Edwards: I'll Include Republicans In My Cabinet
John Edwards is running as possibly the most partisan of the top-tier Democrats, but one promise he made yesterday 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."
Comments (19)
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 4, 2007 8:56 AM:Coolness! So Clinton, Obama and Richarson will be able find work after the election.
Of course, eight years of Bush has narrowed (tainted) the list . . . But John Dean and and a number of the US Attormeys come to mind as good choices.
steve talbert wrote on December 4, 2007 9:11 AM:If he said it like you quoted it, then I am disappointed in him for being a pandered like the rest. He should say that he would put the best people he could find,, not 'make sure to have a Republican' in the cabinet. There should only be one if they were the most capable for that position. Given the problems with the past 7 years, no one comes to mind right now.
Kefa wrote on December 4, 2007 9:19 AM:Edwards will say and do anything to be elected....he'd put monkeys in the cabinet if they'd vote for him.
gqmartinez wrote on December 4, 2007 9:19 AM:Chuck Hagel and/or Lincoln Chafee come to mind. I like Hagel at State or Defense. I could see Chafee in a number of positions.
terry hallinan wrote on December 4, 2007 9:22 AM:Nice of Edwards to give Hillary and even Bill a chance at a job along with other Republican Lites.
Best, Terry
Mathias B wrote on December 4, 2007 9:27 AM:This shouldn't help Edwards too much given that Obama has already made the same promise.
Andrew Foland wrote on December 4, 2007 9:36 AM:The one single reason I am willing to go to the mattresses no matter who the Dem candidates is, is because I expect a Dem, no matter how centrist, to start weeding out the agencies. We've seen that the mid-level staffers--like Cambone, Feith, Sampson, Jennings, Goodling, etc--can really matter in driving policy. And I've believed that the staffers put in place by a Democratic administration would be superior to letting GOP ones fester in place; enough so that it would overcome any doubts I might have about the real policy difference between, say, Clinton and Bush.
Edwards is doing a lot to destroy my motivation here.
colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 9:37 AM:What's surprising about this? When in the Senate, he voted quite often with the Republican majority and against progressive Dems like Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Wellstone, and Clinton on such legislation as the two Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Act and numerous other times. In fact, nearly every time when they disagreed on their votes, Clinton voted with the progressive Dems in her party and Edwards sided with the Republican majority.
Facts are such sticky things to his true believers.
Mr Blifil wrote on December 4, 2007 9:40 AM:Fuck him for saying so. Let's see the Hillary haters get behind him now.
Why not just promise Cheney a position? He already showed how much he loves him during their last debate.
colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 9:46 AM:Here are the comparisons for the times when Hillary and Edwards disagreed on their votes when they were in the Senate together. Please read and come back and say again who's the "Republican-Lite" candidate most like George Bush.
Although they mostly voted together in concert with most other Democrats, there were some times that they disagreed on certain issues – especially some issues related to helping working families, education, and campaign reform. Let’s look at nearly all of those times – sorry this makes for a long post.
From the Senate voting record:
Senator Edwards voted YES on the 2000 Bankruptcy Act (along with the Republican majority). Senator Hillary Clinton had not been elected yet, but it’s a bill that Bill Clinton vetoed as being “too harsh on America’s poor and middle class families.” It was a precursor to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act (that Edwards also voted YES on).
On the Wellstone Amendment to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have exempted those made bankrupt due to excessive medical bills, Senator Edwards voted NO along with all Senate Republicans. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, and, of course, Wellstone.
On Paul Wellstone’s Amendment to 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have recalculated the definition of monthly income to the advantage of poor and middle class families, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone.
On Paul Wellstone’s 2001 campaign reform Amendment closing the loopholes for allowing for 527 group political TV ads. Ironically, since passage would have prevented the Swift Boaters in 2004, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES on this Amendment.
On Senator Kerry’s amendment that would have provided 2:1 matching funds to Senate campaigns of up to $200, encouraging small donors like most of us are and increasing our contribution power, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES.
