He’s said it once before, and now John McCain has reiterated his intention of asking Democrats to serve in his Cabinet. Marc Ambinder has the scoop from McCain’s speech that coincided with the release of his “2013″ ad below:
If I am elected President, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. I will listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse. I will seek the counsel of members of Congress from both parties in forming government policy before I ask them to support it. I will ask Democrats to serve in my administration. My administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. I will hold weekly press conferences. I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them. I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.
Great idea of bipartisanship? Another move that shows McCain doesn’t care about conservatives? A good idea to get this country moving forward again? What do you think?
Granted, I like some of what he’s saying in here. Weekly press conferences would be a good idea (although few would watch them), and going before Congress to take questions a la the British style of government would just be fun to watch (although I’m not entirely sure what it would accomplish). But I was really hoping McCain’s old pledge to appoint a Democrat to a “high profile” and “important” position in his cabinet “with the President’s ear” was just an empty campaign promise.
Now that it looks like he’s serious, who would you recommend to the McCain campaign, and for what positions?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Bill Clinton has Sen. Cohen is his cabinet. And anyway, maybe he is talking about Lieberman.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I look at McCain’s speech, Bush’s comments today in Israel (which are unreal), and some comments by GOP congressmen yesterday and it seems the GOP is in a panic and making matters worse. McCain’s speech is Twilight Zonish because he is describing some utopia in four years without one single parallel idea how to get there. If he had said I will do x and hopefully by the end of my first term we will have achieved y it would make sense.
And then when you listen to what he is actually describing you wonder what party he is in. Amnesty, cap and trade, troops out of Iraq – what in the world is going on?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:38 am
If we’re going strictly on who I like and not what I find practical, Joe Biden should be there somewhere. He’s moderate, intelligent, respectable, and according to most accounts, McCain and Biden are pretty good friends outside of the Senate. However, as long as Iraq is going on, I don’t think Joe Biden would even think about working in McCain’s administration. Wesley Clark falls along the same lines.
Obviously there’s Joe Lieberman. Mary Landrieu, Daniel Inouye, Mark Pryor, and Ken Salazar also would make good choices. The Senate’s really the only place to find respectable, moderate Democrats. Everyone I can think of except for a couple in the house and governorships are partisan hacks.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I do not want any moderate Democrats, they must be Conservative if they are Democrat at all.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:50 am
You can always pull Democrats who agree with the specific aspects of your agenda. My ideas for “bipartisan” members of his cabinet?
Secretary of Education — Zell Miller – College professor, bipartisan US Senator, did great things for education as Governor of Georgia. He’s a solid nominee with a good background even if he wasn’t supported by most conservatives in general. Ignore his recent years of stumping and look at who he was before, and he’d be awesome in this role.
Secretary of Commerce — B. Thomas Golisano – Up until 2006, Golisano was the strongest force in the Independence Party of New York also providing George Pataki with his only electoral defeat in the Independence Primary for Governor in 2002. Golisano switched to the GOP in 2006 at the request of NYS Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and…John McCain. Golisano is ridiculously wealthy and worked his way to the top all on his own. He founded Paychex and completely revitalized the Buffalo Sabres. His ideas to help develop commerce at home would be great.
Secretary of State — Joseph Lieberman – Odd place for old Joe, but I don’t think he’s super qualified for too many other positions. But, as a voice for America who will support the President internationally 100% on foreign matters, Lieberman excels. He’s got a good demeanor and has shown that he can still be friends with the likes of John McCain, George W. Bush, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton simultaneously…I think he can handle the niceties of our allies and has shown in the past that he has the backbone to stare down our enemies.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Terry McAuliffe, Nuclear Waste Inspector
May 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I like the idea of the POTUS receiving questions by members of Congress. I sometimes watch the Q&A with the british parliment on c-span. It is informative both of what the prime minister is doing/will do and what the opposition wants to happen. A little sunshine wouldn’t hurt here.
As far as bipartisan cabinet appointments, I do not have a problem with that either. Bush kept DOT Sec. Norman Mineta for years as a hold over from Clinton. If a little bipartisan compromise is required to get things back on the right track, what is wrong with that? That is how nearly every decision gets made on anything of consequence. For example, when is the last time anyone here decided to commit years of investment on a new house or an addition without getting the okay from your wife (or husband as the case may be)? You wouldn’t do that if you wanted to stay married. Politics are not that different. If there is no compromise the only things that happen are stalemate, hardened positions and resentment. That is where we are now politically. Who thinks that is working well for us?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
John Edwards, Hair Stylist
May 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Howard Dean, Official Food Tester on state visits to Middle Eastern Nations
May 15th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Democrats serving is the least of the problem here… no doubt Lieberman will serve in some capacity dealing with national security.
But questions from Congress?
This would be an opening that might undermine executive/legislative separation of powers!
As delightful as it is watching the PM wrestle with the House of Commons — I remember watching Margaret Thatcher with glee as a child — it is not worth undermining one of the basic principles of our government — separation of powers.
The President is the sole chief executive and commander in chief. The PM is a glorified MP that serves at the pleasure of the Queen and under the thumb of Parliament, cabinet, etc.
(Can you imagine the United States Chancellor of the Exchequer unilaterally approving the billion dollar bailout of a defunct corporation? Oh, wait, never mind.)
Can you imagine George Washington taking questions from Congress?
Would we have needed to dissolve the government and form a consensus government on September 12, 2001? Would we have had to wait two years for a Churchill type to arise with sufficient moral authority to lead a nation at war?
While the executive branch has dramatically gained power since the Civil War, the legislative and judicial branches have as well… mostly at the expense of the states and people.
