Talk:List of United States political appointments across party lines

Untitled

Please post questions under the appropriate section, if applicable.

Individuals to include??

Louis Freeh

Does Louis Freeh qualify for this list? A Clinton appointee, as I recall he has been cited in the past in media reports as being of the Republican persuasion. But he wasn't in elected office and I don't know about any official affiliation. –Andyluciano 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you could find some reliable evidence that he was a Republican, then he would qualify.—Markles 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan

PBS describes Alan Greenspan as a "lifelong Republican" at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june00/greenspan_1-4.htmlPoshua 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And he did indeed assist Richard Nixon in the 1968 presidential campaign. I've added a line on this to the Alan Greenspan article. --Astor Piazzolla 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

George Tenet

Was he a Republican? He worked for John Heinz, which would suggest so. john k 06:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

George Tenet was a Democrat. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Harold L. Ickes (1874–1952)

Harold L. Ickes should be included. He was a Bull Moose Republican appointed by FDR as Secretary of the Interior and other posts. He was the writer of a diary that was published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_L._Ickes

• Then, O anonymous one, YOU should include him.—Markles 07:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Wolfowitz

The fact that Paul Wolfowitz is a registered Democrat seems of dubious relevance here. I suppose Wolfowitz was a Democrat in the 70s. But has he supported a Democratic nominee for president since Carter in 1980? The guy has effectively been a Republican since the early 1980s, and given the shortness of this list, it seems rather absurd to treat him as still a Democrat because he happens to be registered as one (Among other things, he lives in Montgomery County, Maryland, where many of the interesting state and local races are going to be decided in the closed Democratic primary). I think he should be removed. john k (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia relies on objective standards. It can't just say, "he acts like a Republican, so he's a Republican." Party registration should be definitive. That Wolfowitz is a neo-Con and a favorite of both Bush Administrations makes his story more interesting and more worthy of inclusion on this page. —Markles 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, but he served actively in prominent political appointment positions within Reagan and Bush 41's State and Defense Departments, leaving when Clinton took over. I think it's pretty fair to say he's been a Republican since the Reagan administration. If nothing else, he sure wasn't a cross-party appointment for the third Republican president to appoint him. Rorschachm (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Chic Hecht

Removed Chic Hecht from list. Hecht's ambassadorship terminated on 1 March, 1993 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Ambassador_to_the_Bahamas). This is less than 2 weeks after Clinton's 1st inauguration, and does not qualify as an "appointment", only a delayed discharge of duty. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

David Gergen

David Gergen claims to have always been an Independent. David Gergen, Master of THE GAME, New York Times, October 31, 1993.

List of Political Positions Appointed by the President?

Is there a list of all the poltiical positions appointed by POTUS (i.e. those who "serve at the pleasure of the president") Datapolitical 07:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Positions to include??

Restrictions

Can we perhaps restrict this list to people who have held elective office as a member of the opposite party from the president who appointed them, or were in some other way active in partisan politics? Anybody can call themselves a "Democrat" or a "Republican" - the list becomes rather silly if it includes someone like Bill Bennett just because he was, at some point, a Democrat, and didn't start calling himself a Republican until 1986. john k 05:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bennett is important because:

• The position was political (at least somewhat); and
• He was a Democrat when a Republican appointed him

I think this should be the general standard, with some details further elaborated.

If someone changed party after appointment, then they don't count. We do need a standard. Here's what I've proposed (which is slightly different from the article's current standards, and I welcome further discussion. —Markles 13:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source beyond the Internet Movie Database for Bennett's suppose democrat-ness in 1981? Beyond that, appointing somebody who is a registered member of the opposite party, but has never actually been involved in partisan politics with that party, is not really very much of an appointment that crossed partisan lines. john k 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(proposed) Standards for inclusion

This list includes only:

• appointees whose party affiliation was different from the President's at the time of appointment
• executive branch appointees, appointed by the President
• independent agency appointees

This list does not include:

• independent or non-partisan appointees
• nominally-apolitical appointments (such as Article III judges and military officers)
• members of explicitly bipartisan (or multipartisan) or commissions

How do we determine "party affiliation"? This seems basically useless. What I would want is a list of politicians associated with one party who were appointed to executive branch positions by politicians of the other party. People like Bill Cohen, or Norm Mineta, or, say, David M. Key (not currently listed) or Henry Stimson. These are people with longstanding connections to one party, who were appointed to important positions by politicians of the opposite party. Bill Bennett is some little known academic who was a registered Democrat. Can one provide any sources at the time who noted Bennett's supposed Democratness, for instance? Certainly by 1985, his status as a Democrat was rather attenuated. john k 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Chairman of the Federal Reserve

Paul Volcker was a democrat originally appointed by Carter who was reappointed by Reagan. Since Greenspan is already up it seems that Volcker should meet the same criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.178.236 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Should the Chairman of the Federal Reserve be included in this article, or is it a non-partisan position?—Markles 13:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I added Ben Bernanke to the list as he was reappointed by Obama. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, while appointed to 4 year terms to minimize political pressure, draws to some degree from his political ideology in implementing monetary policy and every President appoints someone to this position with partisanship in consideration. Given that its a appointed office with more influence than most cabinet positions and ambassadorships listed, it should be included in the article.

Secretaries under Multiple Presidents (different parties)

Is there a list somewhere of Cabinet Secretaries who have served more than one president of different parties, as Robert Gates is about to do? Thanks. Simon12 (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Gates

We've got to resolve this Robert Gates thing.

