The conservative and evolving mainstream narrative regarding the Obama administration’s second term cabinet nominations has concentrated on the rejuvenated and re-elected president’s intention to pick a fight with his political adversaries. More importantly, Mr. Obama has reinforced the implementation of a progressive agenda through loyalist, and not particularly autonomous, cabinet secretaries.
Dr. Charles Krauthammer argued last Friday in his column that the nomination of former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel was a message from President Obama that he will go forward with scaling back America’s role on the world stage through defense cuts and a smaller military.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board last Thursday commented that the selection of Jack Lew is a signal that the administration has no intention of working with Republicans on spending or entitlement reform, as Mr. Lew’s recalcitrance to work with Republicans when serving as the President’s Chief-of-Staff is well known in the capital. His views on spending, which are in line with the man who has nominated him for Treasury Secretary, serve as even more of a non-starter for negotiation.
It appears now Senator Hagel- a former Republican- will be more difficult to confirm than it seemed at first glance, and may cause Mr. Obama to spend significant political capital. Others have stated that the selection of Mr. Lew at Treasury will only sharpen the ideological divide on the federal government’s fiscal state between the President and legislative Republicans.
The new bounce in the President’s re-elected step has geared him into a controlled bellicosity towards his political foes. Free of the restraints of another election, Mr. Obama seems determined to govern in a continuation of his first two years in office as an ideological progressive. The President’s estimation after re-election is he can achieve his progressive goals without the counsel or consent of his opposing colleagues in the legislative branch.
With nominations lined up and resistance in the Senate certain, the question begs to be asked: why did he retreat last month from nominating U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for Secretary of State?
The initial reaction to Ms. Rice’s probable nomination was a vociferous one- specifically from republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain. President Obama took exception to their tone, challenging these two men at his November press conference to refrain from directing their post re-election resentment at Ms. Rice, and “go after me.”
It seemed like the perfect fight for the President emerging from his November victory. He won his re-election handily, dominating in a wide array of demographics – specifically among women and minorities. Two old white stalwarts of the Republican Party had just publicly and viciously attacked the President’s probable Secretary of State nomination who is both a woman and a person of color. If he ever wanted to spike the football after his 2012 touchdown (see: Bin Laden mission political aftermath) and bury his former presidential rival, the president could have done so with the public focus on the lack of diversity in the Republican Party.
So why not do it? Benghazi.
Articles were churned out at a rapid pace after the President’s re-election about the landmines of a second term. Clinton had Monica. Reagan had Iran-Contra. Lincoln never even had a chance. To avoid such problems, Mr. Obama had to first side step a disaster that took place at the end of his first term, which thanks to a compliant American media went largely ignored for a long time. This would not be the case once Ms. Rice was nominated.
Ms. Rice’s role in the government’s management of the situation after the capture and murder of four American diplomats was minimal, if existent at all. This was a problem managed by the President’s national security team, mostly involving the State Department, CIA, and some military. The U.N. ambassador has little influence in these departments.
Unfortunately for Ms. Rice, she was selected by the administration to be its stoic face in front of this tragedy, making her rounds on five Sunday morning talk shows the weekend following the massacre. Republican senators would no doubt focus on her touring these shows, specifically on her explanation regarding “the video.”
She would be forced to answer questions from Senators as a representative not only of herself, but also the administration. Inquisitions would be dominated by the inconsistent nature of the Obama administration’s narrative, which centered on the American made anti-Islamic “video” which supposedly caused the riots that led to the storming of the Benghazi annex and the ensuing massacre of four diplomats. That theory was later dismissed, but only after weeks of back and forth between the staffers, the press and even the President in his appearance on Letterman. 129 days later we still do not know what happened in Benghazi, and we’d now be fast approaching Ambassador Rice’s nomination hearings.
The President’s initial defense of Ms. Rice against Messrs. McCain and Graham was Sorkinesque, according to the fawning NBC news team of Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell. Both excitingly compared it to Michael Douglas’ closing speech in The American President, serving as Mr. Obama’s noble protection of his ambassador in distress. But they forgot about the turning point of the film, when future Sorkin President Martin Sheen indignantly criticized his timid leader, “You fight the fights you can win? You fight the fights that need fighting!”
In today’s America, appointing the second African-American woman as Secretary of State qualifies as a fight worth fighting, especially for the progressive party whose power in government was just renewed in a national election. That is of course unless they couldn’t win without paying a significant political price.
For President Obama, reliving the September 11 attacks in Benghazi at a Senate confirmation hearing would be too high a price to pay, even if there were no serious revelations produced. His retreat in this particular fight, juxtaposed with his aggressiveness to fill other posts, may be the most damning indication as to how much actually went wrong that day in Libya- and how little he wants the American people to comprehend that fact.
– John P. Burns
tammanyhalldotcom 