These nifty ideas have no regard for the institutions and political philosophies that made our government unique. The problem with John McCain’s patriotism is that it is all emotion and no ideology.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Adam, even if he’s talking about Lieberman, Lieberman is not a conservative. He’s only conservative on the war. He’s basically the opposite of Pat Buchanan on every issue because Buchanan is anti-war but conservative on everything else. I don’t think Al Gore’s running mate belongs in any Republican cabinet.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Though I don’t want Lieberman, I don’t mind a Democrat if they are like Travis Childers who just won in Mississippi. If it’s a really conservative Democrat, it’s alright with me. No current member of the U.S. Senate qualifies, and only a few in the House do.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Clarence,
Yeah – so what? If he is DefSec, why should So-cons care about his position on abortion?
May 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I don’t see how the President going before Congress for a glorified Q&A session on a regular basis (who knows, it could just be monthly or quarterly) is really a big deal or a slap at the separation of powers. He’s using the British system as an example that Americans would be able to relate to…it doesn’t mean that McCain will transform our government into anything outright different than where it currently stands.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“Q&A session”?!? One does not need to look farther than the powers exercised by any branch of government today as compared with its powers as defined by the Constitution to realize that nothing is so simple.
Privileges tend to become traditions, rights, and authorities.
The legislative branch needs no more power over the executive.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Adam, I’m just not the most hawkish of Republicans, so I would prefer someone else as Defense Secretary. Lieberman is pretty close to where McCain is on Iraq though. I didn’t mention abortion, but on pretty much every domestic issue Lieberman is liberal. That has nothing to do with being Defense Secretary though, you are correct.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:41 am
#15. But why can’t it be that simple? I realize the government has overstepped it’s bounds in more or less all that it does on a regular basis, but again…how specifically does this violate the Constitution. If it remains as it’s being discussed as a glorified Q&A session, where does it say that the President can’t do that. The President isn’t sitting in on every meeting of Congress. The President isn’t being asked to vote on issues. The President isn’t becoming like every other member of Congress — I’d imagine it’s more akin to a regular State of the Union address feel to it than anything else.
Right in the Constitution, it clearly states under Article II, Section 3 –
He [The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
As stated, the President is required “from time to time” to provide a state of the union and recommend things for discussion. Why can’t the President ask to do that more often than annually? And if not, how does this violate the Constitution.
There are so many overreaches of power that our government has grabbed (states rights to decide on social issues, the text of many executive orders, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, etc) that this is so minor…if it’s even wrong for them to do.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union” is very different than Congress asking questions.
What happens when a future President suddenly stops… will Congress demand it’s privilege? Will the Supreme Court overturn United States v. Nixon?
May 15th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Last September, when Rudy Giuliani was in Britain, visiting Blair, Brown and Thatcher, he made the suggestion that, as president, he would take a page from the Brits and implement ‘Question Time’ in Congress to help “keep him on his toes.”
May 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I trust that there’s nobody in our little community who didn’t see this coming at least a year ago.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I recommend Mike Huckabee for Health and Human services. He acts like a Democrat most of the time and he’s into the nanny-state/tell people what to do with their lives sort of thing.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I would recommend the GOP make the same deal with Mike Huckabee that the Dems made with Howard Dean. Offer the RNC chairmanship in exchange for a promise not to run for president in 2012.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
McCain should try harder to appear lucent
May 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Aron, you seriously think the Dems made a deal with Dean to get him not to run for President?
May 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Good idea on Huckabee. Even though I don’t think he would be good at it, anything that keeps him from running again would be worth it.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Check your presidential history. There was a time back in the day when Cabinets always had members of other parties. It’s only in recent years, when even saying hello to a Democrat gets you written out of the party, that the idea of a multi-party Cabinet sounds innovative and historic.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Liebermann would be a fine choice for Secretary of State. At an absolute minimum, he’d be a better cabinet pick than Norman Minetta.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I give him kudos on promising openness, transparency, and working across partisan lines. The promises of openness and transparency — actually, as stated, he’s offering a set of visions for the future — contrast with the Bush administrations heavily criticized secrecy. Bush’s lack of openness has done little but make the claim stick that his administration would never listen to any opposing points of view.
I’m a bit dubious about the regular get-together modeled on Britain’s “Prime Minister Question Time.” If you follow the British press, you learn that the whole event is scripted in advance, with each party using its own questions in order for the parties’ chains of command to enforce party-line voting. Of course, this wouldn’t have to take the same shape in our system, especially since our political parties are no where near as hierarchical and centralized.
McCain is saying he’s willing to talk to all Americans, whether they agree with him or not. He’s also eager to talk to our allies. On the campaign trail he always showed a willingness to talk to journalists at length and in detail.
Obama allows only very limited, controlled press access. He has only signaled a sincere willingness to talk to our nation’s enemies. It took him almost two years to talk to Fox News. That’s quite a difference.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Aron, I would support that measure insomuch that it keeps Huckabee from running in 2012, but in all reality, Huck was absolutely miserable at fundraising and organization — something Dean excelled in and why he ended up with the job. We need someone with incredible organizational and fundraising abilities to lead the RNC out of the wilderness…
Let’s find another carrot to keep Huck out of the race in 2012.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Depends on the dem. But, of course, I’m just hoping nothing too bad happens before Romney ’12 =-)
May 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Not one red cent for McCain who just sent some plea for cash so I can go schmooze with George Bush, the Romney’s, and him, love George, love the Romney’s, detest McCain. Not one red cent he can pay for global warming guilt himself.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Clarence,
Re: #24, that was my understanding of how it went down. I’m sure I’ll be able to find some source to back me up.
OK, this will have to do…
As reported by CNN:
Dean has said that he would not use the DNC chairmanship as a stepping stone for another presidential run in 2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/11/dean.dnc/index.html
As reported by politics1.com:
During the DNC campaign, Dean promised he would not run for President in 2008 if he won the DNC Chair race.