The problem with being the party of bitter assholes who just say no is that nobody who actually wants to get stuff done will have any part of that. The real question is whether Angus King forced concessions from the Democrats on the filibuster as a condition of caucusing with them. No nuclear option because of fallout but maybe the actual talking filibuster and sequential votes for closure?
Susan Rice shouldn't be sitting in her PRESENT chair, never mind any upgrade. She proved herself inept years ago, and hundreds of thousands of Rwandans may be alive today if we had someone more sensible advising President Clinton almost twenty years ago. Not to mention that she is alleged to have been the one who declined the Sudanese offer to turn over Osama bin Laden. But we just glossed right over all of that four years ago. This latest example of incompetence is nothing compared to the damage she's done in her past work.
Putting aside for a moment the irony of John McCain -- who tried to make Sarah Palin vice president -- accusing anyone else of advancing an unqualified appointment. If the GOP is serious about building bridges with women and African-Americans, then starting Obama's second term by filibustering Susan Rice is a pretty fucking bad way to start. It would be one thing if they opposed Rice for the reasons that you state. Trying to block her from even having a confirmation hearing, and referring to her as unqualified and "not very bright" sends a very different message that will blow up in McCain's face. Especially now that we know that he's been skipping hearings to...demand having a hearing.
It's this type of thinking that fucked Scott Brown and shows why really it isn't in a politicians best interest career-wise to be bi-partisan. Susan Collins is one of the most socially liberal Republicans in the senate, one who's crossed party lines on multiple occasions in an attempt at progress. Yet because she has an R next to her name, it's going to be the mission of the Democrats to get her out of office. I'm not saying that vice-versa doesn't happen, I just think it's problematic that so many call for our politicians to work together, yet the system in place dictates that it's usually a bad career move.
No (although if you're looking for a laugh, compare McCain's statements about the two Rices -- Benghazi is somehow the U.N. Ambassador's fault, but the National Security Adviser apparently shoulders no blame for 9/11.)
Susan Collins best chance to stay in the Senate is to pull an Arlen Spector and defect to the Democrats. She's going to be in the middle of the fight all session long and either alienating moderates and independents in Maine in the process or getting herself primaried by a chickens for checkups idiot and weakened that way. Switching to the Democrats just recognizes the reality that the Republicans have moved away from her on too many issues for her to be a real fit there. She could try running as an independent but the voters will just treat her as whatever party she caucuses with and she'll lose the Republican organization in the process.
Because this session of congress is going to be extraordinarily polarizing. The mid-terms are likely to reinforce redness in deep red places and blueness in blue ones. The reason the Republicans have an issue in the red states, particularly in the House, is that they redistricted in ways that cut the margins dramatically in what would otherwise be completely safe seats next cycle. You don't get 237 reps out of 48% of the vote without taking chances and there are a lot of districts in 2014 that would have been a safe 52-48 red seat even in a minor wave that will instead be razor-thin wins one way or the other. The red senators don't have that issue to deal with. They're still running state wide and so they have comfortable margins to sit on unless an idiot runs a successful campaign to primary them out before the general election. For Susan Collins, she's sitting in a blue region of the country that has been trending even bluer over the last few elections. She's going to have to win a state-wide fight against a well-funded Democrat who will be pillorying her as part of the problem in Washington, and it's going to look like an even bigger problem in 2 years than it does now. She's sitting ok now, but that's in an environment in which she wasn't running yet. Just wait until she actually steps in to test the water this time around.
No, Susan Rice's RESPONSE is why she correctly shoulder's blame. First off, a question: why on earth would we send the United Nations Ambassador to answer questions that should properly be answer by either the State Department, the Defense Department, or National Intelligence? Ever recall seeing that before? Ever? US Ambassador to the UN isn't part of ANY of those departments, and wouldn't normally have any role whatsoever in a matter concerning an attack on a US diplomatic mission. There are dozens and dozens of undersecretaries, not to mention spokespeople, and yet we sent Susan Rice out to tell an incorrect story? It's a fair bet that there was no shortage of finger pointing and confusion, and no single agency wanted to go on the Sunday talkers and be placed in a position where they would throw some other agency under the bus. Second, she emphatically gave an wrong answer. I'm not even ascribing any fault or blame to it. Let's assume that she was only repeating what she was told. We have a right to expect better. We have a right to expect that she wouldn't blindly convey to the public something so profoundly incorrect. She was either incompetent with her response, or she was purposely conveying false information. There's no third option. Even if we weren't sure what did happen, we certainly knew what DIDN'T happen. And yet, that was still the story she gave. Look, it was an election season, and this was potentially damaging. I really wouldn't expect ANY administration to do anything other than obfuscate a true story that might be damaging. Low expectations in our public officials is well earned. But, there's a price. If her only excuse - provided to her by the White House, by the way, since we've yet to hear anything substantive from her - is that she was only relaying what was told to her, then she is unreliable as the head of the State Department, not to mention the fourth in succession to the presidency. I never liked her before. She has more negatives and positives on her international resume. I think that's hard to dispute. This latest bit is just one more on the pile. Why she seems to be every Democrat's favorite campaign adviser is a wild mystery. And then there's John Bolton, whose OPPONENTS even noted how solid his brief tenure at the UN was, even as they recommitted to their nay-votes. Yes, let's please discuss hypocritical standards for appointees.
