Oops, started to add Max Baucus to that list, but, he is in the Senate, eh?

Yes, Republicans are well known for their desire for effective regulations to protect consumers. Great hire!

Good grief. What good really will come of this?

What is it with Democrats that they allow Republicans to punch them in face over and over and over and over again? I think a few thrown elbows to the noses and jawlines would not necessarily be a bad thing. Personally, forcing the present Republican party into obscurity (drown in the bathtub to coin a phrase) would be a GOOD thing. Maybe we could get some good governance then.

Trying to get GOPers to openly acknowledge Obama's attempt at bipartisanship is a fools errand of the same sort as attempting to persuade GOPer birthers that Obama was born in the U.S. There's absolutely no desire to recognize reality among a solid majority of the GOP.

Coming from Chicago, Obama should know a mug's game when he sees one.

perhaps the president is sucking up the republican milkshake one not-crazy member at a time. shouldn't take too long.

Yes, Republicans are well known for their desire for effective regulations to protect consumers. Great hire!

I would agree that Republicans as a whole are not, but do you know anything about this particular woman? Yeah, me neither.

As the owner of a dog, an eater of tomatoes and hamburger, don't we consumers need to be protected FROM republicans?

It is without precedent, the extremes that Obama is going through to act on his desire to be a 'compromiser' instead of a 'decider.'

At this point--recognizing that it's still quite early in Obama's administration--I'm beginning to think I'd like to see the kind of scorched-earth tactics that BushCo used throughout their 8 year reign.

They rammed through whatever they wanted to ram through, and Congress scrambled to acquiesce.

Yet then my rational, humanist, dare I say empathic side comes through. The one that says "you can't do that, you can't treat people like they are your mere minions, beneath you, and must do whatever you say." I realize that's what makes me a Democrat, and a progressive.

Republicans just don't operate that way. They're deciders. And they have no reason to be that way, because it works, because no one calls them on it that that's not the way people treat each other. Perhaps it's their authoritarian mindset that precludes any action that is remotely accommodating.

I'm not sure what more the White House can do on this front.

He could give Sarah Palin a job. I hear she's unemployed.

He could give Sarah Palin a job. I hear she's unemployed.

oh geez, don't give him any ideas.

You write: "Also note that the president's efforts haven't generated any goodwill with the opposition party. Obama has added a half-dozen Republicans to his team, and GOP leaders continue to whine about the president being some kind of strident partisan."

But it's an ever smaller party. He's bringing more and more moderate Republicans into the Democratic fold, driving the Repub Party deeper and deeper into a smaller and smaller Confederate South/Mormon West enclave. As moderates are won over, the Repubs become ever more extreme, ever more fearful and mendacious (not to mention racist).

By the way, the Baucus negotiations with Grassley are providing cover not only for the Blue Dogs, but also for the Maine ladies. The longer the process goes on, the more the Repubs will be revealed as liars, cynics, hypocrites, idiots, incompetents, tools of the corporate elite, and/or cold-hearted bastards.

Liberals, for the most part, are too much into WATB mode right now to see it, but some marvelous political "strategery" is unfolding before our eyes.

A final by the way: Has anyone else noticed that Obama has presided over a resurrection of Congress, actual (as opposed to merely rhetorical) bi-partisanship, and a reaffirmation of the virtues of sitting down and cooling off (and tacitly admitting mistakes) with the help of a few beers?

terraformer -- you also have to keep in mind that Democrats are handicapped by the fact that they care whether government works, and Republicans aren't. It's easier when your basic philosophy is that government can never work, so no matter how much you screw it up, you can claim it's not your fault. The things the Bush Administration rammed through had only two kinds of goals -- funneling money to their contributors and cronies, and increasing their political power (either by gaining power directly or by screwing Democrats and their supporters.) Scorched-earth wasn't just a tactic to reach a goal they wanted, it was a goal they wanted.

Appointments like this are not aimed at elected members of the opposition but moderate rank and file members to make then feel it safe to hang with the Dems.

Maybe Obama isn't adding these Republicans to score bipartisan points or appease anyone.

Maybe he's doing it because he thinks their input will help.

(too pragmatic?)

Bipartisanship as defined by the Democratic Party: Accepting input from Republicans so as to assure that legislation can realistically be seen as addressing both parties' concerns.

