Stocking the Cabinet: Who Might Serve in a Romney Administration?

National Journal ^ | 10/19/2012 | By Jim O'Sullivan

[Perdogg]

How so?

[Political Junkie Too]

Another possible pick should Romney seek to strike a bipartisan tone as promised, would be Joe Lieberman, the independent and former Democrat who ran as John Kerry’s running mate in the 2004 presidential race. 

John Edwards was Kerry's running mate. Lieberman ran with Al Gore in 2000.

-PJ

[cripplecreek]

I just have no use for the worshipers. They’re just good slaves on the grand old plantation.

I understand voting for Romney to get rid of Obama but I don’t understand FReepers wanting a moderate mandate.

[1010RD]

Spot on comments by both of you. Bolton is a menace.

[JerseyanExile]

Presidential scandals from previous administrations are always dropped. That's just how it works. First off, the new president doesn't wan't to look like he is taking retribution out his predecessor. And second, it would give the president who comes after him precedent to start airing his dirty laundry. Nothing will happen. People will be dismissed, programs stopped, and so on, but no one involved will be prosecuted. It has happened time and time again - heck, look how Obama campaigned on the pledge of bringing charges against high-ranking officials in the Bush administration. And when he took office, nothing happened.

[PapaBear3625]

and I suppose, the State Department which I generally don't like

What's needed with the State Dept is to

1) Eliminate civil service protection for any job category above file clerk.

2) Fire any State Dept employee who ever went to Harvard or Yale, and replace with people who might actually do what the President tells them.

[Stonewall Jackson]

Fyi

[okie01]

Presidential scandals from previous administrations are always dropped. That's just how it works.

I completely understand that practice and, normally, would expect it to continue.

However, I harbor the notion that Fast & Furious is completely different -- and, ergo, should be handled differently.

Rational people would agree that the Bush administration's alleged crimes ("torture", etc.) weren't crimes at all. To have treated them as such would've criminalized politics and punished what were legally supportable judgments.

But Fast & Furious is not a simple error in judgment: it was an administration policy that directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent people (including, but not limited to, American citizens). Moreover, the policy was illegal on its face. And, more than likely, was expressly designed to subvert the Constitution -- the highest law of the land.

If such brazen attempts at lawlessness by the federal government are not addressed, there is a very real threat that annother administration in the not-so-distant future will stretch the envelope even further.

In my view, Fast & Furious was hardly your garden variety scandal. It was worse than Watergate by, not one, but several magnitudes. I agree that appropriate punishment is unlikely; Obama will surely pardon the chief offenders. But the national posterity demands that the entire sordid story be revealed and the offenders identified.

Otherwise, we risk even further excursions into lawlessness.