Republicans should be free to bring up all of those points in a confirmation hearing and vote nay if they don't want her confirmed -- as the Democrats did to Bolton. Blocking a vote on a qualified candidate for Secretary of State is a flagrant misuse of the filibuster (and, for what it's worth, I said the exact same thing when Democrats abused the filibuster to block Bush's judicial nominees.) But in any case, my original point was less about the merits and more about the politics. Voters already blame the GOP for the obstruction in Congress, and women and minorities already feel that they have no place in the Republican party. Filibustering Rice -- and publicly trashing her intelligence in the pettiest way -- is going to piss people off. It's more shortsighted politics from a party that's been unwilling or unable to see what the American people are thinking these days.
Yes, I'm sure. The difference with John Bolton is that few dared question his intellect or competence in international affairs. They mostly said he was an abrasive employer and they hated how openly he talked of UN reform. Which, by the by, it does. 40 years overdue. Painting Susan Rice as inept is easy and believable. The stretch is to call her a liar, which she may very well be, but as I said, I would prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt and simply point out that she is apparently incompetent. It's an easy case to support, and that's before revisit dead Rwandans or live terrorists. She might have encyclopedic knowledge of world affairs, but her judgment on the job seems to always be lacking. While people like you may focus on the politics of a Secretary of State nomination, the vast majority of voters do not. I doubt this is a battle Barack wants to have. I doubt he wants to highlight her television performance on the nightly news. If he does, he'd better have open commitments from his Republican votes, or Susan Rice will be rightly sent to the trash heap of failed nominees.
You don't have to believe me, but it's true. As an unashamed liberal, I happen to like it when government works. You're wrong, this is a fight that Obama would love to have. Did you see him at the press conference yesterday? That's probably the most animated that I've ever seen Obama in a non-stump speech situation. As I said above, women are angry at Republicans for running candidates who showed them no respect during the campaign, black people are angry at Republicans for openly antagonizing them during the campaign, and a plurality of voters believe that Republicans are to blame for the gridlock in Washington. If the Republicans really want to start their post-election rebuilding with a highly public filibuster in which they try to belittle one of the few black women to ever reach the highest levels of government (over Benghazi, which polls have shown is a political loser for their party,) then that's a fight that would please Democrats greatly. Even if Republicans "win" that battle, they will alienate voters and end up stuck with someone they hate (like Tom Donilon) anyway.
Fixed your post. Yes, I see the great boiling enthusiasm greeting the Susan Rice trial balloon. Again, she either lied (or maybe you'd prefer "misappropriate the truth") or she was incompetent (or, perhaps we should say, "didn't appreciate the need to ask critical questions"). All manufactured huffiness aside, the administration understands the optics. Lying or incompetent, no one outside of the studios of MSNBC will enjoy seeing the White House's misguided response to four dead Americans on nightly news.
If Obama's anger was completely manufactured, then that's even better evidence that he's not looking to dodge a fight over Rice. As to your second point, the Republicans' nonstop hyperventilating about Benghazi has not moved public opinion against the Obama administration at all. Exit polls showed that less than 5% of voters listed foreign policy/national security as their key issue in the election, and Obama won those voters decisively (something like 60%-30%, I don't have the exact numbers in front of me.) Obama continues to be the most trusted Democrat on national security in decades. Politically speaking, every second that the Republicans have spent harping on the issue has been a waste of time at best, or damaging at worst ("please proceed, Governor.")
I used to respect you more man, but you're becoming a partisan hack. Isn't it you that's usually wary of boiling down complex situations into a false choice whereby you win the argument by default? In this situation, you cannot simply say that she was either lying on purpose or knew she was being mis-informed and didn't care. That's just a bunch of bullshit and I'm pretty sure you know it. Picture this. 4 Americans have just been killed. There's been massive protests all over the Middle East due to this Youtube video, especially in Cairo, closer to Libya than many people realize. You're the UN Ambassador. The President comes to you and says "I'd like you to address the UN about this; we have some intelligence that indicates that this was a direct response to the video that was leaked." Now, what the fuck are you going to say but: "Yes, Mr. President. I'll present what you give me to the UN?" Even if she deep down believes that there's some kernel of obfuscation, what is she supposed to do? Resign? Go out and tell the UN something different? An ambassador to anything, including the UN, advocates on behalf of their nation and its government, and you're telling me if the President comes to you and asks you to do this based on intelligence they believe they have, you wouldn't?
You'll convince yourself blue in the face..... and then we'll see how naive this was come January. For a couple reasons, but the biggest might just be that Barack Obama is an atrociously bad negotiator. The way he goes from chest-thumping to surrender is remarkable. The way he slinks into the background and allows others to scrum is a favored m.o.. And, as Woodward told us, in Barack Obama's world, any deal is fleeting. It can change in a blink. And did, when he chose to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with John Boehner. And, I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but the president doesn't have a Senate stacked with Obama fans. What he does have is a Democrat majority - but that's about it. He's regarded as an obstacle more often than a dealmaker. So, I don't imagine he will have Democrats lining up to fight a silly battle on his behalf. Especially when one of their own is a rumored candidate. Susan Rice has none of the statesmanship required for the job, and has a ghastly record in international affairs. A vagina isn't enough of a qualification to sport for a fight. Or, if it is, it'll be a fun one to watch. Also, I think it's important to point out that Europe is now in recession and our latest unemployment news wasn't particularly sunny. As the newly reelected president, the guy has about 60 days grace period. Less, if our own economy starts dipping again. His profile is fluttering just hair above "OK". Not great currency if false bravado is your governing strategy.