Bipartisanship as defined by the Republican Party: The Dems do what the GOP says.

So, by this definition, Shrub was the ideal bipartisan President, and Obama is a raging socialist.

-Z

CMcC:
We keep hearing that but what has it gotten us? Watered down stimulus. No action on DADT. Letting DINO whores like Max Baucus run the health care debate. Lets face it. Rahm loved recruiting Blue Dogs. And that could be the undoing of Obama. Besides, what good is recruiting Republicans if we don't get a clean break from Bush policies?

"I'm not sure what more the White House can do on this front."

He's already done too much. Anyone who still thinks Obama hasn't tried to work with the opposition will NEVER change their stance.

Fuck 'em.

He's a uniter, not a divider. Can that be a weakness?

You could say he's alienating all the reasonable conservatives from the Republican party leaving an exaggerated rump of nuts, but that seems to have happened anyway.

I can't quickly find anything describing the prior affiliations of the whole range of Presidential appointments ever, but it extends back to the beginning when the losing candidate ended up as Vice President.

The development of the Spoils System did not end this tradition of making across-the-aisle gestures which I think you can find in every administration up to the last one.

What is important is that Republicans are actively antagonistic to it.

In complaining that he isn't bi-partisan enough Republicans are trying to attack one of his specific strengths. All of their attacks are attacks against Obama's specific strengths, especially attacks on his birth certificate.

By doing it so broadly, on every front, they show themselves as objecting to nothing but who he is in the first place.

I live in Louisville, Ky in Anne Northrup's old district and can only think that the President has lost his mind to appoint her, unless it is dictated by federal statute for some kind of party parity. She is no friend of the American consumer and was a loyal Bush/McConnell hack that voted nearly 100% the strict party line when in Congress. She also followed the party's lies and attacks against Obama during the presidential election. To head the agency is some change we do not need.

According to the news reports, Northup was suggested to Obama by Mitch McConnell, as a Republican commissioner on the CPSC. The current structure of the CPSC requires two Republican and three Democratic members (all consumers are either Republican or Democrat, I guess).

This is one of many polls where I'd like to see a factual test issued first, before the "opinions" are solicited. Preferably, a true/false "Has Obama appointed any Republicans into his administration?" with followed by "Can you name any of them, or their positions?"

Only then am I interested in their opinion. Otherwise, you're just asking a three year old if they're ever going to find the Higgs Boson, and he'll answer you randomly, or based on your tone of voice.

Sure, this is snotty elitism, but fuck these idiots. This type of poll is really just a measurement of ignorance masquering as an opinion. We've brought back the Know-Nothing party, and given them whole TV networks.

All of their attacks are attacks against Obama's specific strengths, especially attacks on his birth certificate.

Huh? Meeting two minimum requirement for the job is a strength?

Offering jobs to people like Gates and Huntsman is just too easy to count as bipartisan these days. I mean, they're sane.

Now if Obama made an offer to Inhofe, I'd be impressed.

Maybe Climate Change Czar?

It's an open secret in Louisville that Northup frequently gets shit-faced in public bars then drives home.

Of course the cops never cite her, but they probably subtly shadow her, which may be the only reason she hasn't killed anybody yet.

The reason Obama appoints so many Republicans is because he, himself, is a Republican mole.

What's the point in electing Democrats if he's going to pack the government with new and retained Republicans? "We won." Who is that again?

Is anyone getting ready to primary Obama in 2012?

Huh? Meeting two minimum requirement for the job is a strength?

No, I meant his bi-racial heritage and immigrant heritage and broadly cosmopolitan background.

Speaking of bipartisanship...I thought it was traditional to clean house in the Justice Dept. upon election of a new admin. Have the Republican US Attorneys been replaced yet?

My theory is that Obama is basically picking up all the competent Republicans (I know, by-and-large that is an oxymoron) left so as to reduce the party to nothing but wingnuts -- more so than it already is.

This way, without any moderates (or competents) in the GOP, it's much easier to discredit them.

ah yes.. 11-dimension chess... but the target it us.

This article and the one it references at The Hill are highly misinformed and misleading. Obama did NOT appoint Northup to be the head of the CPSC. He appointed her to fill one of 2 new positions that Congress authorized last year to expand the commission from 3 positions to 5. He was required to choose a Republican for 1 of the 2 positions and Northup was suggested by Mith McConell.

