This sounded batshit insane till I read the concluding suggestion. McCain at DHS could be kinda neat if he flexes his libertarian side.
However, I have no reason to trust that he would though, and I'm not sure he's agile enough to react to a situation like Katrina or 9/11 with the speed and precision needed. I suppose it's possible he's lees like a shotgun when he's not campaigning, but it's really hard to tell with this post-election context still hovering in the room.
Hell no, after reading Newsweek's inside story of the campaign. The last thing America needs is a Sectary of Homeland Defense who loves a crisis and wants to be seen as a maverick pirate.
Way back during the primaries I harbored a little fantasy of a McCain-Obama ticket. They both talked about reaching across the aisle and I figured Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. I had bought the maverick story and I hated how he was treated in 2000, but then I read the Rolling Stone article about him. The way he conducted this campaign leaves me with absolutely no desire to see him in any position of power whatsoever. Not only should that kind of dirty-tricks campaigning not be rewarded, but it certainly wouldn't signify "change" at all. There are plenty of talented Republicans and independents who Obama can call on to create a Lincolnesque "team of rivals" without falling back on the same people who have been in power for decades.
Well he's in Chicago today to meet with Obama so you might get your wish, Nattie. Obama has a good bit of political capital to spend so if he wants to appoint McCain (or even Palin there I said it) to something I'm going to trust his judgment. And seriously, I'm enjoying this strange unfamiliar feeling of trust that my president is making rational, well-thought-out decisions. It won't last forever, but I'm going to enjoy it while it does.
What's with these implied consolation prizes? McCain for DHS, Clinton for State... Do they still need to be bought off?
I agree with headnsouth -- surely, there's someone else out there who can act as that bridge between the parties, who doesn't nearly have the same amount of baggage.
No Nattie, I also think it would be a good spot for him. However, I am also extremely concerned and mistrustful for the reasons that brandonb, butserstick and headnsouth enumerate. One of the reasons I feel so betrayed by McCain is his utter sellout to the Repubs this round; I wonder if he can overcome that either politically or personally.
But the post is like a made-to-order checklist of his key issues-- immigration, ethics, security, and torture. Here's another thought to kick around-- what about the U.N. for McCain? (Have at me!)
Yeah, I think there's good reason to have some concerns. I have more reservations about Clinton being Secretary of State, though, oddly enough, and I like Clinton a great deal more than McCain.
From what I've read about McCain and his campaign, I got the impression that he tried it his way and lost in 2000, so the next time around he just listened to anyone who told him what to do. Since that didn't work either, I don't think he's likely to want to kiss Republican ass anymore. Towards the end of the campaign it seemed to me -- though of course I could be reading too much into it -- that he didn't like where it had gone and wanted to go back to his old self.
One thing that I still feel would be problematic is that he's quick to anger, or so everyone says. But I'm not sure that there would be as many opportunities for that to arise if he's not having to campaign or broker votes and whatnot. Also, I think that Obama could deal with whatever shortcomings he may have.
So I think McCain would be a good choice for Secretary of Homeland Security. He'd be more removed from electoral politics, and it's something I think he would be good at. Also, I really do think that the huge political statement it would make would be a good way for Obama to kick off his presidency. There are a ton of Republicans out there that aren't even willing to give Obama a chance yet, and I think that would thaw some animosity. Given all the problems we have, and given that Obama campaigned on getting past partisanship, I think he can use all the allies he can get. (Which is why I'm glad he took it easy on Lieberman, even though I'd have liked to see him reamed.)
I'm trying to keep in mind that if we're truly going to get past partisanship, it means that Obama is going to have to give some say to people liberals don't like. I think that's going to work a lot better than alienating them. I know a lot of people voted for him for just that reason, but now it's time to realize it's not just a noble idea and put it in practice. Now, I know some people just have reservations about McCain in particular, not all Republicans, and you don't want Obama to appoint McCain to something because it's important he not wreck it. That's understandable and should give anyone pause. I really don't think McCain would wreck it, though. I think he would do a good job overall.
However, I have no reason to trust that he would though, and I'm not sure he's agile enough to react to a situation like Katrina or 9/11 with the speed and precision needed. I suppose it's possible he's lees like a shotgun when he's not campaigning, but it's really hard to tell with this post-election context still hovering in the room.
I agree with headnsouth -- surely, there's someone else out there who can act as that bridge between the parties, who doesn't nearly have the same amount of baggage.
But the post is like a made-to-order checklist of his key issues-- immigration, ethics, security, and torture. Here's another thought to kick around-- what about the U.N. for McCain? (Have at me!)
From what I've read about McCain and his campaign, I got the impression that he tried it his way and lost in 2000, so the next time around he just listened to anyone who told him what to do. Since that didn't work either, I don't think he's likely to want to kiss Republican ass anymore. Towards the end of the campaign it seemed to me -- though of course I could be reading too much into it -- that he didn't like where it had gone and wanted to go back to his old self.
One thing that I still feel would be problematic is that he's quick to anger, or so everyone says. But I'm not sure that there would be as many opportunities for that to arise if he's not having to campaign or broker votes and whatnot. Also, I think that Obama could deal with whatever shortcomings he may have.
So I think McCain would be a good choice for Secretary of Homeland Security. He'd be more removed from electoral politics, and it's something I think he would be good at. Also, I really do think that the huge political statement it would make would be a good way for Obama to kick off his presidency. There are a ton of Republicans out there that aren't even willing to give Obama a chance yet, and I think that would thaw some animosity. Given all the problems we have, and given that Obama campaigned on getting past partisanship, I think he can use all the allies he can get. (Which is why I'm glad he took it easy on Lieberman, even though I'd have liked to see him reamed.)
I'm trying to keep in mind that if we're truly going to get past partisanship, it means that Obama is going to have to give some say to people liberals don't like. I think that's going to work a lot better than alienating them. I know a lot of people voted for him for just that reason, but now it's time to realize it's not just a noble idea and put it in practice. Now, I know some people just have reservations about McCain in particular, not all Republicans, and you don't want Obama to appoint McCain to something because it's important he not wreck it. That's understandable and should give anyone pause. I really don't think McCain would wreck it, though. I think he would do a good job overall.
I'm excited to see what happens, either way!