Harris says she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet if elected
www.nbcnews.com
In a clip of a CNN interview scheduled to air in full Thursday night, Harris said she was committed to welcoming diverse points of view.

“I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion. I think it’s important to have people at the table when some of the most important decisions are being made that have different views, different experiences,” Harris said. “And I think it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my Cabinet who was a Republican.”

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    0·
    17 days ago

    Removed, post continues to use the strong verb “pledges” which does not appear anywhere in the article.

    Poster was requested to change the language multiple times.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    0·
    17 days ago

    Editorialized headline, correct it or we’ll have to remove it.

    Headline reads: “Harris says she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet if elected”

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      0·
      17 days ago

      Look at the link (the actual URL) - you will see it still shows most of the language of the original headline - which is as I posted it.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        0·
        17 days ago

        No where does it use the word “pledges”, which is a stronger promise than what any of the copy reads and what she actually said. I am once again asking you to correct the headline.

        Your current headline is misleading.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        0·
        17 days ago

        Which is why I’m giving you a chance to correct it rather than removing it outright.

        This is the 3rd ask. There won’t be a 4th.

  • kescusay@lemmy.world
    0·
    20 days ago

    People freaking out about this are forgetting that Biden did the same thing, and it turned out well. He pulled several Republicans out of elected office and put them in jobs they were legitimately qualified for, without giving them power to directly shape policy.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      List some.

      Biden has no Republican cabinet members (notably not a position “without power to directly shape policy”). The only Republican appointments I can think of were Powell (bad choice, already in the position) and Wray (also bad choice, already in the position).

  • penquin@lemm.ee
    0·
    20 days ago

    Ngl, I’d be ok with Kinzinger. Dude sounded reasonable (unless he’s hiding his true shit then I don’t know).

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      He voted to repeal ObamaCare and signed a pledge not to vote for any climate change legislation that would raise taxes. When leaving office he categorically stated that he still believed conservative policies were best for the country but that he can’t support MAGA in any way. He didn’t see the light on policy, he just (rightfully) thinks stopping Trump is more important.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      I really hope you’re right. There’s no point in trying to cooperate with people who are acting in bad faith. I’m not saying that’s all of them, but it certainly a good chunk.

      • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
        0·
        20 days ago

        Honestly I’d give it (Vetrans Affairs) to Crenshaw if they could vet him. MAGA is already calling him a RINO. IMO it’s a bigger bomb in the midst of the Republican party.

        Give Kinzinger Homeland Security, keep a tight leash (he supported DACA). Two Republicans. OMG I’m such a centrist.

        Really I want to see the Republican party tear itself apart. I think it is ripe for it.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      0·
      20 days ago

      There’s practically no reason to do it then. Sure he’s a decent guy but really he’s not much of a Republican and most others on the right would call him a turncoat or worse. At that point it would just look like he said all he said just to get a cabinet position.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      Guys, chill. She’s talking about kinzinger or one of the other like 3 decent republicans.

      Decent people aren’t Republicans anymore. I know he stood up to trump, but what’s his stance on Trans rights? Book bans? Abortion? Free School Lunch? Healthcare? Taxing the fucking rich?

      Unless he’s literally a Republican in name only, he’s not going to do anything but tip the scales further to the right than Harris herself does. Walz gave me hope, then this shit.

      • eran_morad@lemmy.world
        0·
        20 days ago

        Bro. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the Prez. No appointee can just go balls-out and wreck shit.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          0·
          20 days ago

          They’ll just make conservatively flavored decisions regarding corporations and regulation and social rights. Cabinet staff matters, and there’s plenty of room between “balls-out” bad and “good”. At absolute best a Republican is going to give us reliable centrism, but there are plenty of Democrats for whom that would be their worst and we might actually see Democratic policy enacted where possible.

          All to impress the vanishing handful of “good Republicans” at the expense of all the Democrats who don’t feel the need to rehabilitate them for the shitty ideas they had well before Trump.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          0·
          20 days ago

          The very reason they exist is to advise the President. If I wanted Republicans advising anyone, I’d vote Republican.

          • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
            0·
            20 days ago

            Honest question, without judgement. What would a Republican secretary of Veterans Affairs do that you would find so objectionable?

            Would it change you mind if I made the (admittedly, hopefully not so) wild claim that by giving that person some power, you could destroy the Republican party forever. They would be put in history books next to the Whigs.

            • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
              0·
              20 days ago

              Would it change you mind if I made the (admittedly, hopefully not so) wild claim that by giving that person some power, you could destroy the Republican party forever.

              It might if you could back that claim up. (And I’m not saying you can’t, just that I don’t see how.)

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              0·
              20 days ago

              No, because that claim is not remotely connected to reality. This isn’t even the first time a Democratic president has appointed a Republican cabinet member. Thinking that would be the death of the Republican party is insane.

              And the parties have difference on the VA! It’s socialized medicine involved in reproductive and gender care for veterans while being a prime target for privatization. There isn’t a cabinet position where there aren’t political differences.

            • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
              0·
              20 days ago

              What would a Republican secretary of Veterans Affairs do that you would find so objectionable?

              I assume they would argue to privatize things and further attempts to dismantle the very concept of government. The republican party has no good ideas.

              • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
                0·
                20 days ago

                Also, I imagine they would look for ways to deny benefits to transgender veterans, veteran survivors of sexual assault who got discharged under corrupt circumstances, and other veterans they dislike for hateful reasons

    • IHawkMike@lemmy.world
      0·
      20 days ago

      This was exactly my thought. Everyone up in here like she’s gonna make Marge secretary of education.

  • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
    0·
    20 days ago

    Why are all the top comments ITT freaking out about this?

    It’s a cabinet position, a common tactical gesture to steal another cohort of moderate Republican voters that are looking for safe alternatives to voting Trump-Vance.

    These are historically proven tactics and it’s clearly working here, which is good because winning by a big margin will help mitigate the predicted GOP election interference.

    So anyway, would it better to lose than for a token Republican to be given a mostly symbolic position in the cabinet?

    Of course not. So why all the kvetching?

    • shastaxc@lemm.ee
      0·
      20 days ago

      I never liked that saying; it doesn’t make sense. It makes it sound like cutting off your nose is dumb but spiting your own face isn’t… Why would you spite your own face?

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      So anyway, would it better to lose than for a token Republican to be given a mostly symbolic position in the cabinet?

      Of course not. So why all the kvetching?

      Because I reject the false dichotomy that those are the only two choices. Because nearly all Republicans either stood by while Trump raged like a bull in a china shop when he was in power, and waited until it was very, very clear that it was a sinking ship to oppose him. Because the 3(?) who opposed him earlier on were still people we’d have not wanted in any position of influence as Democrat voters or progressives before the recent several years long clownshow made them look like decent people in comparison.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        0·
        19 days ago

        Also, there’s a lot more wrong with Republicans than just whether they allowed Trump to happen. Like we have a whole ideology about what the right way to run society is that even the nice Republicans reject.

      • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
        0·
        20 days ago

        OK I hear you but

        Because [not fair, tit for tat]

        Sounds like an insufficient reason to pass up a tactical advantage. That would be “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face,” wouldn’t it?

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          0·
          20 days ago

          Hey it’s politics - tactical advantage wins over integrity every time, I get it. I can still be pissed off though, right? She’s getting my vote, do I AT LEAST get to be angry about it without being told to shush?

          (Not by you specifically.)

          • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
            0·
            20 days ago

            For sure, it doesn’t feel just to offer olive branches to folks who haven’t earned it. I don’t know if I’d be emotionally mature enough to do it, but I’m glad to have a candidate who can keep a cool head and do what it takes to win.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          0·
          19 days ago

          This assumes that announcing you’ll give Republicans power is a tactical advantage. That’s the whole core of the false dichotomy.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      19 days ago

      No, it’s every FBI Director. Because Democrats like to agree that Republicans are just better on law and order.

      AGs are usually of the same party as the president, though you could be excused if you thought Merrick Garland was a moderate Republican.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    20 days ago

    The only thing swing voters are going to think is “if Harris admits that a Republican makes the White House more effective, shouldn’t we elect more of them?”

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      0·
      20 days ago

      Always? Europe has had plenty of government coalitions with socialists during the last century.

  • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    20 days ago

    of course she’s gonna have republicans in her cabinet. pretty much every democrat ever elected has had republicans in their cabinet

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    0·
    20 days ago

    Continuing the Border Wall and putting a Republican on the cabinet. GOP voters get offerings from both parties. Must be nice for them.