Posted by Craig
In the world of politics, there usually exists more rumors then truth. Sometimes it is not worth putting much thought into, other times it can be quite exciting to ponder. One of the latest rumors to swirl out of Washington is the possible replacement candidate of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled, Senator from Connecticut Joseph Lieberman.
Although I am not one to celebrate many Democrats, I tend to admire the person not the party. I respected Sen. Lieberman and his stance concerning the War in Iraq. He broke with his party lines when defending the President’s choice to invade Iraq, and also much of his handling of what happened after the end of major conflict. In his bid for the Democratic nomination, he had clearly taken a more moderate approach, to not only Iraq, but more of his political thoughts.
I have always felt that the Democratic Party chose the wrong guy to lead the campaign to unseat Bush. Sen. Lieberman would have been much better to match up against Bush, and to actually detract from many of those who voted for Bush. I am elated that Kerry was the nominee, because it assured Bush a victory, but it signaled a shift from Clintonian politics of the nineties; speak the left, but focus down the middle.
However, to have Sen. Lieberman take over, Rumsfeld would have to go. Although this disheartens me, I would accept the change. Rumsfeld has become a distraction to the positive that Bush is trying to accomplish. The media has been so negative on Rummy, that it seems he will no longer receive any good press. Rumsfeld ran a good war in toppling Saddam, in overthrowing the Taliban, and trying to secure Iraq. But I sincerely believe the pressure of stabilizing Iraq has been a daunting task, one that has left the Defense Secretary drained and bruised. A change may not only help take scrutiny off the defense department, but may help stretch the arms of unity between the parties to do what we guaranteed the Iraqi people we would do, bring them freedom and democracy.
So maybe this is just another rumor being passed around in Washington, but oh how it would work. And I am sure many Democrats are already wondering if this could springboard Lieberman into the presidential race in 2008. They say that a kiss on the cheek form a mobster means the end. Well maybe this kiss on the cheek could brandish a beginning. But then again, what will the next rumor be?
February 14, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I share in your admiration for Senator Lieberman but do not believe it will make a significant difference in foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteMr. Lieberman may be a Democrat but there are many Democrats of a leftist persuasion who view him the way many in your party view moderate Republicans.
Senator Liebermans's religious credentials (and his willingness to speak about those values), his support for school vouchers, his inequivocal support for Israel and his support for military interventionism have not improved his image among the very Democratic activists that will attack Bush and anyone who sides with him every now and then. Consider him the DINO in the party (just as you have your RINOs). So to the extent that the foreign policy divide is political the Connecticut senator will not be effective in changing the atmosphere.
I think our differences in foreign policy transcend party politics. Liberals make cause with conservatives to support military intervention. Conservatives with liberals to oppose it.
The neo-conservative Weekly Standard, and the neo-liberal Washington Post and New Republic joined in supporting then President William Jefferson Clinton's military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo while criticizing his reluctance to act in Rwanda. Some Republican senators consistently backed Clinton on these matters.
Paleoconservatives like Patrick J. Buchanan and Chotskyites like Kristina Vanderheuval opposed our military interventions in those cases as well as the current president's involvement in Iraq.
I believe the divide is primarily ideological but not dependent upon party affiliation.
Thank you both for commenting. I really don't think Lieberman will do anything for the Defense aspect of the department, as to be quite honest, I do not know his qualifications to run that department. But I really feel that this name-calling, finger pointing, do nothing attitudes coming from both sides of the aisle do nothing but mire our political system in futility.
ReplyDeleteReaching out to a Democrat may show that Bush is willing to wok with other democrats. And it makes sense to choose someone like minded in ideas. Our foreign policy has been what was needed to accomplish America's goals in the past four years. But I truly believe that we cannot continue to hold the road of stand offs with our allies. Hopefully the world would see this gesture as signs of compromise, just as the administration plans to compromise in it's next four yeas in office.
There's nothing wrong with focusing down the middle. It's better than speaking extreme-right and focusing far-right.
ReplyDeleteJust trying to get your feathers ruffled there CraigMc.
You know my stance on Rummy. He should have left a long time ago. I think he has done a horrible job with Iraq and is almost entirely responsible for all it's failings, even more so than Bush.
I think McCain is a much better choice to head the DoD. But, he is way too centrist for Bush. And he is much more liked and popular than Bush, which would mean he would probably steal the spotlight. Now little Karl Rove can't have that.
I do think Rummy has to go. Though I doubt anyone in the Bush administration cares what I think.
Good post.
The point of choosing Lieberman is purely political. Bush looks like he is reaching across the isle while building up momentum for a possible gained (R) seat in the Senate. The article that hinted about Lieberman getting the job also noted that if he resigns in the Senate, the (R) governor will be able to appoint an (R) senator going into the mid-term elections. It's win-win for the Bush Administration.
ReplyDeleteIt also serves the purpose of continuing to win jewish votes by having a prominent Jewish (D) senator serving as Sec of Defense.
John McCain would fit into the neoconservative vision President Bush has aligned himself with, as would Senator LIeberman. Lieberman of course is a Democrat and so would be a better pick for those seeking a bipartisan agenda. Even so, the party's activists do not trust him because he takes some moderate positions. He supports vouchers, doesn't have a problem speaking about his god, and fairly hawkish.
ReplyDeleteI do think he, having served as attorney general for Connecticut, probably has some managerial experience that will serve him should he take the position.
Senator Biden would be another good choice. He is reasonably hawkish but also understands the need to reach out to our allies. Senator Biden supported our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and has not backed down or wavered in that support even as he criticizes the president (and this would be his downfall for the position) over the post-war occupation strategy. Unlike Lieberman, his managerial experience would be more questionable.
That said, I'd rather he not get teh job because he's way too independent -minded. I firmly believe Congress should actively review presidents' agenda oversees and his move to the executive branch will bring the senate's prestige in these matters down a lot. Expect partisanship to increase should he leave.
Thankfully there has been no indication Biden would move to the Defense Department.
Unfortunately, there's been no word on Rumsfeld's needed retirement from DOD.