Susan Rice seems to be Obama’s preferred choice to take over for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. However, Republicans in the Senate, led by the usually-more-reasonable John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have threatened to block a Rice nomination based on the trumped-up Benghazi “scandal.”
The thinking seems to be that if Rice doesn’t get the post it will go to John Kerry. So what I’m wondering is: Are Republicans in the Senate intentionally trying to push for a Kerry nomination so as to open up a Massachusetts Senate seat…which might allow Scott Brown to sneak back into the Senate?
It would be +1 for Republicans if this happens.
And does this factor into Obama’s thinking in choosing between Rice and Kerry?
No. Kerry was on the shortlist for Secretary of State in Obama’s first term and he might wind up in the cabinet anyway (some people think he might become Secretary of Defense), so he it’s possible he would leave the Senate anyway. And of course the Benghazi thing got going well before Brown lost to Elizabeth Warren.
“Republican Noise” is pretty much limited to John McCain settling a grudge against Ambassador Rice and lining up his friends in and out of the Senate to help. And as much as the GOP hates Obama, they certainly don’t think he’s stupid; he would only nominate a Democratic senator like Kerry if he was certain he could avoid having a seat flip to the Republicans.
I agree. My reading of what’s been going on is that it’s much more about McCain’s personality flaws than some long walk to Scott. McCain’s entire interest in Benghazi seems to be a very insincere attempt to use an American tragedy to retain some personal relevance. Because of party term limits for committee posts, the only committee McCain is eligible to lead (as the minority party) is the Indian Affairs Committee. It seems like he’ll do anything to avoid being nothing more than the minority leader of an insignificant committee.
I don’t think that Scott Brown fetishism is that widespread in Republican circles. He managed to beat an absolutely pathetic candidate in his first election and ran a miserable campaign of his own in the second. He just isn’t far right enough to suit the mainstream of his party, which is somewhat to the right of Atilla the Hun.
Republicans can’t resist beating the “lookie here, we’re the tough guys on terrorism” drum even when it makes no sense. Now that the election is over, the outrage has gone from a full boil to a simmer. What this whole “scandal” has done is make John McCain look like a USDA Choice dickhead. Rice will be nominated because she has performed admirably in her current job and very likely has the full backing of the incumbent, Hillary. John Kerry may well get Defense, but if anyone thinks Brown will be breeze to win a special election to replace Kerry I think they’re misguided.
Eh, Rice is hardly the only person that said mean things about McCain in 2008. Even for the famously short-tempered McCain, I can’t imagine he’s nursing individual grudges against them all.
I suspect the real reason McCain is on the warpath is that he’s backing up his friend Lindsey Graham, who in turn needs to throw some redmeat to the Tea Party to avoid a 2014 primary battle.
I’ve seen some people theorize that the Democrats aren’t too worried about Brown at this point. It’s also possible the Republicans are not as enthusiastic about him as they used to be given the fact that he lost a very high-profile campaign.
I doubt many Republicans are more than lukewarm about Brown. He’s to the left of a number of Southern Democrats on some issues. Anyway, they’d have to have known he was going to lose to Warren, which would be a surprise; the Republican establishment didn’t even know they were going to lose elections when polling showed they would, much less seats where the polling was close or in their favor.
As an aside, I’d like to thank the OP for using Susan Rice’s full name. I’d seen mentions of her in earlier threads, and couldn’t understand why people were talking about Condoleeza.
I’m thinking there’s probably not some sort of deep plan here, since the last step, getting Scott Brown to win the election, is a crap shoot. 2010 was a very strong year for the GOP, and Brown was still, from what I understand, the Congressional Republican with the most Democratic-leaning constituency. And that includes all the House Republicans as well. I can’t imagine that the Republicans have come up with an advanced scheme that, if things go well, still only leaves them with a 50% chance (I’d say less, but the Republicans seem to be bizarrely optimistic about their polling chances) of gaining a Senate seat.
Alan Khazei ran in the primary both times, although he dropped out pretty quickly this past time. He might give it another go, but, based on past performance, probably won’t be the nominee. Any of our representatives could run without having to give up their current seats. Mike Capuano ran in 2010, but lost the primary by a pretty decent margin to Martha Coakley (who is still out Attorney General, and could run again, but I don’t see that happening). Maybe 2013 is more his year. I’d vote for him, which would be nice, since I’ve been redistricted out of his district, and already miss the guy, even if it hasn’t taken effect yet. Off the top of my head the other representatives don’t seem the most promising lot. Deval Patrick could decide to leave the Governor’s office a bit early, although the more likely way for that to happen seems to be if he gets a Cabinet position. I can’t think of any state legislators that have the sort of name recognition that would make them an obvious contender at this point.
I don’t know if Barney Frank would be interested in becoming a low-ranking senator at his age, but I’m sure people would try to get him to throw his hat in the ring.
Forget Kerry, the latest rumor is Carl Levin to become Defense Secretary. Interesting, in that Republican Governor Rick Snyder would appoint his replacement. Unlike our neighbors in Wisconsin and Ohio, our governor is not a rabid partisan and might well appoint a Democrat to replace Levin.