« Open Thread | Main | Democrats on Foreign Policy »

November 15, 2004

Comments

Do you really believe Mr. Wolfowitz is the best available candidate, Edward_? I certainly don't. Personally, I'd like to see a prominent Democrat like Joe Biden, for example, at least offered the job.

Dave,

Wolfowitz was offered as a snarky counter to Mac's suggestion (in the spirit of who most deserves to suffer through the coming term in that position).

In a more serious mode of reflection, I'd agree with you Biden would be an excellent choice.

I do think this is an important choice for Bush and that he stands a good chance of changing world opinion if he makes the right one. Someone well respected in Old Europe would be a good start.

Macallan demonstrates, once more, the LGF-quality thinking all too present at Tacitus.

In any administration, cabinet members are appointed to represent the policies of that particular administration. IOW, cabinet members are not free agents representing their own agendas or POVs.

Moreover, given the fact Colin Powell--loyal GOPer--oversaw the State Dept. relegated to a status only slightly more important than, say, the Bureau of Mines.

Edward's correct; let the GOP clean up the mess they've made.

BBC reports 3 more to resign after Powell:

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, and Education Secretary Rod Paige.

Thank you, Edward_. As you may have noticed, I'm a little snark-deaf. I for one would like to see an American foreign policy rather than a Republican or Democratic foreign policy and I believe a prominent Democrat with foreign policy creds—like Biden—would be a move in that direction.

I hate to say it but Mr. Biden's Catholicism is also a credential. The world being what it is a Jewish Secretary of State at this moment in history would be poking a stick in it.

Macallan demonstrates, once more, the LGF-quality thinking all too present at Tacitus.

Ya know, I just re-read that entire thread over again and apart from a couple of snipes back and forth between regulars, that post engendered a pretty moderate discussion about who would make sense.

A comparison to LGF is, IMHO, both incorrect and a bit of an insult to the commenters on that thread.

Back to the thread though, what about Lieberman or Zell Miller? Maybe DINOs but they both seem to at least believe in what the President is doing.

Zell Miller as Secretary of State?

Well, perhaps his longing for the days when disagreements were settled in duels would appeal to Old Europe.

Neither Lieberman nor Miller have particularly strong foreign policy credentials.

I'm still thinking Dick Lugar for State. Wolfowitz for State is just silly. If we were being silly, I'd go the Jimmy Carter route.

Wolfowitz for State is just silly.

Wolfowitz in any position is just silly. ;pp

20 to 1 odds says it's Condi.

20 to 1 odds says it's Condi.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire...

For what it's worth, ABC was reporting that Powell would be replaced by either Danforth or Bremer.

For some reason Powell is having a live press conference on the networks to announce he's resigning.

For some reason Powell is having a live press conference on the networks to announce he's resigning

For some reason?

Why....it's phase one of Operation Reputation Rehabilitation. Rule one of public relations: get in front of and on top of message first.

Somehow, I can't help but recall the 'Rainbow Tour' act from evita.

Don't Cry for Me Crawford Texas?

You know that old adage..."cheer up, it could be worse"? I've found that's always, always true...it could be worse. From Bullmoose and RedState come calls, echoing our own Crionna's sugesstion, to make Lieberman the Secretary of State.

There are no words to describe how creepy I find Lieberman. His voice reminds me of nothing so much as some sort of oozy slime dripping down a coroded rusty pipe. He is unique among our national pols in that he's completely, 100% totally without charm.

Have I mentioned I don't like him?

Making him SecDef would be a low point in the Bush presidency for me. It would represent an attempt to reach out across party lines without actually doing so...opportunistic, false, and transparent.

Ick...I need a shower just thinking about it.

I'm sure that would really help bring about Middle East Peace. Think of how impartial Lieberman would look! It's reverse inspired.

Crionna: I'll stand by my comments WRT Tacitus. Somehow, suggesting most of the international community are @**holes doesn't strike me as a "pretty moderate discussion."

That aside, don't you find it a touch cynical to suggest someone, anyone for the job of SecState in the hopes that he or she will fail?

That aside, don't you find it a touch cynical to suggest someone, anyone for the job of SecState in the hopes that he or she will fail?

