At this point, there are five Republicans with degrees of power and influence in the Obama administration -- LaHood, McHugh, Gates, Huntsman, and Leach -- and it would have been six were it not for the unpleasantness with Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). The NYT has an item today on the ways in which these moves have taken a toll on "Republican morale."In picking Republicans like Mr. McHugh for top jobs, the Obama administration says it is assembling a coalition government that welcomes qualified members of the opposition. It gives the White House a claim to bipartisanship despite continuing clashes with Republican Congressional leaders.
But the political benefits are an equally strong incentive. Remaining Republican colleagues become discouraged and feel further isolated in the minority. Political vacancies are created. And Republicans can be painted as being hostile to more moderate Republicans or those willing to engage the Democratic administration.
It works, in other words, on more than one level. They'll no doubt keep doing it anyway, but it's more difficult for congressional Republicans to label the White House as strident partisans, unwilling to take GOP ideas seriously, when Obama has more members of the opposition party on his team than any modern president.
John McHugh's decision to join the administration as Secretary of the Army, though, seems to hurt more. Gates was already at the Pentagon, Leach and LaHood were already out of Congress, and Huntsman was out in Utah, but McHugh was a popular Republican leader in the House. Worse, his departure opens up a competitive House race in New York
These moves demoralize the minority, dwindle their numbers, make the president appear more magnanimous, and give the administration more bipartisan credibility. John Feehery, a Republican strategist and former top House aide, however, hopes to sow some seeds of division among Democrats.
"At some point," Mr. Feehery said, "the liberals are going to catch on, and they are going to have a fit."
Maybe. When the McHugh announcement was first announced, I received a few emails from Dems complaining that they'd like to see fewer Republicans in positions of military responsibility, fearing that Gates and McHugh reinforce bogus stereotypes.
But I suspect we're still a ways from a "liberal fit." The key, it seems, is the policy. If the president is going to work with a Republican Defense Secretary and a Republican Secretary of the Army to a) implement procurement reform; b) reform military spending in general; c) scrap "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; and d) revamp use of the military in the context of improving U.S. foreign policy, my guess is the left will give the Democratic president a reasonable amount of slack.
Think Progress: Gingrich Shifts Rhetoric On Sotomayor, Calls Her A ‘Racialist’
Newt Gingrich attracted a great deal of attention for himself last month when he said that Judge Sonia Sotomayor should withdraw her nomination because she is a “Latina woman racist.”
That rhetoric proved too much for even right-wing Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), both of whom distanced themselves from Gingrich.
So Gingrich pretended to back down. “The word ‘racist’ should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable,” he wrote.
But this morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Gingrich again used the word “racist” but suggested that what he really meant is that Sotomayor is a “racialist”:
When I did a Twitter about her, having read what she said, I said that was racist — but I applied it to her as a person. And the truth is I don’t know her as a person. It’s clear that what she said was racist, and it’s clear — or as somebody wrote recently, “racialist” if you prefer.
Watch it:
A spokesman for Gingirch told Politico recently, “nothing has changed in the structure of his argument, he is just retracting the word racist.” And apparently replacing it with the word “racialist.”
Benen: 'WISE ENEMY'...
The AP reports this afternoon that President Obama's speech in Cairo this week has already begun "undercutting extremists" in the Middle East.
Hamas, for example, was predictably unsatisfied with the president's ongoing support for Israel, but officials praised Obama's "shift in tone." A Hamas spokesperson said, "We think we can build on this speech."
From Lebanese guerrillas to Saudi preachers, Islamic extremists have warned followers not to be taken in by President Barack Obama's conciliatory words _ a sign that some may be nervous about losing support if animosity toward the U.S. fades. [...]
[M]any Muslims were heartened by Obama's speech because they saw it as a significant change in the tone of discourse with Muslims. They noted he did not use the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" once in the 55-minute address -- words that many thought had been devalued under the Bush administration and too often equated with Muslims.
They also heard a more respectful U.S. leader who quoted from the Quran, or Islamic holy book, greeted them in Arabic, and removed his shoes when he toured a Cairo mosque.
One militant Web site that often carries statements from al-Qaida had unusual praise for Obama after the speech, noting his quotations from the Quran demonstrated respect for Islam and branding him the "wise enemy."
It's a start.
No comments:
Post a Comment