Cabinet position for Mitt Romney?

[hawkwing]

[StatsCougar]

Just read a report that Mitt is being considered for Secretary of State (along with Nikki Haley of South Carolina and others). This could be good for Trump to build bridges with the establishment. I think Mitt would be better at Secretary of the Treasury.

[snoscythe]

I think these named being bandied about (Mitt for SoS, Lee for SCOTUS, Cruz for AG) indicate that Trump is a smart guy who knows that implementing what he promised on the campaign trail is going to take either (a) full buy-in from the GOP, or (b) somehow persuading Democrats, especially in the Senate, to buy into his platform. Option (b) is not happening, so Trump has to unify the GOP so that, especially in the Senate, he has enough votes to do what he promised to do.

Making nice with dissenting voices from the campaign is the best place to start. He can't afford to have Lee, Hatch, Cruz, and Paul on the other side when things come up for vote in a Senate where the GOP only holds 51 seats. He needs 100% buy-in from the GOP senators to pass his agenda on a party line vote, and, if rumors are to be believed, he is making the right moves to achieve that, either by removing those he perceives as obstructionists from the Senate by means of appointment, or by patching over differences by those appointments.

[SpiffCoug]

Trump is likely looking for people who know what they're doing and would be serious about governing.

[BoiseBYU]

Mitt would be an outstanding Secretary of the Treasury

[Ddawg]

I think these named being bandied about (Mitt for SoS, Lee for SCOTUS, Cruz for AG) indicate that Trump is a smart guy who knows that implementing what he promised on the campaign trail is going to take either (a) full buy-in from the GOP, or (b) somehow persuading Democrats, especially in the Senate, to buy into his platform. Option (b) is not happening, so Trump has to unify the GOP so that, especially in the Senate, he has enough votes to do what he promised to do.

Making nice with dissenting voices from the campaign is the best place to start. He can't afford to have Lee, Hatch, Cruz, and Paul on the other side when things come up for vote in a Senate where the GOP only holds 51 seats. He needs 100% buy-in from the GOP senators to pass his agenda on a party line vote, and, if rumors are to be believed, he is making the right moves to achieve that, either by removing those he perceives as obstructionists from the Senate by means of appointment, or by patching over differences by those appointments.

Let's see ..... what's that called? Leadership? Building consensus? Organizing strategic change through culture building? Building a team of rivals (I think a book was written about that). Hmmmmm ...... sounds like Trump has had some executive experience eh? Knows how to team build? Imagine that.

[imuakahuku]

This is what I was hoping and what he appeared to be heading towards. He is a good executive which means he surrounds himself with some of the best people he can. I think his experience tells him, he can't do this alone. He needs people that make it happen and that's what it looks like he is doing.
My "pipe dream" was that he would ask John Roberts to step down sometime in the near future and appoint Cruz as Chief Justice. I can't imagine another doing a better job.
I'm still pulling for Lee to get a nomination. And when Ginsburg and Breyer "retire" there's two more. Trump could end up appointing 4 Sup Justices if he serves two terms. No way Ginsburg and Breyer make it another 8 years.

I had a talk with someone in my ward last night who has been out of work for about 5 months. It was so different than before. I told him that within a year he will probably have a pretty good job. I couldn't say that over that 8 years. He was still down but I reassured him it is different now.

[Ddawg]

I had a talk with someone in my ward last night who has been out of work for about 5 months. It was so different than before. I told him that within a year he will probably have a pretty good job. I couldn't say that over that 8 years. He was still down but I reassured him it is different now.

Exactly - a new Sheriff is in town.

I have asked libtard folks that I know for the past 7 years (I gave Obama 1 year to get his "sea legs") what Obama's guiding foreign policy/dosctine was - define it. No one could. Not one of them. Because Obama's foreign policy was a "shoot from the hip" moving target. Never defined.

If I defined Obama's foreign and domestic policy it would be this: Blame America first, apologize often, illegals and immigrants before American tax payers, vapor lock and do nothing, give away the kitchen sink when negotiating with enemies, and treat our allies with aloof disdain.

With George W. Bush we knew exactly his policy and doctrine was. He had the "Bush Doctrine." Defined by guiding principles.

I submit to you, Donald Trump has not even been sworn into office and we know what his foreign policy and domestic policy will be: America and American's first. Protect our interests abroad and create jobs at home.

Obama never had that philosophy.

[imuakahuku]

It's funny how quickly we went to DEFCON 5. Our military was at three just a few weeks ago for only the sixth time in history at three or lower (Operation Paul Bunyan, Gulf war-was at a two, Yom Kipper war, 9/11 -not sure why since I don't know of a reason to think there was a nuclear threat but I guess someone did, and Cuban Missle Crisis with SAc at a two and all others at three. I don't know of a time the US was closer to nuclear war than that but evidently we got close enough to go to three.
Quinn's first law "Liberlism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent".

[BOID]

Kahuku, I have been doing the same. I have family members out of work, and I have been encouraging them: Help is on the way! Lift up your heads and be of good cheer!

It feels so good to be able to say that. It is so good to see the working class, the Country, waking up and shifting alliances.

There was a time, in the Fifties and Sixties, when Democrats represented the desires of prosperity for the middle class. That started to change in the Seventies. Those days are now long gone.

I veritably have come to the conclusion that the Democrat agenda is not to stimulate the national economy, but to suppress it. It is by design. It is their agenda. Their motive is simple: they intend to rule, and it is easier for them to accrue more and more power when the public is weakened. An empowered citizenry is antithetical to their desire to rule.

The time is past for any gesture of benefit of doubt on their behalf. It is time to crush them with an open declaration. A declaration that they are evil.