So I think I owe John McCain an apology, in an earlier post I said John McCain was basically throwing a tantrum over Susan Rice's possible nomination to Secretary of State mostly to get attention for himself. Well I no longer think thats true, in fact I know think McCain was just trying (very badly) to be Machiavellian.
See it turns out, I believe, that John McCain's "tantrum" over Susan Rice is not a tantrum at all, and also has nothing to do with Susan Rice or Benghazi Instead it has everything to do with outgoing Republican Senator Scott Brown.
I know. You dont see the connection between the current UN ambassador and a senator who just lose his reelection bid for his first full term. Bear with me it will all make sense.
Now first we look at what the alleged problem with Susan Rice is, in short McCain is annoyed she said something on a sunday TV show about Benghazi that McCain though wasnt true, but wound up being exactly what the CIA told her to say (see other post for more detail). Now despite no longer even having a flimsy case, McCain is no longer alone in this, Senators Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte have been standing with him since the beginning and recently he picked up support from Sen. John Barasso and Bob Corker. (all republicans)
And to be honest McCain's case hasnt gotten any stronger as recently said he thinks this is the worst cover up since watergate and also said ""We knew in hours of all the details when we got bin Laden, they're making a movie out of it, and [yet] here we are, ten weeks later [i.e., after the Benghazi attack] finally our ambassador to the United Nations, who appeared on every national Sunday show, is now saying that she gave false information concerning how this tragedy happened."
You know why we knew all the details of the Bin Laden raid hours after the fact Senator? 1) we didnt 2) it was OUR RAID WE PLANNED IT. Where as Benghazi was an attack on us. But then again, as my new theory says this actually has nothing to do with Benghazi so it doesnt have to make sense.
Ambassador Rice for her part spend the day meeting with Graham, Ayotte and McCain, all of whom now claim they are less likely to support her then they were before...oddly the few other senators in that meeting are now MORE likely. But then again, this has nothing to do with facts in the first place so maybe the McCain position isnt so odd.
Nor is McCain's "crew" the only ones attacking any more. Sen. Susan Collins (also republican) opened up a whole new line of attack today, suggesting that African embassy bombings in 1998 prove Susan Rice is unfit, since those bombings should have taught her how to avoid Bengazi....which is an odd line of attack, since while its true Rice has some authority over Africa back in 98, she had no power control or ability to do anything about Bengazi at all in her current post as UN ambassador, its totally outside her preview. Which means Collins' attacks have no more substance then McCain's.
So why are they doing this? well just read these excerpts from various tirades about how unfit Mrs. Rice is:
First we start with Bob Corker more or less proving they dont have a real objection to Rice:
"She strikes me as someone who is always on message, someone who is always exactly parroting whatever it is the administration's position is. And I think most of us want someone who is more independent minded. And I think that's how she got herself in trouble that Sunday morning, by coming on and being the head of the DNC instead of really showing that independence - and that's of great concern to me,"t's my understanding that she had access to the classified materials before she went on the air that morning. And it just fuels the perception that I have that she's far better for the administration as a political operative than she is as a secretary of state."
In other words totally qualified just not for this specific job. They dont have an issue with HER they just dont want her as Secretary of State.
So who do they want? well for that we go back to John McCain:
"John Kerry came a whisker of being president of the United States, and that's working in his favor, But I would love to hear him make the case. I don't have anything in his background like this tragedy in Benghazi that would make me really want to carefully examine the whole situation."
And John Barasso:
“If the president wants an easy confirmation hearing and an easy confirmation process, what he would do is nominate John Kerry – who is eminently qualified to be Secretary of State – and I believe he would sail thorough in the nominating process,”
And Susan Collins: “I think John Kerry would be an excellent appointment and would easily be confirmed by his colleagues,”
So what's with all the John Kerry love? well first there is the fact that Kerry IS unquestionably qualified to be Secretary of State....but there is more to it then that as well. (remember Scott Brown still has to get connected to this).
Susan Rice is already a cabinet level official in her current role as UN Ambassador (although that position is only cabinet level under Democrats not Republicans) so moving her to Sec. of State doesnt really shake up much of any other part of the government.
John Kerry meanwhile is a Senator, and not just any senator, he's a Senator from Massachusetts. Now the other Senator from Mass was Scott Brown but is soon to be Elizabeth Warren.
Scott Brown for those who dont know was the "darling" of the tea party movement, the first tea partier to be elected to congress in 2009 when he won a special election to kill the late Ted Kennedy's seat and finish the two years left in his term. So if nothing else Senator Brown has very high symbolic status to the current republican establishment (given his tea party roots). Add to that that Brown was the first republican senator elected from Massachusetts since 1972 and you can see why they desperately wanted to hold on to the guy. But as you might have gathered he lost to Elizabeth Warren in the last election.
But heres the glue that pulls this whole thing together. He barely lost. he lost by about 6%, which at least for a republican in Massachusetts is an exceptionally tight race. And Warren was something of a celebrity candidate, she created the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and was expected to head it. Except she was the "victim" the last time the republicans tried to stonewall a nomination, so she withdrew and used her through the roof profile and name recognition to beat Brown. And there is a very good argument that shes the only democrat who could have done so. And now shes in the Senate.
And this gets up back to John Kerry. If he becomes the Secretary of State he has to vacate his senate seat.
Which Scott Brown can then run for and likely win. Which means the GOP gets their "golden boy" back, undoes one of the highest profile defeats they took in the last election and gets a fairly right wing popular republican, who will be hard to dislodge again in what should be a solidly democratic seat.
All they got to do to have that happen is make Susan Rice impossible to nominate, and "force" the president to go with the only other qualified choice... John Kerry.
Oh and one last thing, just to make sure all the pieces fit (so to speak), in his failed reelection attempt Scott Brown only allowed 3 republicans to campaign for him, Ayotte, Collins and McCain....the 3 people leading the charge against Rice.
So yea it turns out, I was wrong, McCain's not cranky and this has nothing at all to do with Susan Rice, shes just collateral damage in the wrong place at the wrong time.
No comments:
Post a Comment