal job Lieberman has done as chair of a committee, the last thing he should be given is a Cabinet post, especially Veterans’ Affairs; we are going to have ongoing issues with veterans’ care and benefits, and a lot of it is going to point a very ugly finger back at the Bush administration. The last thing these veterans need is someone like Lieberman, who might be more intent on sparing George Bush more embarrassment than in serving those who have worn the uniform of the US military.

  • btw***progressive liberal is the new “center” and those dinosaurs of pork..the porky pegs…the beltway ‘centrists’ are, according to the Pew polls, the new right. The progressive dems are the center of the nation and yet “centrist” dems and the republican right would all have us believe they are far left. Pure propaganda…just like trying to convince us that conservatives are the majority…or that the “moral majority” is more than just a small minority or that they are more moral than anybody else. The jobs of the beltway media depend on us believing this so their biased reporting seems credible. It simply isn’t true.

    Just so you know…Lieberman is chairman of the Homeland Security AND Government Affairs Committee. It’s the second part of that title that he has done absolutely nothing but prevent any oversight or accountability for the corrupt practices of our current administration. No investigations at all…but plenty of blocking of investigations in the senate.

  • I won’t lose any sleep if no Republicans make it into the next Cabinet, and I suspect that the candidates are simply trolling for swing voters. And yes, putting opposition-party members into your cabinet is a gimmick, but it’s not a bad one.

    I was more serious about Voinovich than Lieberman (Voinovich was a reasonably competent governor and when left to his own devices he apparently believes in stuff like working infrastructure).

    However, re my Lieberman suggestion: I don’t like him, and I don’t think he has earned or deserved anything. Nonetheless, if you put him somewhere like Veterans Affairs, he’d leave the Senate and his seat would open up four years early (2 years early for Voinovich). More importantly, he is a competent politician (his disastrous chairmanship is not a matter of incompetence as much as his being a competent lackey for the current administration), and in the past he has supported progressive social causes and has talked a lot about supporting the troops. Thus, if he was put in charge of Veterans Affairs and given specific liberal missions along the lines of improving veterans’ benefits and improving VA hospitals, he’d probably do it whole-heartedly. (And if he didn’t, he could easily be fired, thereby solving the Lieberman problem a different way.) As Johnson said, you want to find ways of getting your enemies into the tent peeing out, rather than outside the tent peeing in.

  • ***Isn’t that like rehiring the skipper of the Exxon Valdez?***

    No—it’s not. The captain and bridge crew of the Valdez bear responsibility for the accident; not the deck crew, nor the engine-room staff. Given the number of ReSkunks who are bailing for the ’08 election cycle, there’s a strong probability of that “fresh blood” wanting to avoid any connection with the current crop of GOPers. As it stands, based on a lot of the votes in the House, a good handful of center-leaning GOP freshmen could deliver Dems a veto-proof majority. For the Senate—although there isn’t a chance of gaining veto-proof stature (which would require 67)—a gain of 5 Dems, coupled with a transition of 5 GOPer seats to center-leaning votes (those hardcore conservatives still have to face primary elections, and more than a few of the “safely-red” seats could be put under the gun by challengers promoting “new idea” philosophies), would deliver a Lieberman-proof cloture approval.

    The goal shouldn’t be to “do unto them as they have done unto us;” that just lays the groundwork for payback. Rather, the goal should be to “choose between the Republic—and the Republican Party.”

    Make the choice into one between those two polar opposites, and you’ll fire up the Dem vote, bring in huge numbers of Indies, and give even a big chunk of the GOP support—those outside of “Das Base”—the opportunity to stand away from the greed-machine.

    THAT is how you relegate the neocon/theocrat hybrid to permanent minority status….

  • If a President Obama, or Clinton signed everything a Democrat Congress sent over, like Bush did when he had a majority, they’d probably end up just about as popular? American’s did support doing something about Iraq. But the reality was urban-warfare with low oil production. [Granted military contractors like war. And many Texan’s love higher oil prices.]

    Point being; Yes, billions are wasted on healthcare overhead. But who thinks Congress could resist K Street, sending a Pres. Clinton or Obama a tight bill? The Bush/Carlyle group [even after 9/11] would not crack down Saudi Arabia. So again, who thinks a Democrat President would confront a devoutly Islamic country with a budget surplus in the hundred billions?

    America may be facing a right-of-passage; Washington borrows-to-spend because dealing with constituents abstract concerns about deficits is easier than voting to cut programs. However, when inflation becomes too painful, politicians are usually forced by voters or bankers to sober-up. [Some examples being Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Congo, Israel, Turkmekistan, Ecuador, Hungary, Chile, Japan, Ghana, Yemen, Russia.]

  • The idea that a Democrat, no matter who he or she is, can’t have Republicans in their Cabinet is narrow-minded and ignorant.

  • Chuck Hagel should be running for president and any candidate, dem or rep would do themselves a great favor by nominating him to a top tier cabinet position, like secretary of state or even vp.

  • fixed my link. don’t click it if u have dialup. It will be important for the next president, no matter who it is, to reach across the aisle and begin to find common ground. To exclude people because of political ideology will only divide us further. Besides, democrats and republicans have been two sides of the same coin since the democratic party split into two with the other half calling themselves the grand old party…insinuating that they were the true democratic-republicans who founded this country.

  • I asked, not exactly rhetorically, the other day on MY BLOG: ” Why Do Democrats ALWAYS Promise To Co-Operate W/the GOP?

    You NEVER hear the Pukes campaigning on promises to co-operate with the Dems. It would be laughable. No one would 1)believe it or 2) tolerate it.

    Yet Hillary, Barry O, even John E, have said AL-fucking-READY that they’ll GLADLY, even enthusiastically, seek GOPukes to asppoint to Cabinet positions, and look forward to ‘working’ with their ‘friends’ across the aisle.”…

    I do NOT want a putatively ‘oppositional’ candidate, ostensibly devoted to rolling back the previous regime’s fascistic excesses installing any avatars of the very regime they will have been elected to erase.
    And I won’t vote for one, either.

    WTF is wrong with these people. Voting for them electing one of ’em, is supposed to represent a repudiation of the previous regime. WTF are these fools thinking, inviting the wolves into the flock?

  • Hey woody tokin librul, ever heard of civility? The reason nothing gets done in Washington worth doing is because of people with just your attitude on both sides of the aisle.

    I’ve said it before: WE NEED STATESMANSHIP. This means offering a chair at the table and listening to even those with whome you have little in common because you might just find one or two points of agreement that lead to progress on some important issue.

    Like it or not, no one person or party holds a monopoly on good ideas. I, for one, find it refreshing to hear politicians talking about a return to statesmanship.

  • “WTF are these fools thinking, inviting the wolves into the flock?”

    Maybe they’re thinking that America is not composed solely of Democrats. Partisan absolutism is a trademark of the current crop of retards that are running things. And if you think they’re dangerous “wolves” (and you may be right), then maybe we need to be shepherds rather than sheep.

    • Comments are closed.