Obama already appointed Inez Tenenbaum to be the Chairman of the CPSC. She was confirmed in that position in June.

@sittig

So far, most or all of U.S. Attorneys that Bush appointed are still in place but I would expect that most of them will be replaced within the next year. Recent President's have generally requested resignations from all of the U.S. Attorneys they inherit but generally do not accept those resignations and nominate replacements immediately.

When Bush took office, he replaced 91 or 92 of the U.S. Attorneys he inherited from Clinton by some time in 2002 but he didn't appoint the first replacement until August of 2001.

While Obama did not request resignations from the current U.S. Attorneys when he took office but he has made it clear that he will replace most of them. In fact, he announced his first batch of 6 replacements last month.

On the subject of Presidents appointing members of the other party - since the civil service took over most of the Presidential patronage, across party appointments are not very common. Both Presidents Wilson and FDR appointed significant numbers of members of the other party - especially during the periods when they were in the two World Wars. Eisenhower appointed across party lines at the top, and ignored lesser appointments. The three last GOP Presidents left appointments that had to be Democrats by law open as often as possible. One cynical theory is that the Obama is pulling off strong Republicans - all of whom have been generally moderate - because it so weakens the GOP for a time in the future.

Those writing commentaries suggesting that Bush II appointed people favoring consumers need to review that concept - it is essentially always wrong.

John Isaacson
Director, Presidential-Appointments.org

Thank you for your comments Mr. Isaacson. It is nice to have confirmation that appointing members of the opposite party is uncommon in recent decades.

It is particularly disturbing, but good to know and not particularly surprising, to read that recent Repuplican Presidents have violated the intent of the laws by refusing to fill positions reserved for Democrats on independent boards.

I would note that nobody on this thread has suggested that Bush II ever appointed anyone favoring consumers. Except for a few trolls, nobody posting at this site would suggest Bush II or his appointees ever favored consumers or workers over businesses in anything.

He's also losing progressive support as a result of his catering to the party that has brought failure to the nation the past 30yrs. Why if Obama stepped down the republicans would already be positioned to assume power again or soon will be at this rate.

Hiring more republicans (there a reason she was defeated by a dem) while refusing to fire the republican appointed USAs. Getting Stevens R-AK off the hook while standing by watching Siegleman being placed on the hook by a corrupt Rovian system of Justice.

It is the republican ideology we have rejected, including Reaganomics. There were just as many ready and willing and dedicated progressive dems, by a huge margin in fact, that Obama could have appointed to this position so WTF Obama? Just consider; a)republicans ignore your bipartisan reach out (remember-they slapped your hand away when you offered it to them), b)the ideology of republicans is contrary to what the majority of citizens in our nation desire, it's a failed ideology with a 30yr history of being wrong, and c) you are disappointing your base...the people who got you elected are beginning to reject your picks of repubs over members of your own party as if you are going out of your way to prove how bipartisan you are rather than push the agenda of the majority.

I've already lost a lot of respect for Obama for continuing the practices of the Bush administration on civil rights and Gov. transparency. We voted these people out for a reason...30yrs of selling the country down the drain...and here Obama gives them a hand up after doing so. Where are the progressives, what happened to the DoJ, where is the transparency??? Obama forgets how up in arms we were when we voted for change...but how can we have any real change when he is refusing to change the players who brought us the situations we wanted changed.

How can we de-Bushify the gov when Obama fails to replace the loyal Bushies in Justice...and the USAs...or when he keeps appointing republicans to head positions when they are the very ones who, when in power, voted against everything the dems stood for? How can we change the agenda if he won't change the players?

"...Obama already appointed Inez Tenenbaum to be the Chairman of the CPSC. She was confirmed in that position in June..."
Posted by: tanstaafl on July 31, 2009 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks tanstaafl...that changes everything...on Northrup. I am truly amazed that Obama would appoint anyone suggested by Mitch McConnell. The only thing missing on Mitch are the antenna.

Maybe Benen should have dug a little deeper on this issue.

Bipartisanship is a fool's errand when the other party has no intention of cooperating. When will the current leadership come to this realization?