resurrectionsong

January 27, 2005

Two Out of Three Ain't Bad

Chi-Dooh Li's article, "Radical Ideas Bush Should Consider," is a quick read that deals with three appointments that Bush could make that would help win over some Democrats. As a strategy for healing, I'm not sure how effective it would be; as a strategy for good appointments, it really deserves a look (assuming, of course, that each nominee would be interested in the proffered position).

First up, he suggests appointing former President Clinton as ambassador to the UN and representative in Middle East negotiations. Surprisingly, this doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.

It has to be said that Clinton wasn't a tremendously liberal Democrat; many of the reforms that he enacted were things that Republicans had been pushing as their own agenda. Welfare reform, for instance, is a subject that makes most of my left-leaning friends seethe with anger.

Clinton has some very specific traits that would be useful to the US as an ambassador to the UN. He is charismatic, intelligent, and well liked in the international community; he could be a powerful advocate for US interests. Even better, his drive for a legacy that isn't made up of scandal, impeachment, and Monica Lewinsky is a powerful motivator for him to work for change in the world and his ego won't let him sit too far outside the limelight.

Of course, that ego is an issue. Would he be able to be a good subordinate to a Republican who he campaigned against? Would he be able to allow the administration to define strategy while he found the best tactics to carry out the orders? I think there would be a risk involved in asking Clinton to take the position, but I think it would be worth that risk. The payoff could be tremendous.

The second suggestion is for John Kerry to replace Don Rumsfeld as defense secretary. Aside from the fact that I like Rumsfeld, mistakes and all, Kerry would be a disaster in that role. His animosity toward the President would make teamwork almost impossible, his view of what America should be doing to win the overall war on terror is incompatible with the President's view, and, frankly, inviting him to this position would be akin to saying that the American people chose wrong in the election.

Any belief that Kerry would be a good soldier, advocate, and helper for President Bush is laughable.

Lastly, and the one that I support almost without reservation, is the idea of offering Senator Lieberman for a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Lieberman threw away some of his credibility with me when he was Gore's choice for VP. During the campaign, he switched sides on issues that were part of his political make-up (like abortion) in a way that made me wonder about his character. But an appointment to the Court, without the need to worry about popularity or votes, would be a great place for a man who is a truly moderate liberal.

I like Lieberman and I think he would be a fair and good Supreme Court justice. The only disagreement I have is whether he should be offered that first vacancy. There is a good likelihood that Bush will have to fill two vacancies during this term, and establishing his capability of nominating a qualified conservative justice would be a big victory--especially in the face of all of the problems with court nominees through the first term.

Whatever the timing, though, Lieberman for Supreme Court would be an honorable choice.

Two out of three ain't bad, although the Kerry suggestion is so tone-deaf and wrong-headed that it almost makes up for the other two ideas. In considering posts to fill during this second term, Bush would do well to think in aggressive terms like these and find great people to fill the jobs, regardless of party affiliation. Of course, he also has to balance that by being sure that his strategies will be supported by his subordinates--a PR move might make friends, but it might also make it harder to achieve the bigger goals. With Social Security reform and the continuing war on terror both dominating the President's agenda, he doesn't need reluctant or hostile aides.

Read the story.

Posted by zombyboy at January 27, 2005 06:33 PM

Comments

First up, he suggests appointing former President Clinton as ambassador to the UN and representative in Middle East negotiations. Surprisingly, this doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.

Intriguing. Clinton's legacy obsession would certainly motivate him to get something done, and if he could be made to understand that he'll get all the credit provided he doesn't try to make other people (ahem) look bad, it could have possibilities. And without Arafat to screw it all up for him -- er, I mean, for the beleaguered people of the Middle East...

Nah. Not buying it. Better Kerry for that job -- by the time he got through nuancing and flip-flopping, the Palestinians and Israelis would sign a peace deal, a four-record contract with 15-city concert tour, and a pre-nup between Sharon and Abbas, just to make Kerry shut up and go away!