Senator Bingaman offered an amendment that would have banned phony negative “attack ads” by requiring that vehicles that ran such ads would have to allow response time. Senator Edwards voted to table this amendment along with nearly every Republican. Senator Clinton voted along with most other liberal Democrats to further this amendment. (It was tabled, that is, killed).
On the initial budget guidelines sought by the Bush administration in 2001 (including his tax cuts), Edwards voted YES along with every Republican and Zell Miller. Clinton voted NO along with the rest of the liberal DemocratsOn the initial budget guidelines sought by the Bush administration in 2001 (including his tax cuts), Edwards voted YES along with every Republican and Zell Miller. Clinton voted NO along with the rest of the liberal Democrats.
On Senator Bob Graham’s amendment to this tax cut bill which would have decreased the lower marginal rates for poor and middle class taxpayers, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Wellstone, and 29 other Democrats.
Senator Feinstein motioned to send the tax cut bill back to the Finance Committee with orders to spread the Estate Tax exemption cuts more fairly. Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, and Wellstone.
Senator Wellstone presented an Amendment to No Child Left Behind to prevent it from being an “unfunded mandate.” Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with 30 other liberal Democrats.
Of course we know the famous Iraq War authorization vote where both Hillary and John agreed with and voted with the Republicans (and many other Democrats for that matter). I just thought you might be interested in a few of the votes where they disagreed on the record – not just from the sidelines where Edwards likes to sit and carp.
The cliché is that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. These are the facts from the Senate voting records.
John Edwards and his supporters claim that he is the progressive and that Hillary represents the status quo or is just a milder version of a Republican. Read these facts about their head-to-head voting records and be enlightened as to who stood most often with the Republicans and who voted most often with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It’s really no contest. Hillary has a 95%-plus lifetime record of voting with the progressive Democrats (the 12th most liberal in the Senate), while Edwards lifetime liberal voting record stands at 78%.
The (non)response so far from a few Edwards supporters who have attempted to “refute the facts” (as Sean Hannity might put it), is that these were meaningless votes by a do-nothing Congress that would have been vetoed anyway, or the like. Sorry – not a good non-answer-answer. If this legislation was “meaningless,” the question gets even bigger, that is, why did Edwards consistently vote with the Republicans against Hillary and the rest of the liberal Democrats on all of these progressive proposals?
Again, now that John Edwards stands safely outside the Senate record, he finds it easy to take potshots at Senator Hillary. Oh well, that’s not really so hard to understand - seeing how he opposed her (and most other liberal progressive Dems) quite often when he was the Senator from North Carolina.
Heh, I have no problem with this because there are no honest republicans.
It's like when I say "I could vote republican!"
Well sure I could, but the kind of republicans I'd have voted for haven't existed in decades. So its all theory.
Wapiti wrote on December 4, 2007 9:48 AM:I'm not sure if the field of very talented Democrats is so limited that he'd need to go outside the party, but it might be helpful in reducing the animosity between parties.
The Departments of Defense and State are closely tied to the President and the new direction for the country. Putting a Republican in these positions would be a statement that Democrats can't do the hard jobs... Those two positions should be filled by a Democrat to ensure 100% synchronization with the President's policies.
Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 9:49 AM:I just wish this guy would go back to being a pi lawyer in north carolina and let obama knock off clinton II. Some posters were talking about this guy being the vp nominee again?????? He can't even carry his own state. Why on earth should he be chosen as vp? What does he bring to the table? Zippo.
savvy wrote on December 4, 2007 10:12 AM:I like these remarks by Edwards.
Edwards is showing like Obama that he can work with all Americans independent of party affiliation for the good of America to get things done.
Edwards and Obama are both saying they want to be President of the UNITED States of America not the democratic President of the Blue States.
Obama has the leadership and courage to engage all points of views on the issues.
