Edwards promises to name republicans to his cabinet

[cali]

Edwards promises to name Republicans to his Cabinet
By TONY LEYS • REGISTER STAFF WRITER • December 4, 2007

Waterloo, Ia. - John Edwards vowed Monday to include Republicans in his Cabinet if he's elected president.

"Here's why: because I'm looking for the strongest, most capable, most independent-minded people I can find. 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,' " he said. "Because I'm not perfect, I'm capable of making mistakes."


The North Carolina Democrat, who was speaking before a couple of hundred people at Hawkeye Community College, said his policy of encouraging dissent in the Cabinet would set him apart from the current president's practice. "We've seen what happens with Bush, who's surrounded himself with a bunch of 'yes people.' They all tell him how brave he is and how smart he is."

Democratic rival Bill Richardson also has said he would include Republicans in his Cabinet.

Edwards said that in picking a vice president, he would choose someone whose views were in line with his. He said voters have a right to expect that if a vice president has to take charge, he or she would follow a path similar to the president's.



http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NEWS09/712040382/0/NEWS09

[C_U_L8R]

1. the strongest, most capable, most independent-minded people

are not republicans

sorry

[cali]

4. I didn't like Clinton's suggestion that she'd use

Colin Powell as a "goodwill ambassador" and I dislike this idea even more. I can't think of a single repuke worthy of sitting in the cabinet of a dem president.

[defendandprotect]

2. Whoa . . . this is INSANITY --- what the hell is Edwards thinking --- ?????

WHO is this intended to appease?

Certainly, Democrats aren't voting for Democrats and then hoping to see Repug Foxes put in the WH or the Cabinent or any other posts they've been so fiercely screwing up -- on purpose!

[Whisp]

20. I think he may be going against this 'yes man' mentality in the WH now.

the * does not like to be questioned and challenged and look how well That's worked out.

I'll have to hear more on this, but first reaction is maybe it's not such a bad idea.

[defendandprotect]

47. Our problem isn't as simple as "yes" men . . . it's crime and corruption run rampant!!!!

[Hieronymus]

64. One of our presidents appointed his opponent .. was that Washington?

[Hieronymus]

67. John Adams got the next highest vote and therefore was Washington's VP.

The country survived that.

[DangerDave921]

80. Appease

He said that purely as a way of telling the people that he is not a far-left ideologue. This message is not for the primary, but for the general election. He's going to need a lot of that middle-ground of undecided voters who could go either way.

My guess is he doesn't mean it at all. He's just trying to establish some rapport with the RW-leaning voters in the general election. No big deal at all.

[Divine Discontent]

91. Who?

The independent voters, b/c one or two token appts in his cabinet of the most open minded GOP politicians (there's 2 or 3 I can think of that would be good in their field of expertise), will not change his course of saving the poor from death & the lower class from total and complete loss of home & life from these corporate whores who have raided our nation's treasury and are sending us to total financial ruin... we don't need another corporate candidate!

[KingFlorez]

3. No thanks

After the disaster the Republicans have caused, none of them should be appointed to the cabinet. The majority have sat by and sided with Bush's every move. The last thing we need is a candidate promising to put them in the cabinet.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Tells you his Iowa internals show people think he's gotten too divisive

[cali]

12. I think you're right.

either too divisive or too far to the left- and he's trying to balance that.

[liskddksil]

56. he was saying this since the summer

I dont think its based on current polling.

[BeyondGeography]

78. I know, but he's bringing it up again now for a reason

I don't have a problem with it; shows he's trying to broaden his appeal is all.

[Apollo11]

63. I concur with your analysis

I thought Edwards had been saying we need a fighter in Washington.

He criticized other candidates for saying they would meet with insurance companies to talk about how to achieve universal healthcare. He said they should have no place at the table.

Now he wants to work with Republicans - even in his cabinet ???? :eyes:


The only explanation for this is that Edwards is afraid he has sunk to third place in Iowa, and he only has about 2 weeks plus the Christmas holidays to turn his campaign around.

