-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Should Biden have Republicans in his cabinet?
- Thread starter Khoryos
- Start date
- Status
I'm torn but leaning no. On one hand the divisions in this country need to be healed. On the other, it's not like Obama doing this did anything for that divide.
Of course the color of Obama's skin definitely played a factor in those GOP'ers widening the divide.
Of course the color of Obama's skin definitely played a factor in those GOP'ers widening the divide.
Another aside here ...
The person who reports a story is not a source. If an author at politico writes a story speculating about which Republicans could be added to a Biden transition team, that author is "not a source." The "source" is the person who the author of the article interviewed to write the article. In that case, the person interviewed was an unnamed "former Republican house member" who is not on Biden's transition team. The article was pure speculation.
Still, it can be fun to speculate. I speculated in the other thread that Biden could name Charlie Baker to some post in HHS, which would then open up the 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial election for a Democrat. This is unlikely, though, because Baker hasn't (and probably won't) endorse Biden before the election. It'd give Democrats a chance at putting a progressive in the Capitol, which seems unlikely if Baker chooses to run again in 2022 (which he may, he has no role in a national GOP, and the next senate race in MA isn't until 2024 and he likely wouldn't win that if he ran). If Baker surprisingly did come out and endorse Biden, then I'd actually expect he would get nominated to a technocratic position in a hypothetical Biden Administration. Whether Biden should nominate Baker to an HHS position? Well, not unless Baker endorses Biden. Hypothetically, if Baker endorsed Biden, I think Baker would be a qualified person for a HHS position... Baker worked on Obamacare expansion/public option for low income in Massachusetts under Deval Patrick, he was the CEO of Harvard Pilgrim, and he's been on the board at Beth Israel Deaconness........ His healthcare vision is not that different from Biden's, and Massachusetts has had one of the better implementations of Obamacare (MassHealth). Politically... and for more devious reasons... It'd also get Baker out of the governor's office, and I don't think that his Lt. Governor, Karyn Polito, would be as effective in a 2022 race... AND there's no one else in the Massachusetts GOP who is capable of winning statewide office against someone like Maura Healey.
Healey could be a future presidential candidate for the Democratic party, or like, at least someone high up on a future ticket. Governor's office in MA from 2022-2026+ would be a good stepping stone and she wouldn't have to run for the Senate (either an uphill primary that she'd lose against Warren or Markey, or if Warren resigns at some point, a challenging run against possibly Ayana Pressley).
So how's this for speculation? Yes. Biden should add Charlie Baker to HHS or some other position, which will then serve as the first domino in Maura Healey's quest for world domination as the first openly gay women to be at the head of a major party ticket in American history.
As my post was quoted in the previous thread about this for why it was locked, guess I'll repost for a new thread:
Page 1 reminder that this Politico article is sourced to a single un-named "former Republican house member" who is not on Biden's transition team
And nothing else.
The person who reports a story is not a source. If an author at politico writes a story speculating about which Republicans could be added to a Biden transition team, that author is "not a source." The "source" is the person who the author of the article interviewed to write the article. In that case, the person interviewed was an unnamed "former Republican house member" who is not on Biden's transition team. The article was pure speculation.
Still, it can be fun to speculate. I speculated in the other thread that Biden could name Charlie Baker to some post in HHS, which would then open up the 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial election for a Democrat. This is unlikely, though, because Baker hasn't (and probably won't) endorse Biden before the election. It'd give Democrats a chance at putting a progressive in the Capitol, which seems unlikely if Baker chooses to run again in 2022 (which he may, he has no role in a national GOP, and the next senate race in MA isn't until 2024 and he likely wouldn't win that if he ran). If Baker surprisingly did come out and endorse Biden, then I'd actually expect he would get nominated to a technocratic position in a hypothetical Biden Administration. Whether Biden should nominate Baker to an HHS position? Well, not unless Baker endorses Biden. Hypothetically, if Baker endorsed Biden, I think Baker would be a qualified person for a HHS position... Baker worked on Obamacare expansion/public option for low income in Massachusetts under Deval Patrick, he was the CEO of Harvard Pilgrim, and he's been on the board at Beth Israel Deaconness........ His healthcare vision is not that different from Biden's, and Massachusetts has had one of the better implementations of Obamacare (MassHealth). Politically... and for more devious reasons... It'd also get Baker out of the governor's office, and I don't think that his Lt. Governor, Karyn Polito, would be as effective in a 2022 race... AND there's no one else in the Massachusetts GOP who is capable of winning statewide office against someone like Maura Healey.