He was first appointed by Bush. He was reappointed (or, rather, not sacked) by Obama. That qualifies under the Greenspan standard, at least.

He may not be a 'registered' Republican, but really, I think using 'registration' as the measure of party ID is far, far too restrictive. To define Bill Bennett as an appointment crossing party lines and not Robert Gates strains credulity. Why go against the popular understanding of what the Gates appointment was -- an appointment across party lines -- in order to serve a completely imaginary standard of what constitutes such an appointment?

You can colour him in grey, if you want, to signify an independent. Fine. But to exclude him from the list is ridiculous; it doesn't give the complete picture. Black Regent (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Black Regent. I think the popular understanding is key. Why not add him to the list, with a note stating that he was technically not reappointed, but asked to stay on? Plainsong (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

David Gergen technically is also an independent, so it would be unfair to not include Gates on that criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.16.120 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So, can he be added now? It's been a while..... -Light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.124.51 (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.173.95 (talk)

Move

This article was wrongly renamed:

• from List of United States political appointments that crossed party lines
• to List of United States political appointees who crossed party lines.

The reason stated by renamer was: "proper English syntax." There was nothing incorrect about "… appointments that…." The article is about the appointment, not the person. Furthermore, the person did not cross the party line, the appointment did. I therefore suggest that the article name either be restored to the old name or a second new name be suggested by an editor. —Markles 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I read the first sentence of the article and otherwise looked around. It sure seems like this is about 'appointees', but I see the counter argument. Whatever people here think is best Hmains (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were about the people, then what was wrong with the "syntax"?—[

Markles 04:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

people are not 'that'; they are 'who'. Maybe not syntax, but whatever. Hmains (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Markles regarding the inappropriateness of the current article name. The article is about appointments that crossed party lines, meaning that the appointer chose an appointee from a a different party.
The term "appointees who crossed party lines" means something entirely different. Appointees are people, and when a person "crosses party lines" it means that the person changed political parties, voted with a different party, or otherwise left the party. This list is not about people who did any of these things.

I propose an alternative name: List of United States political appointments across party lines. --Orlady (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

After thinking it over for a while -- and editing the lead section -- I moved the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Awkward Name

I recognize that the content of this article is interesting/necessary, but the title makes me cringe. "Cross party lines" is such an embarrassing pseudo-metaphor that should be banished from the lexicon or at least quarantined to the talking heads. Wouldn't a better name involve "opposition party appointments", or "out of party appointments" or something to that extent. This title is REALLY cringe-worthy. 129.236.10.184 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of George Washington appointee is technically inaccurate

George Washington never joined any party and was opposed to all political parties, believing that there should be no parties and all candidates should run as independents.

Therefore, it is not accurate to refer to any appointment made by him as across party lines or to refer to him as a party member. 71.109.152.21 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Appointments Across Party Lines Are Uncommon?

I can’t help but notice that the article says, “Appointments across party lines are uncommon”. When I looked at the chart, all of the presidents appointed cabinet members opposite their own party. This doesn’t make any sense. For example, Obama, a democrat, filled up his cabinet with all republicans. Why?

WeirdnSmart0309 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading the table. Since the article is only about appointments that did cross party lines, appointments that did not cross party lines are not shown.

Taking Obama appointees as an example, there are 15 cabinet positions besides vice president. There are only 5 active Obama appointees in this list. Only one of those appointees is a cabinet position. The other 14 appointed cabinet positions are not empty, but because the people holding them are Democrat or independent, they are not relevant to the article, and not listed.

The Presidents in the list did not fill all positions with members of the opposite party, but the relatively few they did appoint are noteworthy, and hence, this list. Hope that helps. --Pevinsghost (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Other notable appointments that crossed party lines

What's the point of this section "Other notable appointments that crossed party lines" ?

Shouldn't those be merged up into the table?

Sagecandor (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Table has been ruined, please fix it.

What happened to the table?? It's been totally ruined. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 12:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jared Kushner

Hi, I tried to find a reference for Jared Kushner's political affiliation and I have not found any reputable source that explicitly says that he is a Democrat. Sure, he has donated to Democratic candidates but that does not mean his political affiliation is Democratic. I wanted some clarity on whether we can still keep Kushner's name in the list of Democratic appointments made by President Trump.FlyingBlueDream (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

FlyingBlueDream, this article is from NBC, is only a few weeks old, and asserts without equivocation that Jared Kushner *is* (not merely "was") a Democrat: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-rising-powers-white-house-n739126 AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of United States political appointments across party lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307075024/http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/06/05/faith/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/06/05/faith/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

John Doar

Republican John Doar was Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights from 1961 to 1965 and Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights from 1961 to 1965. While he started with the Eisenhower Administration, the bulk of his service was under the Democratic administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. I tried to add Doar to the list at the cusp of where Kennedy ends and Johnson begins, but I kept messing up the formatting. Could someone a bit better at this than I am add John Doar to the article? Thank you. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Kushner, again

This is a persistent issue on this page. Kushner was not a Democrat when appointed. There are multiple reverts that falsely say he was. [1] [2] [3]. The source placed in the article did not even support the conclusion that he was a Democrat--just that he wasn't a Republican. So as for whether these claims are true (He was quite famously a Democrat), (As reliably sourced in his Wikipedia article, Jared Kushner was a Democrat when President Trump appointed him to office), the answer is no. Urve (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)