Interesting question on 'The Cafferty File' (CNN) :

[pinto]

4 p.m.: How far would a bipartisan cabinet go toward easing some of the gridlock in Washington?

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/situation.room/

(on edit) Posed in relation to Gov. Richardson's suggestion of a bipartisan cabinet (actually tripartisan cabinet, Dem R and Ind) as well as cabinet heads with real time experience in their field, i.e. a veteran as head of the VA, a farmer as head of the DOA, etc.

[lpbk2713]

1. I doubt if you could find any rethuglicans who could work in bi-partisan mode.

Looks good on paper but it would never happen.

[pinto]

5. Yeah, tend to agree, with today's R party. I think I'd rather see a broad spectrum of Dems.

We have a lot of good people to choose from.

[w8liftinglady]

2. I'm curious to see what people write-I have a feeling they will say"not much"

[pinto]

6. I am, as well.

[tekisui]

3. nowhere.

It would make the cabinet as ineffective as the Congress.

[yardwork]

4. Bi-partisanship won't solve our problems. Impeaching and arresting criminals will.

[pinto]

7. See your point, but if these don't happen, we still have a tomorrow, i.e. a Dem Administration,

to plan and work for.

[OHdem10]

8. Interesting.-----The Media always think Symbolism

will make a difference.

I find it interesting that no one asked such a question when
everything was GOP controlled. Just when it looks like Dems
might get an advantage---Put GOP in the Cabinet. Cynical, are'nt I?

Please excuse me but I have such a reaction and not a good
one to Richardson. He has become a worse panderer and such a suck
up than Joe Lieberman.

Now, I have in the Past here posted:

It might be wise to assemble a group of Dems and Republicans
including Liberals as Foreign Policy to establish a NEW FOREIGN
POLICY. Formulated by both parties, this should make it much
more acceptable to Americans and create less reasons for fighting
between the parties. I see this as separate from Campaigns and
elections.

[NewJeffCT]

9. If you want competent people to head agencies...

you're kind of out of luck when it comes to finding a competent Republican - I think the last one died a few years.

[pinto]

12. Yeah, the R party seems a raft of sycophants.

[CT_Progressive]

10. Yes, Bi-Partisan. As in, "Do it our way".

[ieoeja]

11. You don't have to be IN the administration to work WITH the adminisntration.

Likewise, the next administration will not need Republicans IN the administration to work WITH Republicans.

[rasputin1952]

13. What is even a little more striking is that ferreting out all of

the bushies that are in positions far from obvious power. Anonymous, but powerful just the same...namely appointees and hirees that have been placed in the bureaucracy.

There are people in the re that can conveniently "lose" items, ensure they never come about by any of many devious means. These people are the real threat. We can hold some accountable if we know who they are, but when they are buried beneath the layers of the bureaus they are in, they can play a powerful role. Like moles, they work best when never exposed.

[pinto]

15. Yeah, that's been insidious, across the whole federal structure. It's

truly a big loss (and unexposed, as you note.)

In my parts, the BLM is a major player - there are millions of acres of BLM land in CA. Their lead folks are now mere partisan party players, not 'managers for the public land'. It's a shame. (on edit) Teddy Roosevelt, nominally an R, would be outraged.

[Prefer]

14. They could hold hands and sing Kumb Bay Ya...

Maybe sponsor a few non-binding resolutions that fail.