What Edwards does not realize is that trying to change course at this late stage increases the impression that his campaign is sinking while Barack Obama is growing stronger every day.

Up until recently I was ready to give Edwards another look. But now I prefer Biden (even if he is a long shot) and Obama (who has been growing stronger as a candidate).

If you go to the DNC website (www.democrats.org) and watch their speeches to the DNC Fall Meeting last week, I give Biden and Obama higher grades that Edwards. Biden and Obama showed themselves to be serious and credible candidates for the Presidency. Edwards - sorry, not so much.

I know all the top-tier candidates try to emotionally manipulate their audience to a certain extent. But Edwards is the worst offender in this regard. Filling his speech with a whole series of stories about individual hardship to soften-up his audience and then trying to close the sale by coming across like a preacher "will you join with me?" or "will you stand with me?".

[Hieronymus]

65. I think that's Hillary ..

[tekisui]

6. Why do they insist on appeasing pukes.

It doesn't go both ways. I am not eager to respect or even acknowledge their dying ideologies? Is he, and Hillary, and Kucinich just trying to broaden their support?

Just say no! To Republicans.

[Adelante]

7. He's said this a few times nt

[cali]

9. First I've heard of it

and seeing as Dennis got criticized for suggesting Paul as a running mate, and Hillary got pounded for suggesting that Powell would be an effective goodwill ambassador, I don't see why Edwards shouldn't be criticized for promising to name repukes to his cabinet.

[GreenArrow]

13. here's one

Edwards stumps in region
Says he'll have Republicans in his Cabinet if elected

By ADAM D. KRAUSS
Democrat Staff Writer
[e-mail]


PORTSMOUTH — To hear Seacoast residents tell it, Democrat John Edwards was courageous, inspiring and convincing enough to pull votes away from a chief rival during his Seacoast swing Sunday.

In Rochester, the Levi's jeans-wearing presidential candidate scored points with Barrington resident Daniel LaBossiere when he said he'd have Republicans in his Cabinet.

"He had the courage enough to answer it, which is difficult enough," said LaBossiere, who asked Edwards what he values of conservative philosophy. "I've never heard any other politician make that statement."

Edwards told a crowd of about 100 in front of the Rochester Common bandstand that he'll work with Republicans "in a principled way," acknowledging he ran the risk of alienating voters by saying the cabinet list "I've already made" includes members of the other party.

In a one-on-one interview with Foster's aboard his campaign bus, Edwards would not say who's on the list, and that he doubts he'd share the list in the future.

"I don't want people who are not chosen ... I don't think it's fair to them," he said.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/FOSTERS08/708270073

[Sparkly]

8. I'm guessing it's a strategy toward the general election?

I don't think Democrats are in a mood for "unity" with the GOP right now, thankyewverymuch. Yet even Kucinich has said he'd like to run with Ron Paul. :crazy:

[Life Long Dem]

10. I like the title.

He has been known to change his mind. :)

[liberal N proud]

11. Secretary of floor sweeping

[cali]

16. If only.

I think it's interesting that Edwards supporters aren't bothered by this.

[Yukari Yakumo]

68. He could be on "To Catch a Predator" (and not be the host)

and many of Edwards' supporters around here will still stand by their man.

Suffice to say, nothing will faze them.

[Cameron27]

14. We have enough respected people in our

own party to serve in any position in his cabinet. Blech, I'm not ready for non-partisanship.

[AlCzervik]

15. No, just no.

[NCarolinawoman]

17. Recently I told a Republican relative of mine that the

Republican talent pool had run dry. Defense Secretary Gates was probably the last person they could call upon who was of any worth. This relative of mine agreed with me.

There just isn't anybody.

[Armstead]

18. I'd say it depends on the Republican and the position

There are some Republicans who are somewhat reasonable on some issues.

[cali]

21. name one.

look, this is a lousy idea. There are plenty of democrats who can fill Cabinet seats and are independent enough to tell a president they disagree with him when they do. Edwards doesn't get a pass on this.

[Armstead]

27. Richard Lugar

No worse than many neo-con Democrats. He's somewhat reasonable and also has a sense of perspective.

Trent Lott on media issues -- Although there is very little I like about Lott on most issues, he's been a lot more aggressive than many Democrats in fighting Media Consolidation.

Chuck Hagel -- Ditto on domestic issues, but he has been closer in his positions on Iraq to the anti-war movement than many Democrats.

Sen Chaffee -- Was very anti-war and a lot more liberal on iotehr issues than some Democrats.

[cali]

29. LOL!!

Holy shit. Both Luger and Hagel are wingnuts. Yeah, they've said a few good things about how bush sucks and that we should maybe start thinking about getting out of Iraq. They're still repukes with very conservative voting records. I can think of at least a dozen dems who were against the war to begin with and have good voting records. Why pick someone like Hagel when there are much, much better dem alternatives?

And Linc is no longer a repuke. He quit the party.

Trent Lott??? He's a fucking racist criminal.

[Armstead]

31. I said some positions on some issues

Lott may be a creep, but he's he's been leading a fight that too many democrats have been AWOL on.

Lugar isn't a wingnut. Hagel is -- but he didn't drink the KoolAid on Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Trent Lott? Leading the fight?

Getta of town.....please! :rofl:

Lott's voting record stinks. Check it out!
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000447/key-votes/

[Armstead]

46. I knowe he stinks on most things

But gotta give credit where credit is due.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=287094

SENATORS DORGAN & LOTT ANNOUNCE BI-PARTISAN BILL TO HALT FCC RUSH TOWARD EASING MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) --- U.S. Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Trent Lott (R-MS) will introduce legislation later today to halt the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) "fast march" toward easing media ownership rules.

"We believe localism and diversity of media ownership is vital in a democracy," Senator Dorgan said. "Our bill recognizes the importance of a wide range of media owners and local content, and requires a process that does not rush past those concerns to open the gates for even more consolidation of media ownership. We believe there is value to local ownership in the media."

"Communities count on getting their local news from their locally-owned television stations and weekly and daily newspapers," Senator Lott said. "They know 'locally-owned' means they're invested in their communities and care about their well-being. If the FCC won't do their job to keep East and West coast media conglomerates from pushing out these local voices, then there is a role for the Congress to play."

[FrenchieCat]

60. That's cause he got stinged by the media......if you will recall......

Cause I'm sure he remembers that thingie that he said that got him out of his leadership position.....and I'm quite certain he blames the media big time.

So, yes, he was on the right side, but more for his own benefit....not necessarily ours.

[wyldwolf]

75. John John John... that worked well in the distant past. but no more

FDR did it. JFK did it. But those were the days when the GOP was willing to play nice. Bill Clinton did it and it did not help him. The GOP of today don't want compromises and extending olive branches is a sign of weakness to them.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Haven't you heard? Chafee is no longer a Republican.......

Even he knew to be a good guy, one has to get away from the Republican party! LOL!


Lincoln Chafee Leaves the GOP
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he has left the Republican Party because the national GOP has drifted too far from him on critical issues, including the war in Iraq, the economy and the environment.
"It's not my party anymore," Chafee, who represented Rhode Island from 1999 until 2007, told The Providence Journal in an article published Saturday.

Chafee said he is now an unaffiliated voter after leaving the GOP "in June or July."

He said he made the move because "I want my affiliation to accurately reflect my status."

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/09/lincoln_chafee_leaves_the_gop.html

[Armstead]

49. Well Kudos to him

I wish he'd done this a few years ago...Oh well better late than never.

[Lucinda]

55. I like Senator Snowe...but I don't know tons about her

She sort of wandered onto my radar after her trip to Iraq with Salazar earlier this fall...

[1932]

58. Bill Clinton had a Republican in his cabinet. This is a bipartisan tradition.

[cali]

62. the times have changed. and repukes aren't what they

were even 15 years ago. Furthermore, it's not always done. Just what repuke would you like to see in the cabinet.

