Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) became one of Bolton’s (and President Bush’s) high profile defenders.
“We need an ambassador who has the trust of the president and the Secretary of State,” McCain said on the Senate floor in defense of Bolton. Then he went on to say, “elections have consequences, and on consequence of President Bush’s re-election is that he has the right to appoint officials of his choice.” A president, McCain went on to say, “has a right to put into place the team that he believes will serve him best.”
Apparently, time and political currency change over time. As if the Republicans needed anymore issues following an election where most U.S. women and citizens of color voted against them. So of course, the first thing they do after the election is go after President Obama's rumored next Secretary of State, Susan Rice.
Just to give you some background: Dr. Susan Rice is a Rhoads Scholar, Ph. D. from Oxford. She served on the National Security Council and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. Currently, she is the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Bottom line, her credentials are beyond contestation.
In typical obstructionist fashion, the Republicans, being led by 97 Representatives (who do not participate in the Advice and Consent process that is conducted by the Senate) along with the aforementioned McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calling her "incompetent" and "unfit" to be Secretary of State.
It appears that most of the outrage is base in partisan politics since most would argue that Dr. Rice is anything but "incompetent" and "unfit." But, their main target is Dr. Rice’s comments on Benghazi during her rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows where she was following the directions given to her by the White House.
While Benghazi appears to be dissolving into a witch-hunt, Dr. Rice’s credentials aren’t really at question. What is? Do the Republicans REALLY want this to be the place where they plant their flag? REALLY? With the Democrats holding the majority in the Senate, the only thing the Republicans can do is filibuster. But is the potential political fallout by taking the nuclear option really worth it? Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) called the Republican attacks “code words” saying, “These kinds of terms that those of us – especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South – we’ve been hearing these little words and phrases all of our lives and we get insulted by them.”
Is Rep. Clyburn correct? Is this more bigotry on display by the Republicans?
If so, what do the Republicans gain by doing this after the type of election they had?
Does this re-ignite the Republican "War on Women?"
Posted by FED_UP at 1:33 PM