Gambit7

This point was finally brought up with the media today. It culminated late this afternoon with an "endorsement" of Obama from Colin Powell. The media immediately tried to corner him (Powell) on perhaps being a member of Obama's cabinet if he were president.

Although Obama (or any other candidate for that matter) hasnt come out and said he'd/she'd form a bi-partisan cabinet, he (obama) does seem the closest to that goal and the most able to pull it off. Exactly "why" is what I hope to discuss in this thread.

I've said before I really like the idea of Giuliani (GOP) being in charge of Homeland Security. Taking bipartisanship further to the cabinet represents a good idea IMO. Seems like most every American wants to see it happen; it'd definitely behoove the candidates to perhaps move in that direction.

What say you?

__________________

ScratchMonkey

Obama, please appoint Ron Paul to Treasury!

__________________
Sig

Hambergler

Why should Gooliani be in charge of HLS? He has no successful relationships in his life. If your no good at building bridges then you are busy destroying them. Obama is not that kind of guy. He understands that force does not work in relationships. He would never put Gooliani in charge of anything except a prison.... Powell on the other hand maybe, on second thought he was GWs house boy for too long.

__________________

peardog

Hmm..Not sure Secretary of State is the same as "house boy"... but considering he left on his own terms (after what some would say was a disagreement on policy with the President) I don't think he would have an issue with any Independent thought/bi-partisanship (I believe that was the topic?).

Heh..Its kind of funny you post in a forum topic regarding "Bi-Partisan" ISM yet take a shot at two Republicans...

__________________
Have a great day! 2008!!!


TG - SOP -- TeamSpeak Server Information - REQUIRED READING

peardog

As for Obama being more bi-partisan then the others... I think that could be a strong call in that he is not an old school politician .. very little time in Washington.. in fact his best credential of his that I have read is the fact that Washington hasn't had time to "corrupt" him yet... ....or this quote from his rolling stone article: " I was a wild man. I did drugs and drank and partied. But I got all my ya-yas out."

How cool is that... Truth... and I am not a Democrat and I even like that...

__________________
Have a great day! 2008!!!


TG - SOP -- TeamSpeak Server Information - REQUIRED READING

Evo<^|SiNz|^>

What part of his credentials bear out the notion that he is bi-partisan in any way?? He's not as politically abrasive as Hillary, but he's certainly as liberal.

__________________



"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- Attributed to General George Patton, Jr.

Steeler

Bi-partisanship is not a virtue in and of itself. I would just like the president to put some qualified, competent people in his dugout. People who can make sound decisions and provide good advice independent of ideology. Doesn't matter to me what party they are.

__________________

Gambit7

My thoughts on this are more along the lines of cronyism. The problem(s) with most of the viable candidates ('cept for maybe Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee) is that they're beholding to big business and the Elitist contributors. Reason why I think Obama is the best shot at bi-partisanship is that quite frankly the majority of his contributors are middle class, along with the fact he doesnt take money from the lobby or special interests (neither does Edwards). Hillary on the other hand gets the vast majority of her money from all the places we dont like, including the Elitist types.

The select few people that donate vast amounts of monies to campaigns like Hillary's ALL want handouts if she's elected. Not to mention, most of them would see heads roll if a republican were on her cabinet. She just has to answer to way too many people. Now, Obama has to answer to a lot of people... but that's just America as a WHOLE, not a few rich folk.

I'll give you a great example of this. Back during Katrina I got involved in a "witch-hunt" of sorts with some folks from a well known blog. Turned out the head of the American Red Cross was basically appointed by GB. In doing some digging we found out she contributed over $100,000 to his 2000 campaign (prior to her being appointed). She had little to no qualifications for the job, and by all intents and purposes dropped the ball hardcore during Katrina (dont get me started on this... just trust me). It went as far as Red Cross' own employees stabbing her in the back in disgust at her inability to handle the situation. (yes, they actually helped us with this info.) Anyways, I dont want to see crap like this happen anymore.

I like Hillary a lot.. but there's way too much partisanship there to be helpful in such a cause. Obama has no real lengthy ties to his party so that helps as well.

__________________

CingularDuality

LOL!

I think if you look for factual information instead of just making stuff up that you'll find a surprising number of Senator Clinton's largest contributers also contribute to Republican campaigns.

The President of the United States appointed the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the American Red Cross? Wha?

Y'know, I've been a huge advocate of legalizing drugs, but you're really starting to make me reconsider my position.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Gambit7

He didnt "appoint" her so to speak, but he gave an ardent endorsement.

__________________

leejo

B.O. isn't even the best choice for a bi-curious cabinet.

Kerostasis

As amusing as that snippet is, who did you think was a better choice?

My opinion is that a bi-partisan cabinet has a probability of approximately zero regardless of who is elected. Certain candidates might push that chance to as high as a few percent, but the good money's still on having the entire cabinet from one party. So it seems kind of pointless to decide who you want based on the likelihood they will appoint cabinet members from other parties.

__________________

leejo

Who would be a better choice? I dunno. Whoever wins becomes Public Enemy #1 as far as the other party is concerned. The 2012 campaign is way more important than serving a President during a war, as we all know from the last 8 years.