[1932]

76. Amo Houghton?

[Clark2008]

84. And that Republican tried to ruin the 34-career of a Democratic

general to put in one of his cronies.

No sale.

[joeybee12]

19. He's looking ahead to New Hampshire...because independents

can vote in either (but not both) primary there.

SOP for a political campaign...I don't like it, but I've come to expect this.

[frazzled]

23. Independents can participate in Iowa caucuses, too.

In fact, 19%--nearly 1/5--of likely participants in the Democratic Iowa caucuses are independents.

[frazzled]

22. "Because I'm not perfect, I'm capable of making mistakes."

Now that is the understatement of the year. (Oh gee, I haven't used that expression since fifth grade.) I find that statement so incredibly vain and infuriating I almost can't believe it.

It seems John Edwards has made a political career (brief as it has been) of making mistakes, and then apologizing for them. He's going to need someone to counterbalance his instincts ... but dare I say, it should not be a Republican.

The very presupposition of this statement is supposed to be that "I'm such a perfect Democrat, I need some Republicans to counteract my ever so equisite liberalism." Uh, sadly, no.

Pfeh.

I don't care if the next Democratic president puts a token Republican in his cabinet (hey, how about Transportation). But not for insanely self-absorbed reasons John Edwards has just used. Because we need to reach out and pull this country together.

[BootinUp]

70. I have to second your post

point on.

[Gloria]

24. Smasrt politics, it seems to me....softens the "angry" charge against him...

Also, Clinton had Cohen and Bush has Norm Manetti (?--Sec. of Transportation carried over, I forget his hame, is that it?)

Hints at being "bipartisan" without having to preach about it constantly, and being able to go after shitty Republicans....

[cali]

26. Mineta, I believe.

And times have changed- as have republicans. Edwards looks like he's pandering here.

[ulysses]

25. much as might not like this,

given that several Republicans looked as if they were going to actually try to get us out of Iraq earlier this year, I'm not going to hold it against Edwards.

[Armstead]

32. You're drummed out

My God man, don't be so friggin' open-minded.

[ulysses]

36. I'm the narrow-minded liberal Carlos warned you about.

;-)

[Armstead]

37. Go back to Nader you scum

:+

(Funny how long ago and far away that seems now.)

[ulysses]

39. and yet how close by,

if you read the right threads. :D

[Armstead]

40. Deja vu all over again

[ulysses]

45. it wouldn't be DU otherwise.

[Armstead]

48. Only the names have been changed...

"Nader lovers" has been replaced by "Hillary haters" I guess.

[bullwinkle428]

28. Didn't Bill Clinton appoint Republican Sen. William Cohen as Sec. of Defense?

I don't see this as a blanket bad idea...all depends on who's involved.

[cali]

30. That was many a moon ago when there were still

a few moderate repukes. And Bill Cohen was very much a moderate. Far more so than Collins who replaced him. It's a bad idea.

[asdjrocky]

33. Lincolns cabinet was full of people that didn't agree with him.

I think we prove it here on DU everyday. Arguing is good.

Distention, can be good. Just my opinion.

[cali]

35. In case you haven't noticed,

there are no repukes here arguing. And this isn't 1860. There are plenty of dems with different viewpoints. Promising to put repukes in the Cabinet is unneccessary.

[asdjrocky]

38. In my personal, and business life

I've known and worked with many pugs. Dare I say, I even have a few pugs as friends. But I will say this, none are what we would consider neocons.

And yes, I know this is not 1860. But I do still think it's a valid point.

[cali]

87. Hey, I voted for a repub for years but

let's face it, Jim Jeffords record in the Senate was more liberal in many respects than Edwards'. As I said before, you don't hear repuke candidates talking about naming dems to their candidates. I wish all the dems would quit legitimizing repukes like this.

[sampsonblk]

42. Dissent, yes. But Lincoln didn't pick any Confederates

That would be going too far.