Posted by: McGehee at January 27, 2005 08:00 PM

Clinton is not a nose-to-the-grindstone, workin' yer ass off kind of guy. While in office he rarely strayed from what the polls said, and co-opted the Republican agenda so that he could get re-elected (triangulation). My point is, he'd be good at wining & dining, but isn't the right man for kicking butt and hasn't demonstrated the ability to take the kind of principled stands that W looks to be taking these next 4 years.

We need another Jean Kirkpatrick or Moynihan... I just want you to know, while trying to act all growed up I deleted a very good, excellent even, Clinton joke.

Kerry? Huh?

I could go for Lieberman, not as CJ though. When Joe gets a pulpit he gets all preachy and whiney.

In reality, it doesn't matter what Bush does, the Libs will hate him anyway. Trying to appease them will only make things worse. Sorta like when you were 15 and all pissed off at something and your mom tried to get you to smile, which made you even madder. When did Clinton, who never received a majority of the vote, ever extend an olive branch to the Repubs? Let them stew.

I'm not staying let them stew to be vindictive, which would be wrong. My feeling is that in our form of government it is best to let the guy who got the most votes do his job the way he wants to. It's the Congress that provides the checks and balances, not the Cabinet. I'd be saying that even if we were talking about a President Kerry another somewhat good joke deleted.

Posted by: Remy Logan at January 27, 2005 10:48 PM

Clinton has given speeches abroad and has shown a lot of class when he has done so. I believe one was in the ME. I remember reading reports about one where the audience expected him to be critical of Bush and foreign policy, but he was quite the opposite. (And the guy was born to schmooze, it would be a good position for him.)

Giving Kerry any position in any Republican administration is just nuts. The writer's gotta be a Democrat.

Posted by: dorkafork at January 27, 2005 11:01 PM

I don't don't think taking a principled stand would be necessary in this case. Bush is taking the stand for him, Clinton would just try to make it palatable to the diplomats, et al. It's the part he was born to play, baby! Nor do I think he would have to do much nose-to-the-grindstone work, or do a whole lot of butt-kicking. Keep in mind that both Oslo and the peace in Northern Ireland were brokered on his watch. This would play to his strengths.

Posted by: dorkafork at January 27, 2005 11:16 PM

I didn't mean to say "don't don't think". I should've said "do don't think". Sorry for any confusion.

And Remy, don't ever delete jokes again. Especially excellent ones.

Posted by: dorkafork at January 27, 2005 11:26 PM

I am basing my Clinton opinion on whether or not there is mundane daily details work involved. If Clinton can get past the work detail then I think he would be a fine choice for UN Ambassador, and have nothing against him.

I would like to point out that Oslo has been pretty much a failure (not Bill's fault, but not something to crow about either), and that it was 9/11 that got the IRA to actually take the accords seriously. Of course, if it hadn't been for Clinton's efforts there wouldn't have been an accord to take seriously. Clinton has shown that he can succesfully get parties together and get agreement.

History has shown that some kind of big stick is needed once the ink dries. Bush can be the big stick. Will Clinton will represent the Administration and forgo party partisinship? I think those 2 could do a lot of good.

Which I guess brings me back to z-boys "2 out of 3."

An interesting point about "legacy" is that a lasting one requires that people respect and honor your accomplishments regardless of party affiliation. This definitely would be a chance for Clinton to work on his legacy. Carter actually had a lot of post-presidency respect on the Repub side, until he started spewing his vile hatred these past few years.

If Clinton were to be a succesful UN Ambassador, he'd deserve his legacy...

...

... And I will stop making jokes like this:

We need another Jean Kirkpatrick or Moynihan... not someone whose idea of face time includes dropping your pants.

I am so going to hell for that

Posted by: Remy Logan at January 28, 2005 12:00 PM

I don't believe that "our boys in uniform" would take Kerry being appointed SecDef very nicely.

Posted by: wheels at January 28, 2005 01:11 PM

I agree with your points about Oslo and the IRA. The "getting the parties together" is what I was going for.

And I'll probably go to hell also, but... I think he was more familiar with "all over your face" time.

Posted by: dorkafork at January 28, 2005 07:07 PM