As President Obama’s first term
draws to a close, the beginning of a second term is rapidly approaching. During the transition from first to second
term, the American public knows there will be some changes to some important
cabinet positions. Both the secretaries
of State & Treasury will retire from their posts. Secretary of the Treasury
Timothy Geithner is not the most popular person to hold the position, but the
individual who will replace him will have a lot of cleaning up to do (and will
probably have a harder confirmation process than the next Secretary of
State). In addition to this cabinet
position, the more important role to fill will be the Secretary of State. As Hillary Clinton “retires” from politics,
it will become a fierce battle over who will be nominated, who will survive the
confirmation hearings, and who will ultimately become the next Secretary of
State to represent the United States on a global scale.
The
Secretary of State is the fifth most powerful role within the United States
Government – in the event of a tragic event that resulted in either death of
the President or his in inability to faithfully execute his powers of the
Presidency. This position within the federal
government is addresses all of the foreign relations that the United States
encompasses on a daily basis. There are
many names going around regarding who will fill this important position. (Such
names are usually referred to as “being on the short list”.) I will discuss a
few of these names and why they are on the list and whether it would be a good
idea for them to fill the position – or not.
The first
name on the list would be the current United States Ambassador to the United
Nations – Susan Rice. If she would be confirmed, she would be the fourth woman
to ever hold this post. Already
well-versed in National Security issues as well as international issues &
crises’, Dr. Rice has the ability to be resilient when needed and understands
the power of negotiations. While she is a admirable and highly distinguished
candidate for this position, I do not believe it would be wise to place her
within such position. We need a strong
voice within the United Nations, and she has the reputation to get things
moving in a sometimes stalled-out body of governance. In addition, I feel that she would struggle
with the confirmation hearing within the United States Senate halls. Some would refer to her handling of the
terrorist attack in Benghazi, which resulted in four deaths including U.S.
Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Regardless of her role about what
she did or did not know, some senators make a semi-valid point about when to
share sensitive information without being 100% confirmed. The argument of
whether she is qualified or not becomes a moot point, as there are many who
have held public office that were not qualified to be in a position of
power…much less being nominated to hold a federal position (former President
George W. Bush – post 9/11 – and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin immediately
come to mind……and to be fair, one could argue former President Lyndon Johnson
& former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle). Her confirmation process would
just become a façade for the Republican Party.
If the Republicans did decide to confirm her nomination, it would be a
political maneuver to prove that they are not sexist (and also to earn back the
huge gap they had when Romney lost to President Obama in the 2012 election). If
confirmed, she would do an exceptional job.
Another
name that has been discussed is Senator John Kerry f Massachusetts. He certainly has the international respect of
to hold such a position; and, as a member of the Senator Foreign Relations
committee, he understands the highly classified intelligence gathered within
the government of an international crisis.
I also image he would be considered because of his pivotal role in
re-electing President Obama during the election cycle. The only problem I
really see with this nomination is that Democrats are trying to maintain a
steady majority of the United States Senate. It would be unwise for them to
leave a seat open that might be open to Republican grabs. I think the worst
thing to do is re-elect Scott Brown to stand alongside Elizabeth Warren to represent
the Bay State in the Senate. If he were to be nominated and confirmed by the
Senate, it would prove (much like the Susan Rice confirmation) that Republicans
are trying to be more bipartisan and are attempting to regroup after their
party was severely crushed in the 2012 elections. Republicans have a lot of
regrouping to do and need to quickly adapt to the changing times…and
demographics.
I have much
more to discuss regarding this conversation, so please stay tuned as I provide
a valid solution (yet probably not even considered) for the fulfillment of this
important cabinet position.