[foo_bar]

50. I think you meant "dissension", given the context, although distention works too

see:

[asdjrocky]

51. I stand corrected.

[sam sarrha]

34. that would be diane fienstine [spl].???

[Renew Deal]

43. I don't get too worked up about stuff like this

I'd expect them all fill some position(s) with a republican. It's customary if nothing else.

[dionysus]

52. there was once a time where you could find a good repuke or two to give a job to...

now? not so much...

[Peregrine Took]

53. That absolutely seals the deal for me. No thanks, if I wanted rethugs around

I'd vote for them.

[derby378]

54. If those Republicans were anything like Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt...

...I'd be all for it. But too many Republicans nowadays are neo-fascists, so I'm not interested.

No bipartisanship with neo-fascists.

End of story.

[liskddksil]

57. I trust him to pick a diverse cabinet

That will provide a oppurtunity for reasoned policy debate. He has said he wants his cabinet to not necessarily be in agreement with him on everything, but that his vice presidential pick will be more similar to his views. I am sure the Republicans he has in mind are moderate and not in the line of Colin Powell, who Senator Clinton was considering.

[Quixote1818]

59. I think this is a good thing. It will prevent group think

Anyone who has studied Communications will tell you how important it is to get input from all sides. Even if you don't follow their advise they can sometimes help you see something you otherwise would not see. I don't think he needs to put one on his cabinet but he should at least check with Republicans for their opinions.

[cali]

61. nonsense. Democrats don't all adhere to the same page

as is said over and over again here. There are plenty of qualified dems for the cabinet. I can't think of one qualified repuke. And look at DU- no repukes here, and plenty of people who disagree.

[Kucinich4America]

66. Fuck you John

You can shove your "son of a millworker, one America" rhetoric right up your ass if you want to work with the pieces of shit who fucked up the country in the first place. :grr:

Guess I won't be voting Edwards in the general either. There is absolutely NO excuse for complicity with these fucking Repukes.

[MaineDem]

69. Betcha any one of them will

Bill Clinton did...GW did.

It's certainly not a deal breaker for me.

[cali]

72. maybe, but do you hear repukes

making these idiotic promises? No. And dems shouldn't either.

[Perry Logan]

71. Now I'm REALLY glad Obama won't get the nomination.

[calimary]

73. I'd really like to applaud this idea - so magnanimous and open-minded

and all that.

But Dear Lord - haven't we heard ENOUGH from the republi-CONS in the past seven years? Haven't we had ENOUGH of their input? And look where it's gotten us. I think we've had MORE than enough to satisfy several lifetimes.

Every time I hear something like this, part of me wants to scream. That part of me wants to see the GOP go over to its little corner, put the dunce caps on, and sit there facing the wall and STFU while the REAL "adults" REALLY take charge again and start undoing all the damage that's been done. It's a big job and we don't need ANY interference or comments from the "Peanut Gallery."

[MethuenProgressive]

74. He'll need Republicans after attacking his own party so much and so often.

What Democrat would want to serve in an Edwards Administration?

[Adelante]

77. I have less of a problem with this than you, cali

As long as we're not talking key positions, not State, not Defense, not NSA, not CIA, not FBI, certainly not AG, and that. But if a couple of non-Democrats in positions where not too much harm can be done, as a unifying gesture, meh, it wouldn't trouble me too much. I don't know who he has in mind to pick and that could be always be a deal breaker.

[cali]

79. I don't think these promises by dem candidates to include repukes

is a good idea at all. It comes off as mealy mouthed. I sure haven't seen the repuke candidates making these promises.

[DangerDave921]

81. JOE LIEBERMAN!!! EOM

[Clark2008]

82. Cali, is it OK for me to say "I told you so" to Edwards' supporters, now?

:hi:

[zalinda]

83. I think this is meant as a healing move

There are many repubs who feel like their party has left them, but cannot join the dem party (for whatever reason). These people will vote for Edwards as a change from the neo-cons in office now, but feel like their (repub) viewpoint will be considered in an Edwards administration.

