How many Democrats did George Bush hire as part of his Cabinet?

Exactly how many Democrats did that great uniter, GWB, appoint to cabinet positions back in 2001? I think the correct number is zero. I think that for Obama to appoint one Republican would be one too many.

Counting the political affiliations of appointees has nothing to do with bipartisanship.

Fuck. The. Republicans.

They destroyed this country. May they rot in hell.

Somewhat related: I think people have to understand the difference between policies your pursue and the makeup of the cabinet. In other words, just because you hire ex-Clinton folks does not mean that you'll get Clinton policy. They will be executing Obama's policy. So, until I see proof that Obama is doing nothing new in terms of actual policy, I'll ignore the critics.

"For one, Gates is not a sharply partisan figure. "

So it's not good enough for Obama to appoint a moderate Republican as, say, Secretary of Transportation. Nope, it has to be a "sharply partisan" Republican, and they have to be appointed to an important post. What are they thinking, Tom Tancredo at Health & Human Services?

IOW, as always, the Democrats have to bend over backwards to be nice to the Republicans or be called mean, while the Republicans spit in the Democrats' faces without penalty. Not only that, but Democrats have to go further than Republicans did to get the same credit for being "really" bipartisan.

Where's all our trolls to tell us how left-wing the media is?

This is just media prattle. Obama has an agenda. He needs to hire the best people he can to accomplish his goals. He can't hire people for show, because this is a working administration, not a ceremonial one.

How is he supposed to find a Republican who agrees enthusiastically with his policies? How many are applying for the job, abandoning their cherished greed based ideologies for a chance to champion the cause for a more forward looking, progressive, 21st century America?

What a bunch of hooey.

How many Republican cabinet members does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two: one to screw it up and the other to cover up the screw-up.

"I'm curious, how many Republicans would Obama need to avoid the appearance of "tokenism"?"

The answer is simple: 15.

The Republicans see themselves as the government in exile. There will be no satisfying them untill they're back in complete control.

I suggest that he tap John Boehner for court jester. That should appease the Republicans, shouldn't it?

To answer lisaintexas, and for the record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_that_crossed_party_lines

Elections have consequences. No Republicans should set foot in the WhiteHouse for 4 years.

The correct number is 14. A better number would be 15, but that would really upset Progressives. Tell the GOP to go to hell. They FUBARed this country and if given a chance would continue to do so. They should be made to change sheets in the White House and scrub floors in the Senate for their preposterous management of the Government under the rule of Bushit and company. That said, I'd try to find space for Lugar and maybe Pawtucky (sp.) from Minnesota. He seems to be a clear thinking Republican.

I think the person who KNOWS THE MOST ABOUT ENERGY
should be the DOE chair. She's also a repugnacan.

Guess who?

Seriously, Obama gets to pick his cabinet, let him do so. So far I haven't winced.

We have had idiots and fools run our country into an economical black-hole.

The road back is a long one. Gates can be the token repub.

After the awful history that has recently unfolded, hopefully the Texans willl discontinue sending their Republican trash, such as Tom and George to Washington.

Actually, the Great Uniter DID appoint one Democrat to his cabinet. That would be Norm Mineta in that key post of Transportation Secretary.

FYI, I believe the only other person to appoint a member of the opposite party to a major (e.g., State, Defense, Treasury, Atty Gen) cabinet post was... Bill Clinton, with William Cohen (R-ME) as Secretary of Defense. Clinton even appointed a Republican (David Gergen, late of the Ford administration) as his chief of staff.

Like Saint Zak said, the Repubs will be happy only with all 15 cabinet positions...

based upon their track record, i don't think any republicans should be in his cabinet.

Perhaps we should be conderned with the number of actual progressives (rather than centrists) in Obama's cabinet.

As for Politico - more wingnut welfare. I'm glad Steve got this gig, he's earned it. Martin just shows that it pays to fellatiate Republicans.

Most of time, the "smartest people he can find" may turn out to be Democrats.

Given how few examples of Republican intelligence can be found in the past eight years, they'd pretty much have to be.

While the US is a center-left country, it's not a liberal country. Obama being not only a Black Muslim*, also has the additional burden of being labeled a liberal by the press. He has less room for error than any president in history.

But by keeping on Gates, importing a bunch of snowcroftian disciples and maybe appointing one or two non-southern flyover country Republicans into the cabinet he's doing three things.
1) Getting the Washington Press on his side.
2) Further divide the GOP because the Rush Wing will start calling all these Republicans as traitors. The GOP will soon be left with nobody but dixiecrats.
3) All his policies will be framed as "pragmatic" solutions and not liberal policies.

Sticking to cabinet appointments only, the Wikipedia list includes:

Mineta - Transportation - Bush
Cohen - Defense - Clinton
Bennett - Education - Reagan (then Bennett switched parties)
Schlesinger - Energy - Carter
Connally - Treasury - Nixon (then Connally switched parties)
Dillon - Treasury - Kennedy
McNamara - Defense - Kennedy
Mitchell - Labor - Eisenhower
Durkin - Labor - Eisenhower
Stimson - War - FDR
Knox - Navy - FDR
Key - Postmaster - Hayes
Stanton - War - Lincoln
Habersham - Postmaster - Jefferson
plus a few UN Ambassadors

"Most of time, the "smartest people he can find" may turn out to be Democrats."

That may be. Certainly, these days at least, stupid people tend to be Republicans.

This Jonathan Martin is also all in a dither because Obama hasn't been going to church lately.

What a turd.

Pretty rich for Bartlett to criticize anybody's bipartisanship.

For one, Gates is not a sharply partisan figure.

He was considered too partisan when he was nominated CID under Reagan, as I recall. Secondly, if Reps want to argue that the Iraq War is going well now, shouldn't they be thrilled with Gates?

Also, I don't know if he's a Rep, and NSA is not a cabinet department, but James Jones did endorse McCain.

Convene a blue-ribbon panel to study and identify the repeat media offenders, then pass a law requiring a bold-faced disclaimer at the beginning of their every article: Pay no attention to me, I'm just a republican hack.

Gates is not enough because Democrats always choose Republican DoD heads. Or at least, that's what I am assuming the point here is.

Anyhow, I am contemptuous of Obaman choices.

Thanks much for the Wikipedia entry; gotta get to that more often!

However, what struck me was that it still remains only Democrats who have appointed Repubs to the "big 5" cabinet positions. In the only instance where that occurred when the roles was reversed was Nixon appointing Connolly as Treasury Secretary; and he switched parties after being appointed.

Dan Bartlett,
Go fuck yourself and die!

jmart's bipartisan concern is noted.

perhaps he should just mosey off to that rustic cabin for a holiday break. i'm sure his beloved st johnnie has the tablespace.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/12/griffin/

Dan Bartlett, George W. Bush's former communications director, supports the idea of keeping Gates around, but told Martin, "Choosing one or two token Republicans in lesser Cabinet positions won't pass the smell test."

It's hard to believe that Bartlett actually made a living as a communicator, but then look who he worked for.

I find that even one Republican is adequate to stink up any room.

It would be nice to see at least one token liberal social democrat in the cabinet.

Does this whining mean that the right isn't confident enough that their burrowed Republicans will be able to render sufficient internal chaos?

Since the GOP has made it their practice for the past 20 years or so to play down intelligence and play up the lowest IQ denominator how can Obama pick intelligent republicans. Republicans and intelligence seem to be a bit of a oxymoron.
Still I think Chuck Hegel would fit into a Obama Administration.

I have to second the statement by redrover. The first thing that I thought of when reading the problem of not having enough Republicans in the cabinet was "Where in the name of God are they going to find capable Republicans who would satisfy the wingnuts?" The Bush administration was characterized by two things, excessive secrecy and incompetence. There is no way in this universe that a rational person would chose one of them for a position of importance if that person wanted to solve problems.

