Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

Watching MSNBC this morning, I'm struck by how often the unity & bi-partisan message is being put across as Andrea Mitchell & the other talking heads discuss Obama's possible cabinet picks.

Reaching across party lines is important, yes, but WE f*** won. Our people, our progressive leaders, should be the ones under consideration for administration posts.

Enough of this bull* about appointing Republicans to important cabinet posts. If you can pull a Dick Lugar out of the senate, then fine, but otherwise just find the best Democrat available. Hell, Colin Powell is probably available to fill that "unity" slot, so offer him Defense and have done with it.

Why is it that you never hear this narrative when Republicans win? When was the last time a Republican appointed a Democrat to a cabinet post?

Tags: Media, narrative (all tags)

Comments

24 Comments

Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

George W. Bush. Norman Mineta.

by falcon4e 2008-11-05 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

And so end the post partisen different kind of politics blah blah blah.    

LOL!

It took less than 24 hours for that house to come crumbling down.

Just tell me I was right all along.  It was all just pretty talk.   Now that we won EVERYBODY wants to forget it.   Especially the people that were mouthing all those pretty words.

by RichardFlatts 2008-11-05 09:32AM | 0 recs
You weren't.

It took less than 24 hours for the people who were already in favor of using Obama's administration as revenge for the Bush administration to start calling for revenge politics.

There's a difference.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-05 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

You McCainiacs are insane.  No house has crumbled in less than 24 hrs. other than the house that "Joe the Plumber built" that your entire political existence is based on.  

by devilrays 2008-11-05 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

I am sure there will be a token in there somewhere.

Chuck Hagel looking for work?    Secretary of Agriculture for Chuck maybe?

by RichardFlatts 2008-11-05 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

How about Defense Secretary Gates? Would you consider him a "token"?

by skohayes 2008-11-05 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

Bush had Mineta in Transportation after Clinton had him in Commerce. You always hear talk and encouragement for Republicans to pick Dems, it just never actually happens. Why? Because there are Republican activists screaming bloody murder just like you're doing now. But I'd rather not sink as low as Bush; I don't view him as a good example for how to govern and I'm surprised you do.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-11-05 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we follow Bush's example of appointing a bunch of foxes to guard the henhouse.

Obama should select competent, intelligent, liberal, progressive, and moderate Democrats with integrity, which will make his cabinet the exact opposite of Bush's.

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 09:49AM | 0 recs
Don't play that game

We want the best people for the job.  Usually, that's Democrats.  Sometimes it isn't.

If the exact opposite of Bush's right-wing partisans is left-wing partisans, we're not coming at it from the right direction.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-05 10:30AM | 0 recs
No games. Just good government

Who said "left-wing partisans"? I said "liberal, progressive and moderate Democrats". And I wholeheartedly believe that Democrats should select Democrats in their cabinet because Democrats make better policies.

The exact opposite of the Bush cabinet is people who are competent, intelligent, and have integrity (the traits I mentioned before). Are you saying you DON'T want people with those traits?

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 10:52AM | 0 recs
Democrats don't have a corner on the truth

Sorry, it's only usually that Democrats make better policy.  There are plenty of Democrats that have just terrible competance and judgement on policy, and some Republicans that have pretty good competance and judgement on policy.  

Would you take Joe Lieberman over Olympia Snowe?  

Joe is on the right side of every issue except Foreign policy and, you know, the election, but Oly is moderate, competant, and reasonable.  I'd go with the Republican there.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-05 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats don't have a corner on the truth

Cherry-pick my posts much?

Competent, intelligent, and with integrity. That's 3 times I've repeated the exact same words. What part of that indicates that I am for partisans who would be bad at their jobs?

There are more than enough competent and intelligent Democrats with integrity to fill all of the jobs. We really don't need to turn the White House into an affirmative action program for moderate Republicans.

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats don't have a corner on the truth

[quote]We really don't need to turn the White House into an affirmative action program for moderate Republicans.[/quote]

bears repeating....

by colebiancardi 2008-11-05 11:35AM | 0 recs
Cherrypicking seems to go both ways

I'm just trying to point out that we should choose the best people for the jobs, not just the best Democrats.

You're imposing the only partisanship.  You're suggesting affirmative action on behalf of Democrats.

Why should a Democrat get a job if there's a Republican who is better suited for that job?

by Dracomicron 2008-11-05 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Cherrypicking seems to go both ways

Because we're Democrats here. (Or at least we're supposedly Democrats here.)

And it's not Affirmative Action when you're hiring your own. That's called "the old boys network".

by LakersFan 2008-11-05 01:58PM | 0 recs
What do you think The Old Boys Network is?

It's affirmative action for old white guys.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-06 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: What do you think The Old Boys Network is?

I know. That's my point. No need to continue it in the Obama White House.

by LakersFan 2008-11-06 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't play that game

Hey! You got the point of my post. I agree with you, let's find the best progressive people to fill these posts.

I'm already sick of the "which Republicans will Obama select" meme.

And I'm sure he and his team are way ahead of us on this, thankfully.

by Diagoras 2008-11-05 11:57AM | 0 recs
I guarantee it.

And I'm sure he and his team are way ahead of us on this, thankfully.

They've had everything else planned out well in advance, I don't see how this would be any difference.

If they choose any Republicans, it will be A) because they're extremely well suited with a documented history of cooperation on whatever subject they'll be handling, AND there will be a tactical benefit.  Example: Hiring, say, Olympia Snowe to a health/social cabinet position (where her poltics are moderate)... oh look, the Governor of Maine is a Democrat and appointed a Democrat in her seat!  What a strange event!

by Dracomicron 2008-11-05 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

Yes, please let us not ever use "but the Republicans did it" or "but, the Republicans didn't do it" as a justification for any of our future actions.  America just rendered a clear verdict on the Republicans' way of doing things.

by alhill 2008-11-05 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

look, Obama got a landslide - a friggin' REAL mandate.

there is nothing wrong with working on the things we can agree on with the republicans, but that doesn't mean we are supposed to give in to every friggin' thing

Clinton had to do this for a lot of stuff because he was forced to work with a republican congress

Obama has a democratic congress.  People want healthcare, they want education, they want energy independence.

IT IS A MANDATE.  If GWB could do what he did with his totals from the GE's, for crying out loud, Obama certainly can do it.

Unless we want to lose in 4 years, we better produce our brand and make it better for Americans.  Otherwise, we will have another election where the pundits will state there is no difference between the democratic & republican candidate (Gore V Bush, anyone?)

We know that isn't true.

by colebiancardi 2008-11-05 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Bi-partisan, unity message will hurt us

YES, but there are still a few Republicans who can be coerced into playing ball. And having their support will be crucial to getting the "big" bills passed and demoralizing the Republicans to the point that they keep the infighting going.

Funnily enough, I'd bet my bottom dollar that one of those Republicans might go by the name of John McCain. Guaran-damn-tee you he's more pissed off at the GOP for his loss than Obama.

by vcalzone 2008-11-05 10:51AM | 0 recs
The Republicans fucked him

This is twice in a row that John's been corncobbed by trusting the Republican establishment, while Obama pretty much beat him fair and square.

I know who I'd be mad at.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-05 11:21AM | 0 recs
The team is not the coach

Can we stop worrying about the politics of each individual part in the machine Obama's building?

The only politics that are going to matter, at the end of the day in an Obama administration, is the politics of Obama.  His appointees will do their job and give him their opinions, but he's the guy ultimately making the decisions.

Have some faith.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-05 10:33AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads