Senator John McCain’s quip yesterday pushed his colleague Senator John Kerry’s ambitions back in the limelight. If President Barack Obama nominates Kerry to be secretary of state or defense, chances are his nomination would sail through the senate. The Senate is a club, and many members would consider it professional courtesy to give one of their own a pass. Ignore his positions and his track record for a moment: personality matters, and Kerry is perhaps the one senator least suited for any executive position.
The problem is, according to some of Kerry’s former staffers, that he is serially indecisive. Simple decisions regarding which of two candidates should receive a promotion on his staff could take six months. The problem was not Kerry’s busy schedule or his frequent travels, or that the memo got lost on his desk. Rather, it was that Kerry simply could not determine which candidate should get his blessing. In the end, he split the difference and announced co-directors. The result was predictable: turf wars and confusion as each sought to negate the other. Running a bureaucracy is not like attending a Quaker meeting; sometimes consensus is not the least-bad option. The example his own staffers gave was the rule, not the exception. They complained they would be waiting for Kerry’s decisions long after others on both side of the aisle had made up their minds.
Instincts also matter. Kerry’s public posture toward Syria has been embarrassing enough; his judgment with regard to Syria has come at a far higher cost than Susan Rice’s poor judgment in the aftermath of Benghazi has. And on the peace process, he has already dug himself a deep hole by frequently telling his interlocutors what they want to hear, regardless of the entanglements that leaves behind. The problem is not only his public policy, but also his private: Staffers describe their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he returned to Washington referring to Bashar as “my dear friend.” Bashar may be a lot of things, but “my dear friend”—an address Kerry used only with a select few, such as the late Ted Kennedy—should not have been one.
Arrogance may also get the best of Kerry. Should he carry such attitudes to the Defense Department, he may be lampooned worse than this and this. But senior Afghan ministers also lambaste the Massachusetts senator. During a trip to Afghanistan, one related over breakfast how Kerry arrived in Afghanistan, was shuttled from high-level meeting to high-level meeting, struggling to keep awake. Only in his last meeting before departure did he ask the Afghan minister, “Who’s this Marshal Fahim everyone keeps talking about?” Fahim, of course, is one of the most powerful warlords in the country and, since 2009, a vice president as well. It seems Kerry had not read—or had not understood—his background briefings and then was too proud to ask any of his entourage.
Some men and women thrive as senators, and some work best as mayors and governors. Being in charge of an agency is not as easy as simply casting votes and opining on the Sunday talk shows. It is doubtful that anyone will tell the Massachusetts senator that the emperor has no clothes. That is too bad, because the damage an indecisive and arrogant executive can do to the policy and practice of U.S. foreign policy is immense.
Is Rubin opining that between the shoals of Kerry and Rice better the latter? If so, he should say so clearly. And what about that three-headed monster Chuck Hagel whose intense loathing of Israel is unequaled by anyone save perhaps Ron Paul? Some choices now that we must face the music Romney helped to write.
It doesn't matter since the role is an empty suit in the Obama administration. The person, whoever they are, is a puppet wheeled out to mouth pre scripted words from Obama. That's all they do. By the by in case no one's noticed, Obama kept Clinton on a plane and out of the country so she could never be a credible threat to his imperial Presidency. This alone is a good reason for why he won't nominate Rice whom he actually confides in.
Please make him Secretary of Anything (except Defense where he is widely and deservedly reviled). n nIf he is Secretary he is not Senator from MA. Scott Brown should win if Obama is not on the ballot.
Hillary has zero management skills, so they made sure State has a 'COO'. n nPersonally, I prefer Sen Kerry as SecState if only to stop the endless repeats of his 2004 Swiftboating. n nBesides, is it not time for affirmative action for white male protestants?
Not for wimpy, lying, indecisive traitors whose attitudes to just about everything are WRONG.
The only time Jean-Francois Kerrie made a personnel choice was in choosing a vice president. He could have chosen Richard Gephardt who, for all his limitations and sins, at least stood for something. Instead, he chose John Edwards who, as George Orwell would put it, any taxi driver could have told you was a fifth rate individual and proved it over the period of his life. n nJean -Francois has slimed his fellow armed forces personnel and his nation. I can't wait to watch his "winter soldier" testimony at his confirmation hearing–and despite senatorial courtesy it WILL be played (if only on C-span where it was played four years ago). n nIt will be an eventful confirmation process.
Where ever they "put" Kerry will be deserved! He would make a good Secy of State because he would know pricesly how to deal with faux people…he is, after all one them.
Of one thing you can be certain, whoever Obama appoints will be bad for the USA, bad for the West, bad for the world. Between Susan Rice and Kerry, Rice would be a lesser evil as Secretary of State. On the other hand, that would mean Kerry would land up in Defence. Both of them would be appointed. How awful would that be!