Believe it or not there are many repubs who have kept their mouth shut and went along with the neo-cons, for the good of the party. And, there are indies who want both parties to run the government, all you have to do is look at the votes. Some believe that if there is a dem President, there should be a majority of repubs in Congress or the Senate to balance it out, and they vote that way. I have never seen the need for that, but that is a concern for a large portion of people.

And, there may be some repubs who would work well in the cabinet, but we haven't heard about them. I honestly don't think Edwards would surround himself with incompetents, as he does have an ego and wants to do the best job he can. And, for those of you who think poorly of him because of ego, or whatever, do you honestly think that he would do anything to jeopardize his legacy. I mean, come on, this is a man who won the vast majority of his cases, he told people that he would fight for them and he won. If he is telling the American people that he is going to fight for them, do you think he would ever take the chance of not winning, by hiring some one who couldn't do the job?

zalinda

[hayu_lol]

85. Edwards just bit the big one with this statement...

Dennis and his Ron Paul statement and now Edwards.

Perhaps Dennis will give Edwards the wings of that eagle he tore apart.

Man in the street won't pay any attention, but activists will drop any thought of Edwards. With his new home, gee, I'd like to stay home too.

Edwards just cut his throat.

[zalinda]

89. So, if there are 1 or 2 repubs in the cabinet

it negates the entire administration? What a load of bull. The cabinet is there is advise, nothing more. They work at the President's bidding. Didn't Gergen work for Clinton?

Damn, people WE are the grownups! If a person can do a job and do it well, it should mean nothing if he/she is dem, repub, indie or green. WE are the big tent. WE are the ones that get things done, for ALL the people, not just dems. WE have to bring this country together again. WE have to bring back civility and caring.

Because if WE don't do it, who will? And wouldn't it be nice to be able to spend the holidays with family members who are repubs and not argue?

zalinda

[cali]

86. hardly. Extraordinary to see Edwards' supporters as apologists

for repukes. There's a reason that any repuke with a conscience has left the party. Jim Jeffords and Linc Chafee come immediately to mind, but there are others.

I'm sure you're right about rank and file party members who are uncomfortable with the party- but bushco's support numbers from the repukes show that there aren't all that many of them. But we're not talking rank and file party members when we're talking cabinet positions.

Edwards is pandering. And so are other dems when they talk about including repukes in their admins. As for fighting for the American people, he didn't do more than a mediocre job on that when he was in the Senate, and his gig with Fortress was self-serving.

[waiting for hope]

88. Thanks zalinda -

I'm wondering too how well this division is going for all the nay-sayers here. SCHIP went over real well (:sarcasm: - you just never know around here anymore) as well as, let's see, ending the war in Iraq. This government is going to have to learn how to work together or any hope of accomplishing anything is down the toilet - if Edwards has a few Republicans in his administration that are open to his ideas, then perhaps the Democrats could have more support in the House and Senate.

[bunnies]

90. This will go over very well in NH.

44% of our voters can go either D or R. If they see this as a 'unity' move I think it'll serve him well.

[Divine Discontent]

92. exactly, ty n/t

[FrenchieCat]

93. That's why it can only be seen as "pandering".......cause that is what it is.....

Political rethoric to entice those 44%!


John Edwards: "John Edwards: I Need Republicans In My Cabinet To Keep Me From Screwing Up"


Dear John,
You were screwing up when you were listening to Republicans and voting like them througout your senate career....like on your IWR co-sponsorship; your vote on the Patriot Act; your vote on the Bankruptcy deal; your vote on the China Trade deal; your vote on Yucca Mountain as a Depository for Nuke waste; your vote on No child left behind;

Remember that you have since said "sorry, I made a mistake" on all of the above.

What is it that you are not getting? :shrug:

Signed,
me

[coco77]

94. The only problem with that is...

they will run all over him.

[FrenchieCat]

95. I'm not even sure why he feels the need to "Promise" this.......

as he might learn to regret it.....as he has so many other positions he has taken! :(