There’s been a lot of teeth gnashing and instant analysis of *why* Susan Rice withdrew from consideration as Secretary of State. I’m going to do something novel and take her at her word. She avoided most of the meaningless cliches in her WaPo op-ed, nothing about wanting to spend more time with her family or any of that rot. Her focus was sparing the administration a fight it did not need at this point and I believe her.
While I don’t think Obama should shy away from scrapping with the Republicans, he cannot fight *every* battle and this one just wasn’t worth it. I’d rather he stand firm on taxes, medicare, spending, and the fiscal curb/slope/cliff thing. Fighting with Boner and Chinless Mitch is important whereas duking it out with Senator Walnuts and his hobbit-like sidekick Little Lindsey is not. Besides, I’ve been a Kerry man throughout the process anyway.
The worst thing about this imbroglio is that it’s been fought out over the dumbass trivia that the beltway MSM-particularly in what Charlie Pierce callsTiger Beat On The Potomac-loves: personalities, Sunday shows and fake testosterone. In fact, there was a substantive liberal case *against* choosing Rice, which was made by Chirs McGreal in the Guardian:
But the Libya debacle aside, Rice was under increasing scrutiny over her
record of militarism, including her support for the invasion of Iraq,
her backing of authoritarian African leaders and her description of her
post as ambassador to the UN as being intended to provide “unwavering
support for Israel”.<snip>
After Rice was appointed as Obama’s ambassador to the UN, she strongly
backed military intervention in Libya; she has also pressed for American
intervention in Syria.Rice has also said that “there is no daylight” between the US and Israel over Iran’s nuclear programme. Her supporters say that merely reflects the White House position.
The irony is that she has a hawkish track record that Walnuts should love but she mocked him during the 2008 campaign for wearing a flak vest whilst touring a “safe” souk in Baghdad. And Walnuts nurses a grudge like a demented mama bear licking her wounded cub. That’s what the Benghazi frenzy was really about.
I’m glad Big John will be getting the nod. It’s better to have someone of independent stature succeed Hillary than someone who is essentially a gifted staffer. I’m also less worried about his Senate seat being re-taken by Scott Brown than most people. He ran an awful and mean-spirited campaign this year, which accenuated the negative and made him look like a douchebag, tool and malaka. Besides, veteran Democratic Congresman Ed Markey seems poised to run and he’s no Martha Coakley.
On the bright side, I’d rather see a special MA Senate election sooner rather than later. Our guard is still up.
What I find most interesting is that the same party that thought what the “Swift Boat veterans” had to say in 2004 disqualified Kerry to be President, but now seem to have no problem whatsoever in his becoming Secretary of State.
If you believed the Swift-boaters in 2004, how can that not be a problem eight years later?
I can only conclude that they are equally sincere in their 2012 criticism of Susan Rice as they appear to have been in their 2004 criticism of Kerry.
I agree completely. Everything John McCain does is driven by personal pique. That’s why he was so “moderate” for a few years post-2000.
Watching this morning’s Toady Show, Mrs. Greenspan was on to comment on Susan Rice’s withdrawal from consideration. I don’t know quite all the inside information or whether Rice would have made a good Secretary of State or a bad one, but I found a couple of curious points:
1. The popular media’s complete mystification of why Rice would have withdrawn. Gee, we were just getting warmed up with buffeting her around, smearing her record and ginning up the nontroversy over Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. And she just walks away? What’s up withthat?
2. The sudden amnesia about “presidential mandates” and the “will of the people.” Boy, we couldn’t hear enough about that in 2004-05, could we? But now? Well, sure, Obama just won re-election on definite points and issues, and all available polling shows that he is on the public’s side of so many issues. Which means that it’s up to the administration to kowtow to every Republican whimper and burble. In his second term, Bush elevated Condolleezzaa “Mushroom Cloud” Rice to the Secretary of State post, but that was totally justified and anyone delving into Dr. Rice’s record of incompetence was just being mean. Oh, and ignoring the will of the people. Watch the news for an hour, and I’ll bet a shiny dime you won’t hear that phrase pass the lips of any of the sycophantic courtiers of the Fourth Estate as they defend their privileged turf.
last night on TRMS, chris hayes pointed out the irony of rice being trashed for something she said on the sunday gasbag fests by guys who do very little *except* appear on the sunday gasbag fests.
Grampa Walnuts is a vile, vindictive piece of work.
Unfortunately, looking at confirmations in the last few years, I have my doubts that anyone will get a fair hearing. I hope that Rice’s withdrawal does more than just kicks the fight over confirmation down the road to another person but I have my doubts.
Didn’t know about Rice calling McCain on a fake photo op. Explains a lot.
Besides the irony that they are opposing a person with a record of leaning toward militarism, how ironic that Rice is probably one of the most pro-Israel choices Obama is gonna make. And the religious base of the country holds Israel sacrosanct.
“He ran an awful and mean-spirited campaign this year, which accenuated the negative and made him look like a douchebag, tool and malaka”
Unfortunately, this seems to be a list of things that play well to the repub base.
Can’t wait for the 180 the repubs do when Kerry gets the nod. And also too how the MSM will conveniently forget that the same haters ever fell in love with sqaure John in the first place.
@Maple: The good news is that the GOP base in Mass is eenie, weenie like the polka dot bikini of legend.
There’s a part of me that wouldn’t mind seeing if/when, god forbid, another Redumblican president takes office, equal treatment from the Democrats: blanket holds, deliberate gumming up of the legislative process, outright disrespect (“you lie!”) etc. Because I honestly think that’s the only way they’ll understand.
However, like the good librul I am (am also a socialist commie leftist, but…), anyway, because I’m a good liberal, I know that kind of behavior and attitude are just plain bad for the country.
But how do you tell that to a bunch of loonies like the modern GOP?
she should change he mind and say senatorial lynching. her supposed ‘crimes’ PALE compare to condolessa + colon bowell.