When we win in '08, our candidate should get the Cabinet he/she wants.

[Padraig18]

Poll question: When we win in '08, our candidate should get the Cabinet he/she wants.

Simple question.

[jonnyblitz]

1. well, if our candidates appointees arent architects of an illegal

war that they lied about to get us into, then i agree. it's not as generically simplistic as you are trying to make it seem.

[newsguyatl]

8. exactly.

[saltpoint]

2. Good poll, Padraig18. You. Are. Back.

I voted 'Other' because I think General Clark or Senator Edwards or Congressman Kucinich are likely to choose a cabinet consistent with democratic principles.

And because a President Lieberman or Miller, perish the thought, might NOT choose such a cabinet.

If Bush had chosen John Danforth as his Sec. of State nominee, I doubt if 13 U.S. Senators would have voted 'nay.' Since he chose Rice, he got the fight he picked.

[Padraig18]

4. Thanks!

I agree that he could have picked a less-reprehensible nominee, but I still don't think that it has been demonstrated that she is clearly unqualified (operative term) to be SOS.

:hi:

[cestpaspossible]

3. Unless the nominee is demonstrably incompetent and dishonest...for example

[BornaDem]

5. Every president is entitled to name the people he wants to his...

cabinet and if they have been properly vetted and are not incompetent, the senate should consent to them.

[Rowdyboy]

6. Simple answer

Of course

[Poppyseedman]

7. When we win in 2008, it will be most likely with a GOP controlled Senate

The President has the right to choose the nominee. It will be interesting to see how big of hypocrites the GOP senators are, when they get to play the role of so called "obstructionist" when that happens.

I might add the democratic senators should pick their current fights wisely. Fight the ones worth fighting for, not just to make political points that are in the end just symbolic and meaningless to a large majority of Americans.

Fighting Bush, tooth and nail on every issue, will only hurt us in the long run on issues we can't win.

Americans like to see their government working together, they expect differences of opinions to have a airing out so all voices have a say, not to be obstructionist for the sake of being able to.

[robbedvoter]

9. Unless they bring back elections, this is moot. Anyway, the Constitution

require for the Senate to confirm the nominations. I am with the Constitution - remember the days?

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. With evoting machines still in place...there ain't gonna be any

"we win." The repukes are in power until the machines are gone. They own us.

[Walt Starr]

11. as long as the nominees didn't lie to get us into a war

where further incompetence made the cost of teh war higher and the liklihood of winning it lower.

Ohj, and competence. The nominee must be competent, something that cannot be said of two Bush nominees.

[NewJeffCT]

12. If we win in 2008...

If we win in 2008 (I was a pessimist for all of 2003 and most of 2004 until I got swept up in DU optimism the last 2 weeks of October...)

If we win, I am sure Republicans will remember and single out a few Democratic nominees for the Cabinet or other posts based on an out-of-context quote. (i.e., Jocelyn Elders, Zoe Baird, )

[karynnj]

13. Yes, unless they condoned torture, lied us into a disasterous war

or some other completely UnAmerican action. I don't see the Democrats fighting anyone other than Rice and Gonzales.