In parliamentary systems it is not uncommon to turn a political nomination--ore even a relatively insignificant bill--as a way of expressing a lack of confidence in the government or in a major policy. In the United States that is far less common, but 12 Senate Democrats (plus the independent Jim Jeffords) have doen precisely that over the Condoleeza Rice nomination for Secretary of State.
They have used it as a vehicle to stake out their opposition to the War in Iraq. They are likely to pay a heavy political price. In this country, it is customary to allow the president to choose his own Cabinet, so long as the nominee is minimally qualified. Rice is superbly qualified and everyone concedes that. So it is mildly shocking that the Democrats mustered more votes against this nomination for Secretary of State than for any since 1825.
Indeed, secretaries of state are generally approved unamiously. This is the first nomination in a quarter-century to have earned even a single dissenting vote. It is certainly legitimate for senators to use whatever instrument they wish to make a political point. But it is not very smart.
Becasue of her race, her symbolism and her personal story, Rice is not a run-of- the- mill appointment but a historic one. Which makes some of the more vitriolic charges agianst the first African- American woman ever chosen for the office once held by Thomas Jefferson particularly wounding and politically risky.
Mark Dayton of Minnesota accused her of lying in order to decieve the American people into going to war--a charge that is not just false, but suffers additionally from not being believed by most Americans. Rice was not a generator of intelligence. She was a comsumer--of a highly defective product.
Nore was she the principal architect of the Iraq War.
Will it matter politcally in the end? Can the Democrats take the African American vote for granted? Perhaps, but it will be interesting to see whether Democrats will be willing to repeat this if Bush were to nominate Clarence Thomas to suceed William Rehnquist and become the country's first black chief justice. The Democrats' performance on the Rice nomination has opened precisely that possibility for the president.
It seem particularly inopportune for Sen. Edward Kennedy, for example, to use this moment to call the Iraq policy a catastrophe and a hopeless quagmire. it is possible that history will, in time prove him right. But how does he know?
To assert with such certainity that the war is lost, especially at such a hopleful time, seems not only to be betting against our side. It presents the political dilemma that faces all war dissdents--particularly those whose main argument is unwinnability: It tells the brave and committed soldiers on the front that they are fighting in vain.
Who has the politics of this right? My guess is: Hillary, as usual...........
www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/printck20050128.shtml
They have used it as a vehicle to stake out their opposition to the War in Iraq. They are likely to pay a heavy political price. In this country, it is customary to allow the president to choose his own Cabinet, so long as the nominee is minimally qualified. Rice is superbly qualified and everyone concedes that. So it is mildly shocking that the Democrats mustered more votes against this nomination for Secretary of State than for any since 1825.
Indeed, secretaries of state are generally approved unamiously. This is the first nomination in a quarter-century to have earned even a single dissenting vote. It is certainly legitimate for senators to use whatever instrument they wish to make a political point. But it is not very smart.
Becasue of her race, her symbolism and her personal story, Rice is not a run-of- the- mill appointment but a historic one. Which makes some of the more vitriolic charges agianst the first African- American woman ever chosen for the office once held by Thomas Jefferson particularly wounding and politically risky.
Mark Dayton of Minnesota accused her of lying in order to decieve the American people into going to war--a charge that is not just false, but suffers additionally from not being believed by most Americans. Rice was not a generator of intelligence. She was a comsumer--of a highly defective product.
Nore was she the principal architect of the Iraq War.
Will it matter politcally in the end? Can the Democrats take the African American vote for granted? Perhaps, but it will be interesting to see whether Democrats will be willing to repeat this if Bush were to nominate Clarence Thomas to suceed William Rehnquist and become the country's first black chief justice. The Democrats' performance on the Rice nomination has opened precisely that possibility for the president.
It seem particularly inopportune for Sen. Edward Kennedy, for example, to use this moment to call the Iraq policy a catastrophe and a hopeless quagmire. it is possible that history will, in time prove him right. But how does he know?
To assert with such certainity that the war is lost, especially at such a hopleful time, seems not only to be betting against our side. It presents the political dilemma that faces all war dissdents--particularly those whose main argument is unwinnability: It tells the brave and committed soldiers on the front that they are fighting in vain.
Who has the politics of this right? My guess is: Hillary, as usual...........
www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/printck20050128.shtml