If someone every makes this complaint again, that person needs to suggest a Republican who has a record equal to or better than the people being considered now. They just DO NOT exist.

Bernie Sanders for chief of the EPA. Bipartisanism is Democrats and Socialists -- Republicanism is dead.

I agree... Obama should appoint as many sharply partisan Republicans as Bush appointed Democrats of the same description.

Shut up, Republicans. You've done ENOUGH damage.

Just. Shut. Up.

"Won't pass the smell test?" How many Democrats were in the Bush administration? Has Bartlett ever heard of the term "beggars can't be choosers? That he or Martin should choose to complain because there might not be any right-wing Republicans in the Obama administration - I just want to laugh in their sorry faces. Boo f---ing hoo.

A note to Ted76. If we didn't send them to the Federal Level, we would be stuck with them here. Can you imagine what we are suffering with the assemblage of complete toads we have now!!? And we didn't send the worst of the lot to Washington. We have a collection of real losers running the state now the likes of which you can't imagine.

Pick up a copy of the Texas Observer, Molly Ivins' workplace, at the local library or on-line (www.texasobserver.org). There is a reason that Texas is now the most polluted state in the nation. We are even giving Alaska a run for its money as the most politically corrupt state in the nation. It says something that 62% of the Texas electorate (not the brightest lights on the Christmas tree) realized that Gov. Goodhair aka Perry should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Where is Ronny Earle when we need him?!

rege! LOL - I have the most incredibly funny picture of Boehner in my mind dressed in a jester's outfit...bells on his pointed little shoes!

This is rather like the argument that says that investment banks in part-public ownership should be allowed to continue to pay large bonuses because otherwise "all the top talent would leave". That, presumably, being the "top talent" which has landed the world with the biggest financial mess in half a century. Obama is being asked to include Republicans because...they've done such a good job for the last 8 years?

As noted above, no president since Kennedy has appointed more than one person from the opposing party to his cabinet.

Additionally, there just aren't that many qualified (i.e. sane) Repulicans around. Aside from Powell, Hagel, Lugar, and maybe Spector, who's left that you'd actually want to consider?

One of the consequences of the GOP being taken over by right-wingers is that there simply aren't very many sensible Republicans left in office to consider.

Obama never committed to more than one Republican cabinet appointment, and I think even that's one too many--although I think Hagel or Lugar would be okay, I just don't see why every Democratic president is obligated to appoint a Republican SOD.
I'd say that he should give no more than what the uniter George Bush gave to the opposition after losing the popular vote--Secretary of Transportation--but considering the big infrastructure bill likely to be passed, I'm afraid a Republican would screw that up as well. I can't think of another post that I would trust them with, they're all pretty important at this time. Interior? No way in hell. Energy? Not for the party of fossil fuels. HUD? Since when did Republicans care about urban development? Labor? haha. Education? Not for the party that wants to kill public education.
Maybe we should stick with appointing highly competent people from the same party as the president who was just elected in a landslide--you know, people who actually support his policies.

HUD? Since when did Republicans care about urban development?

Jack Kemp cared, which was why he got fired by George HW Bush. Kemp actually thought his job was to increase homeownership for minorities and not just trash the system.

He's an unrepentant supply-sider, and he wasn't able to actually get anything done, but some of his ideas about housing and urban development were pretty good.

Texas Aggie 1:07

There are some bright and shinning spots, in the recent past, that I am familiar with, viz., Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, and the favorite of all progressives Molly Ivins.

I thought the Republicans lost.

"...As but one of countless examples, Steny Hoyer told The Hill yesterday "that bipartisanship will be a priority" and the 33 new Democratic members of Congress "were elected on promises of bipartisanship." In The Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein complains about "escalating partisan conflict" and "hyper-partisanship" and claims that "American politics has been polarized as sharply as at any point in the past century."

Whatever else one might want to say about "bipartisanship," there is nothing new about it. By definition, it does not remotely constitute "change." To the contrary, the last eight years have been defined, more than anything else, by overarching bipartisan cooperation and consensus.