Yes, but really, faced with the prospect of another four years of disaster-area administration, who isn't feeling at least a touch of cynicism?

I don't think Lieberman is any less capable than any knee jerk hawk of being a fair broker in the middle east. I do think he would be perceived that way. If I thought he'd make a good Sec. of State otherwise, this would be a moral dilemma--do you give effect to other countries' anti-Semitism? Since I don't think so, it's an easy question.

Zell Miller? Please tell me that's a joke. I mean, I know comedians talk about how they'd like world leaders to settle things mano a mano, but I don't think duels are really a workable solution. Also: NOOOOO foreign policy skills or expertise. Less than Lieberman, who's got less than Kerry or Biden.

Lugar would be a great, great choice, but Bush will never pick anyone that competent and independent. I don't have any special problem with Bremer, and I don't know much about John Danforth except for a vague idea he's done good stuff on Sudan. Someone more hawkish than Powell would be fine with me if that's what it would take to get them actually listen to the Department of State. Again, I don't really see that happening.

I think Wolfowitz is sincere and well meaning, in a way that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, Perle and the rest of that crew are not. But he's an ideologue, and he'd be a terrible choice.

"Somehow, suggesting most of the international community are @**holes doesn't strike me as a 'pretty moderate discussion.'"

That depends on what percentage of the people in the international community are in fact @**holes. ;)

Danforth would be interesting as Sec of State.

Wlfowitz is my favorite Bushie because he comes right out and says what the others are thinking. For example, he said the WMD were "just a talking point." And he said that Americans don't care about facts and just respond emotionally. He also commentted that for most Americans the sound on their TV's might as well be turned off because they only react to the pictures anyway.
Yes, let's put him right out front where he can tell us what the Bushies really think of us.

That depends on what percentage of the people in the international community are in fact @**holes. ;)

I hear the ISO has a reliable metric but they're stalled on what the units of measure should be named ;)

The merits of Wolfowitz or Lieberman as individuals aside, I can't help but be a little . . . discouraged by the slightly sub rosa "No Jews for Sec. of State" talk by people on the, er, progressive side of the equation.

That aside, don't you find it a touch cynical to suggest someone, anyone for the job of SecState in the hopes that he or she will fail?

Cynical sure, but worthy of comparison to LGF? IMO, no.

I hear the ISO has a reliable metric but they're stalled on what the units of measure should be named ;

I hear that the "Aminess Scale" is leading.

Adieu to Mr Safire - and some of the worst writing ever to appear in the Times. A self-style language maven, William Safire didn't even have a tin ear when it came to phrasing a well-written sentence.

phil, don't know if i was one of the folks you were alluding to but i'd feel the same way if Bush were to pick an Arab Secretary of State too. This may be the best chance we've had in eons to get a peace agreement and we should pick the candidate who will get these two together and not worry about making the PC choice. Millions upon millions of lives are at stake.

...sub rosa "No Jews for Sec. of State" talk...

Zzzzzzzz.......

Coram populo, the time when vague innuendos of anti-semitism from random pischas could be taken seriously has long passed. Long long way the hell and gone passed. Ask your zadie to teach you another tune.

[ more bile and snark in the same vein omitted, leading to a realization that I really am getting old and crotchety. is this sort of nastiness defensible or not? ]

wilfred, I agree 100% -- it should be the best person for the job. Which is why discussions of potential SecState candidates' religions should be completely off the table.

rilkefan, I'm fairly certain I didn't say anything about anti-Semitism. But in any case, please explain how I'm to take a comment like, "The world being what it is at this moment, a Jewish Secretary of State would be poking a stick in it?" If that's not "No Jews for SecState" it's too fricking close for comfort, thanks. Even if it's only meant temporarily. I am not at all interested in hearing why we should choose cabinet members based on what will least bother the Palestinans or Muslims.

Phil:
a) you've ignored the substance of wilfred's argument, which was that religion will affect job performance because of others' prejudice
b) that's radish you should be addressing, but
c) I also read your comment as a, er, sub rosa accusation of anti-Semitism.

The comments to this entry are closed.