|
Is Brzenski with the Democrats, or against them?
;)
As for a possible second Bush administration, Powell is damaged goods, but not just because he went to the UN with a bunch of lies. Powell was perceived as a moderate, and in many respects he still is regarded that way domestically. His views, roughly consistent with the goals of the State Department, have put him at odds with the neocons, and in many cases that has led to conflicts with the White House. Bush had advice coming from moderates, but he refused to listen. On several occasions he undermined Powell's authority, and weakened the State Department's position as an arm of US foreign policy.
So imagine if Bush were to appoint a Democrat to be Secretary of State, Lieberman, as Brzenski suggests, or perhaps somebody like Biden. What difference would that make if Bush were to ignore their input anyway, and put forward Rumsfeld as the true face of US foreign policy? It sounds nuts to think that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz represent US diplomacy at its finest, but that is exactly what Bush has allowed to happen.
As for Kerry, (a) there's sufficient Republican representation in Congress that he can safely appoint a Democrat to head the State Department, and (b) the Republicans have discredited themselves. Even though there are moderates like Lugar in the party, it functions as an extremist party and its embrace of extremist rhetoric has earned it a reputation of being extremist. It's best to let that party put its own house in order, and decide whether it can truly accommodate centrist voices, or whether it will continue to isolate and undermine them. There's little to be gained by appointing a moderate Republican that couldn't be gained with less risk by appointing a moderate Democrat.
|