Where is the evidence of the supposed partisan wrangling that we hear so much about? Just examine the question dispassionately. Look at every major Bush initiative, every controversial signature Bush policy over the last eight years, and one finds virtually nothing but massive bipartisan support for them -- the Patriot Act (original enactment and its renewal); the invasion of Afghanistan; the attack on, and ongoing occupation of, Iraq; the Military Commissions Act (authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, abolishing habeas corpus, and immunizing war criminals); expansions of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity; declaring part of Iran's government to be "terrorists"; our one-sided policy toward Israel; the $700 billion bailout; The No Child Left Behind Act, "bankruptcy reform," and on and on.

Most of those were all enacted with virtually unanimous GOP support and substantial, sometimes overwhelming, Democratic support: the very definition of "bipartisanship." That's just a fact.

Moreover, Bush's appointments of judges were barely ever impeded, resulting in a radical transformation of the federal courts...."-Glenn Greenwald.

Including the same people who brought us this disaster to correct this disaster when they are rooting for failure to take back power is just stupid. Fuck the DINOs too.

Tomj,

How many Republicans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Why bother with lightbulbs, when you can screw the world!

Grumpy wrote,

Sticking to cabinet appointments only, the Wikipedia list includes:

Bennett - Education - Reagan (then Bennett switched parties)

This is a bit of a stretch. Bennett might have nominally been a Democrat, but he clearly states in his own books that that's because he never bothered doing much about it. On the other hand, he co-authored a paper for the Heritage Foundation in late 1970s. When his name came up for appointment, someone recommended that he should talk to HF president, Ed Fuelner. Fuelner suggested that Bennett should familiarize himself with HF positions if he hoped to survive the nomination process. Bennett responded that not only was he familiar with HF, but wrote a paper for them with Ed Delattre (both were students of John Silber at UT at one point). Feulner shook his hand and from that point forward there were no obstacles to his nomination.

What this suggests is that Bennett was never really a Democrat--he might have registered as such, at some point, but his policy views have always been on the Right and he fit perfectly with Reagan's neo-Nixonian cabinet.

So I would take issue with Wiki. At most, one can say that Bennett was an independent, but even that is a stretch. Calling him a Democrat appointed to a Republican cabinet is a joke.

What is particularly galling is that Gates is being portrayed as a RINO. Given that he's had cabinet-level appointments in two Republican administrations, that is a preposterous claim. He may be more of a realist--not quite in the Scowcroft mold--but NOT being a neocon does not make him a non-Republican. This idiocy of message discipline promoted by the Bushies and their followers (or is it leaders?) has really gone too far.

Republicans whining about cabinet appointments? Convicted murderers frequently complain about prison food, too. Ignore 'em.

Stupid and arrogant makes for a bad combination. One notes the use of private aircraft by the car company boys going to D.C. with their hand out; naturally, they are Republicans. The outgoing president and most of the rest of that party are the same. The slimy Republicans have gotten their asses kicked in the past two election cycles and they haven't learned a thing. "Recalcitrant" fits right in there with stupid and arrogant. "Humble" isn't in the lexicon.

Their fellow traveler Lieberman is cut from the same cloth. One understands somewhat why Obama is doing these sorts of things, but one will also be very disappointed if he doesn't choose very wisely. Imagine the uproar if he ended up having to fire one of the assholes.

Obama seems to value intelligence and skill very highly. It's therefore going to be very difficult for him to find many high profile Republicans for important posts. Gates might be the best option, although as any long-time member of the intelligence community will tell you, you don't ever want to turn your back on him. Another endearing Republican trait, it seems.

I realized what this is all about at lunch this morning. It isn't about whether Obama has enough Republican appointees, or whether those appointees are 'Republican enough.'

This is about perpetuating the Republican love affair with victimization in which they can then have an excuse to oppose Obama's policies.

Make no mistake about it. Republicans will fight for their party survival over what's best for America. If Obama is able to enact his policies and these policies succeed (Republican's greatest fear), the Republican party will be even more marginalized than it is now.