Healey could be a future presidential candidate for the Democratic party, or like, at least someone high up on a future ticket. Governor's office in MA from 2022-2026+ would be a good stepping stone and she wouldn't have to run for the Senate (either an uphill primary that she'd lose against Warren or Markey, or if Warren resigns at some point, a challenging run against possibly Ayana Pressley).
So how's this for speculation? Yes. Biden should add Charlie Baker to HHS or some other position, which will then serve as the first domino in Maura Healey's quest for world domination as the first openly gay women to be at the head of a major party ticket in American history.
As my post was quoted in the previous thread about this for why it was locked, guess I'll repost for a new thread:
Page 1 reminder that this Politico article is sourced to a single un-named "former Republican house member" who is not on Biden's transition team
And nothing else.
Last edited:
Biden should pick the best and most experienced people for his cabinet. I trust his judgement and if picking Republicans is something that will create more opportunities than not then so be it.
Republicans that like Trump? No. Republicans that didn't? Sure, if they are qualified. Not every position has to be liberal or conservative leaning.
Didn't that big thread that was just locked determine that the source for that article is one ex-House Republican or something like that? Not the transition team?
Anyway sorry I don't mean to derail, just was curious if there was a better source than that.
You mean that article that was sourced from a republican who isn't even in the biden team.
ot, probably not.
ot, probably not.
If he wants cooperation from the GOP in congress and try to heal this torn apart country, then yes. He has the final say on everything. No harm in throwing a bone.
Fuck no! I always find it weird that democrats always try to appease republicans when republicans never care what democrats think.
Except Obama did that and they still told him to fuck off at every opportunity. And Mitch will still be there during Biden's term.
If he and his team thinks a particular Republican is a good fit for some part of the Executive Branch? Yes, of course they should.
How the hell is this suddenly an issue? Did no one watch the Impeachment proceedings? There are, believe it or not, procedurally-focused Republicans who are good at what they do and don't get in the way politically.
How the hell is this suddenly an issue? Did no one watch the Impeachment proceedings? There are, believe it or not, procedurally-focused Republicans who are good at what they do and don't get in the way politically.
That article was
Doesn't change the fact that a lot of that thread was people bending over backwards to justify why it would be a completely fine and normal and good thing if he did.
It's not, by the way. It's really fucking not.
I'm all for him selecting whoever the fuck he thinks is going to get the job done, be a good partner, and upright the ship.
Blind ideology is how we get into shitty situations - people are broadly on a political scale... if there's a "Never Trumper" who has been outspoken, and proven to be moderate... then why not have them?
Cabinet secretaries ultimately support the President's position and implement their policies - it's still coming from Biden and his trusted people and advisors.
It's not like he's going to pack it with Bush-era war mongers.
Blind ideology is how we get into shitty situations - people are broadly on a political scale... if there's a "Never Trumper" who has been outspoken, and proven to be moderate... then why not have them?
Cabinet secretaries ultimately support the President's position and implement their policies - it's still coming from Biden and his trusted people and advisors.
It's not like he's going to pack it with Bush-era war mongers.
If Germany had voted Hitler out successfully, should his successor have had Nazis in his administration?
Nah man, get them as far away from power as you possibly can.
Nah man, get them as far away from power as you possibly can.
If they have the ability to pack the court or at least tie the numbers and they don't take it I'm never voting for Democrats ever again.
I think it's a reasonable expectation. Since they're gonna kill the ACA and just about any religious agenda will start to take over with a 6-3 court.
I think it's a reasonable expectation. Since they're gonna kill the ACA and just about any religious agenda will start to take over with a 6-3 court.
If they are able to do the job well and apply Biden's vision, and if it helps some segments of the nation back to the table, I don't have an issue with it.
Never-Trump Republicans are still Republicans. They disagree with him on demeanor, not on policy.
He should staff cabinet positions with people who are most likely to execute that duty to the best of their ability and to the betterment of all Americans. If he and his advisors honestly think a Republican would do that, then I guess why not.
Yea exactly. I don't see why this is being lauded so much just for one proposing article. The discussion itself is a fair one to have without added biases, but it just seems pointless to base off that.
Then it's a good thing they'd be hilariously outnumbered in a Democratic Party Executive Branch, eh?
You can't expect to heal a country with partisanship. Like asshole republicans or not, we still have to live with them.
the thread on this was just closed because of Politico's shitty sourcing.
it was also pretty narrow in its list of Republicans. he's not putting any Congressional Rs on his cabinet or something.
it was also pretty narrow in its list of Republicans. he's not putting any Congressional Rs on his cabinet or something.
I'd rather not have them there at all. There's no benefit.
- Status