Why Obama Should Nominate Susan Rice for State
There's been lots of speculation about the vociferous opposition to Susan Rice's nomination from Senate and House Republicans, and there's been lots of explaining of that opposition here. People have said that it's really an attempt to shift Kerry into the State slot, thereby freeing up a space for another Scott Brown run. People have said it's just a way to continue flogging Benghazi in some bizarre impeachment plot. People have said, of course, that the attacks are race-based - undoubtedly true. People have said that McCain especially holds a grudge against Rice for her critiques of him during the 2008 campaign.
All these explanations have merit, and all probably play some role. I'll go much simpler.
The GOP's seemingly senseless opposition to Susan Rice is simply the first gambit in the coming Supreme Court fights. They are opposing Rice in order to set precedent on just how fact-and-reason-free the term "Advise and Consent" will be in the modern era. For the GOP, this is a no-lose proposition. They probably won't win on Rice, but that's not really the point. What they're trying to do is make it commonplace to simply oppose nominations without providing substantive explanation. If they can make that the norm, then they have leverage on the Supreme Court nominees. If they also prevent Rice's nomination, that's just gravy.
For this reason, it's imperative for Obama to nominate Rice, then make a big stink out of their unreasonable understanding of Advise and Consent. It's fairly easy to stand on this when it comes to Rice, since their opposition precisely looks so petty. Just as they will try to expand the public's understanding of Advise and Consent, the Obama Admin should use the Rice pick to demonstrate what a reasonable process should look like.
Bottom line, though: this is about the Court. Don't be fooled by the razzle dazzle on Benghazi. This is groundwork.
= new reply since forum marked as read
