One option that might benefit Harris without creating the possibility of policy harm would be appointing Liz Cheney to be ambassador to Russia. We know that she doesn't like the Russians, and as an ambassador, she'd be executing policy, not making it. Not saying Harris should do this, but if she feels like she needs to appoint a Republican to a prominent role, this one strikes me as doing the least harm.
Unrelatedly, in light of the uncertain prospect that Dems will hold the Senate, I think Biden could do Harris one more solid by conferring with Harris as to whom she would want as AG and then appointing that person immediately, while Dems still have a Senate majority with which to confirm that person. Doing this would, among other virtues, ensure that the prosecution of Donald Trump goes on and goes by the book, assuming Harris wins. (My personal choice would be Sally Yates, but the Dems have a number of strong candidates from whom to choose.)
The proper way to answer that fuking question is to ask the interviewer "Who was the last Republican candidate you asked if he would appoint a Democrat to his cabinet?"
I was annoyed with folks on Twitter last night saying they agree with putting any Republican into a Dem administration. They have lost the right for any such consideration.
Headline of the article linked to: “Kamala Harris Says She Would Appoint A Republican To Her Cabinet”
Sub head: " "I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion," Harris said of her plan to include a GOP voice in her administration if she is elected president.”
But she only said she was open to the idea. Not that she “would” or had a “plan” to do so. This is how the media is trying to force her into doing it.
If she decides the more qualified people for her cabinet doesn’t happen to include a Republican you’ll see how the corporate press howls about her breaking a promise she never made.
The irony now is that any Republican who rejects Trump and supports Harris is dismissed as a RINO. The media wouldn’t actually give Harris much credit for appointing Kinzinger or Cheney, but hey, the former is at least actively campaigning for her — more so than Manchin!
hear hear, I hate how Republicans former behavior gets sanitized in retirement (Bush Bush...) and they get held up as heroes for literally doing the bare minimum necessary to not be an antidemocratic thug(pence, Cheney). While I truly appreciate their willingness to face the Trump mob in service of their values, they helped create the mob in the first place by trying to control others their entire time in government (women, gay people, minorities, non white voters)
I fully understand that those socialist demon rats who lack the necessary cognitive skills should refrain from responding. Bursting a blood vessel in your head when you don’t have that many is a serious matter.
One option that might benefit Harris without creating the possibility of policy harm would be appointing Liz Cheney to be ambassador to Russia. We know that she doesn't like the Russians, and as an ambassador, she'd be executing policy, not making it. Not saying Harris should do this, but if she feels like she needs to appoint a Republican to a prominent role, this one strikes me as doing the least harm.
Unrelatedly, in light of the uncertain prospect that Dems will hold the Senate, I think Biden could do Harris one more solid by conferring with Harris as to whom she would want as AG and then appointing that person immediately, while Dems still have a Senate majority with which to confirm that person. Doing this would, among other virtues, ensure that the prosecution of Donald Trump goes on and goes by the book, assuming Harris wins. (My personal choice would be Sally Yates, but the Dems have a number of strong candidates from whom to choose.)
I’m in favor of just about anything that would replace timid Garland.
💯💯💯
The proper way to answer that fuking question is to ask the interviewer "Who was the last Republican candidate you asked if he would appoint a Democrat to his cabinet?"
I was annoyed with folks on Twitter last night saying they agree with putting any Republican into a Dem administration. They have lost the right for any such consideration.
Headline of the article linked to: “Kamala Harris Says She Would Appoint A Republican To Her Cabinet”
Sub head: " "I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion," Harris said of her plan to include a GOP voice in her administration if she is elected president.”
But she only said she was open to the idea. Not that she “would” or had a “plan” to do so. This is how the media is trying to force her into doing it.
If she decides the more qualified people for her cabinet doesn’t happen to include a Republican you’ll see how the corporate press howls about her breaking a promise she never made.
She literally said "I would," which is a conditional or subjunctive case.
What she did not say was ,"I will."
What she did not say was she "had a plan" to. My point still stands.
The irony now is that any Republican who rejects Trump and supports Harris is dismissed as a RINO. The media wouldn’t actually give Harris much credit for appointing Kinzinger or Cheney, but hey, the former is at least actively campaigning for her — more so than Manchin!
Earn things? That’s not the Republican way. It’s far too much like work.
Republicans: “I don’t need to earn my birthright!”
I clarified it and you argued futilely, so, perhaps, if there ever was one, barely.
Spoken like a true bot.
hear hear, I hate how Republicans former behavior gets sanitized in retirement (Bush Bush...) and they get held up as heroes for literally doing the bare minimum necessary to not be an antidemocratic thug(pence, Cheney). While I truly appreciate their willingness to face the Trump mob in service of their values, they helped create the mob in the first place by trying to control others their entire time in government (women, gay people, minorities, non white voters)
Yes, Republicans need to demonstrate some morality first.
Exactly
Of course the answer to this is, "I would."
The unanswered questions are "who is a Republican?" and Who is a "Republican qualified to be in any US Administration after January 6, 2021"
The short list is very short.
The Socialist Demon Rats have concluded that >>>MAGA<<< Republicans don't deserve a seat at the table because
1- during all pertinent times they have supported and defended the US Constitution (1787) instead of the Communist Manifesto
2- MAGADONIANS know that democracy does not mean SOCIALISM
3- MAGADONIANS object to allowing 15,000,000 unvetted illegals waltz into our country
4- MAGADONIANS object to Socialist Demon Rats plan to ban gasoline, coal and LPG
5- MAGADONIANS object to the Socialist Demon Rats' decision to start a nuclear WW3 in Ukraine
6- MAGADONIANS object to digitazing the currency in order for the government to track our expenditures
IN CONCLUSION the treasonous seditious Socialist Demon Rats are the ones who don't deserve to live in our country let alone seat at the table
⬆️ Determined-to-be-ignorant attention-seeking troll. Do not feed. ⬆️
I just remembered I blocked this person weeks ago. Too much time on their hands, and trolling is apparently their full-time job.
Yeah. Kinda sad, isn't it.
I fully understand that those socialist demon rats who lack the necessary cognitive skills should refrain from responding. Bursting a blood vessel in your head when you don’t have that many is a serious matter.
🥱