Only Hillary wants to keep the partisan bickering and fighting going. What was her new phrase at the J-J dinner...turn up the heat?
Hillary jsut wants to be polarizing she doesn't actually care about getting anything done...everything witll be politically calculated for her to ensure a second term. The interests of the American people will not be the first priorty. If he were she would have never voted to go to war.
colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 10:26 AM:savvy:
Yes, Republicans will see how much Edwards and Obama are willing to pander to . . . uh . . . I mean . . . work with them, and they will be so choked up with the spirit of brotherandsisterhood that they will reunite the country behind this inspirational Democratis President. No thoughts of 2012 will enter their mind because President Barack Edwards has brought us all together once more.
As example, we only have to look at how Senator Kennedy reached across the aisle in a bi-partisan manner to assist Bush and the Republicans in passing No Child Left Behind legislation. A year later, Kennedy was still trying to pull the knife out of his back after being shafted on the funding promise part of NCLB.
Call me colonpollyanna.
loki wrote on December 4, 2007 10:46 AM:Colonpowwow,
Many people simply and mindlessly buy into the Republican/MSM narrative about Clinton: She's really a Republican or she's Republican-lite, Bush-lite, no different than Bush/Cheney...etc. Reading comments in these threads is often no different than reading some of the threads in Freeper land! (A little less violent in here, though!)
No amount of reasoning, no amount of putting out facts will make a difference to most of them. A few open-minded indiviuals might take a second look and rethink things. But for most of them--and the worst are the Obama supporters! Ugh. Calling them fatuous doesn't begin to describe them...not all, of course, but many. (I actually really like Barack Obama. I'd gladly vote for him if he were the nominee...but spare me from his supporters!)
To actually hear people say shit like "I don't know where Hillary stands on issues because she won't tell us!" That's just remarkably ignorant. They are living in that bizarre little microcosm of purity that is "hope" and "change."
*puke*
Thanks anyway for the list above.
votenic wrote on December 4, 2007 1:36 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
I agree with Edwards. Hell I have been reading many Republicans writings and books the last six years who are completely in shock by the direction that this administration has taken this country. Kevin Phillips, Pat Buchanan, Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'neil etc.
What is with the folks over at Firedoglake who threaten and lecture anyone who wants to use moderation and negotiations as a strategy. Often I think some of these bloggers are no different than the folks on the extreme right. When Elizabeth Edwards disagreed with Move On's Petreaeus Betray us add Firedoglakes Jane Hamsher blew her top and ripped Elizabeth Edwards to shreds for having her own opinion and perspective. Jane warned Elizabeth that you should never, ever agree with conservatives on these issues, as if Elizabeth Edwards is some idiot who had fallen out of line with these so called progressive bloggers. I found Jane's rant ridiculous, and way out of line.
Yes Edwards is right on with considering and being inclusive of all perspectives. We do not need more of the Bush administrations and FDL's "our way or the highway" strategy.
Kathleen wrote on December 5, 2007 11:46 AM:Right on Edwards! I have been reading plenty of Republicans books and articles for the last six years. Many of them are deeply concerned with the direction that the Bush administration has taken this country. Kevin Phillips, Pat Buchanan, Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil ("The Price of Loyalty"), Paul Ford, etc. Why play the Bush administrations "our way or the high way" losing strategy.
I have also been deeply alarmed by the "our way or the highway" strategy of some of the so called progressive bloggers. When Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher hammered Elizabeth Edwards for disagreeing with Move On's Petraeus/Betray Us add. She ripped on Elizabeth Edwards for falling out of line with what Jane defined as the progressive agenda. She told Elizabeth Edwards that you must never agree with the conservatives,,,never. As if Elizabeth must fall into line with the other so called progressive and Janes FDL fan club. I found Janes rant on this as rigid and radical as the far rights rants.
I support Former Senator Edwards statement that he will include Republicans in his administration. I also have a great deal of respect for Edwards not taking Pac money. He seems to have pissed some folks off. Good
