For Republican voting atheists, do you agree with.......

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
For Republican voting atheists, do you agree with.......

Am I the only one who thinks that putting Hillary at Sec of State would be a bad move considering how polarized our country is?

And for those who think it would be a good move, I'd also like you to chime in as well.

The issue is NOT about left or right, but one of pragmatism in that she might be a distraction causing problems to fester instead of getting solved. It is not an issue of her effectiveness, but how left and right would get beyond divisiveness considering that she is a lightning rod.

Thoughts from both left and right............

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
As a republican voting

As a republican voting athiest, I think that bringing Colin Powell back would be an outstanding idea.  Sadly, I don't see that happening but I can dream.

 

Anyway, the position is not really one of any power per se.  She would serve at the discretion of the president and would ultimately be responsible for implementing the policies of the President.  It does not sound like the sort of job that she would likely accept, especially in view of the fact that it is really not a likely route to the oval office.  In fact, the last time that a secretary of state subsequently became POTUS was James Buchannen.

 

In any case, should she accept, she would become Obama's tool, basically little more than an official mouthpiece of the administration.  Her actual ability to do anything on her own would be limited to her role in supervising our ambassadors abroad.  So no, I don't think she will take the job and even if she did, she would not be a position to cause much controversy.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think the best would be

I think the best would be for him to appoint her to the Supreme Court. Hopefully Scalia and Thomas croak. If you read my posts at all, you KNOW I'd probably rip up a million dollars before I'd vote Rethuglican.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

As a republican voting athiest, I think that bringing Colin Powell back would be an outstanding idea.  Sadly, I don't see that happening but I can dream.

 

Anyway, the position is not really one of any power per se.  She would serve at the discretion of the president and would ultimately be responsible for implementing the policies of the President.  It does not sound like the sort of job that she would likely accept, especially in view of the fact that it is really not a likely route to the oval office.  In fact, the last time that a secretary of state subsequently became POTUS was James Buchannen.

 

In any case, should she accept, she would become Obama's tool, basically little more than an official mouthpiece of the administration.  Her actual ability to do anything on her own would be limited to her role in supervising our ambassadors abroad.  So no, I don't think she will take the job and even if she did, she would not be a position to cause much controversy.

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about her abilities, but just the fact if she got the job, that it would polarize congress even more, just because she is so dispised by most voting republicans.

BUT, to extend an Olive Branch, I would have loved to have seen Powel run for President when they asked him, he is level headed and intelegent. I just wish he had pushed back more when he raised objections to Bush and got ignored. Now people are treating him like a traitor when he was simply being objective when he said he regreted giving that testimony to congress.

I think he got the short end of the stick on that deal and he was used.

But I digress. Hillary I think, not her abilities, just her presence will be a distraction and probably not worth it.

It would be different if she had won the office, then she would have the power to put a high profile republican in office to counter what republicans see as partizinship. Whereas I think if Obama puts her in office, it wont matter what her actual job is, but he will spend his time defending the pick while other issues would be far more important. Plus it would make republicans fight back even harder.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
I'm not a republican voting

I'm not a republican voting atheist, but I am curious as to how this will actually turn out. I wasn't expecting him to offer Hillary anything at all, especially since she officially said on the very night of the election that she wouldn't want to play a role in his administration and that she'd rather provide support from the Senate.

But now I think she must seriously be considering it, because both she and Obama are refusing to comment on the question when asked. If the answer were consistent with Hillary's earlier statement, there would be no reason to play cat and mouse with the media. So I can only conclude that it must be true that he gave her the offer and it must be true that she is thinking about it.

I was a little worried when I first saw the news report because I immediately realized, like you said, that bringing in Hillary would seem to contradict the whole bi-partisan washington theme. I've since seen a few news reports that indicate there are certain members of the GOP who are in favor of the idea, though I don't know what the ratio of supporters to decriers might be. I assume most of the GOP wouldn't like it.

But then I ask myself, maybe it comes to the point where Obama has two people in mind for the position, and he has to choose between two outcomes: 1) the person who he feels would simply perform better, or 2) a person who would perform not as well as the other person, but well enough, and would get a more favorable reaction from the GOP.

He said in the recent 60 minutes interview (though he refused to say who) that there will DEFINITELY be republicans in his cabinet and that he'll be making an announcement soon.

So I wonder if maybe he's chosen someone from the GOP for another chair who he thinks will downplay Hillary somehow?

I'm definitely watching this closely.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


davec
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Not even American, but

I don't get it.

 

In traditional European politics, the left are the people parties, they tend to bring in policies that are good for the poor at the expense of 'economy above all' policies of the right.

 

In the US, at least recently, you have had the hard right republicans that screw the poor AND the economy. Bill Clinton, from a foreign perspective at least, seemed to have a good grasp of the economy as well as being slightly socially progressive (by US standards not European).

 

Why on earth does anyone in the US vote Republican?! It just seems like you are begging for policies that screw you twice over...