Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

moobu2

(4,822 posts)
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:18 PM Nov 2012

Rachael Maddow is saying John Mccain and Lindsey Graham

are attacking Susan Rice in an attempt to derail her nomination so that John Kerry will be the new pick which will open up a seat for Scott Brown. I think I said that right.

I think she's right.

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rachael Maddow is saying John Mccain and Lindsey Graham (Original Post) moobu2 Nov 2012 OP
The msm seems to like the story. It looks like their plan is working. mucifer Nov 2012 #1
Senator Kerry is the better choice for SOS. wisteria Nov 2012 #9
that had occurred to me. BainsBane Nov 2012 #2
Someone said that on TV the other night - it was Lawrence O'Donnell, I think We People Nov 2012 #19
I don't. Kerry will stay in the Senate because we need him there. mccain and graham are slowly still_one Nov 2012 #3
Maybe , just maybe, it should be Senator Kerry's decision to continue being a Senator. wisteria Nov 2012 #8
Which begs the question: Why are Democrats so afraid of Scott Brown? Are there no viable Dems in MA? Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2012 #4
Exactly, and what Democrats are so afraid of Mr. pick-up truck? n/t wisteria Nov 2012 #7
Not any that are as popular as Scott Brown with Indys. n/t Dawgs Nov 2012 #20
Well, if there is absolutely NO viable Democrat to run against this charlatan in Massachusetts, Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2012 #22
I think Maddow is a smart woman, but she is wrong about this. wisteria Nov 2012 #5
Also MA could just change the law to appoint again, rather than elect. Agschmid Nov 2012 #15
I respect Senator Kerry too but the fact that iemitsu Nov 2012 #16
I totally agree--BTW, it took me corneliamcgillicutty Nov 2012 #6
Rachel's from Massachusetts. GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #10
She use to live there but she is from Castro Valley about 5 minutes from JRLeft Nov 2012 #12
Agree! ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #11
I say Kerry should stay where he is Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #13
Parlor game theorizing alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #14
Of course, but Rachel does have a point and I must admit I suspected the same. CTyankee Nov 2012 #17
But it doesn't gain the repubs RudynJack Nov 2012 #18
Even if that is true aren't there any others to consider than Kerry or Rice? WI_DEM Nov 2012 #21
makes sense. Best for America, Mrs. Rice and Mrs. Clinton work as a team for a couple months. then Sunlei Nov 2012 #23
I have a question as to whether SB can run PoliticalBiker Nov 2012 #24
 

wisteria

(19,581 posts)
9. Senator Kerry is the better choice for SOS.
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:34 PM
Nov 2012

Ms. Rice is to be commended for her work, but I personally do not think she is the right person to be our top diplomat-especially not during these turbulent times in the Middle East. What is she going to do, give those who do not go along with her the finger?

We People

(619 posts)
19. Someone said that on TV the other night - it was Lawrence O'Donnell, I think
Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:55 AM
Nov 2012

It makes sense. And probably one reason McCain has the role that he does is so that people will be distracted by the angle of him being bitter at Obama for his defeat in 2008 and Graham is just Generally Pissed Off anyway.

Leave it to GOP to try to ruin someone's career (that of Rice) in order to give themselves another Senate seat.

Nothing they do surprises me anymore.

still_one

(92,266 posts)
3. I don't. Kerry will stay in the Senate because we need him there. mccain and graham are slowly
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:21 PM
Nov 2012

destroying their party

 

wisteria

(19,581 posts)
8. Maybe , just maybe, it should be Senator Kerry's decision to continue being a Senator.
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:31 PM
Nov 2012

There are enough Dem votes that we can get along without his. The idea that he has to stay in the senate so that Brown doesn't get reelected is bogus.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
22. Well, if there is absolutely NO viable Democrat to run against this charlatan in Massachusetts,
Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:31 PM
Nov 2012

then we deserve to lose the seat. If you're telling me that the Democratic Party has no attrative Democrats, then we are screwed.

Luckily I don't believe you.

 

wisteria

(19,581 posts)
5. I think Maddow is a smart woman, but she is wrong about this.
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:28 PM
Nov 2012

At least the part about opening a seat and Brown running. That idea is not well thought out at all. We can do without Kerry's one vote in the Senate, and Brown is not that popular this time out. A better Democrat would be chosen and the excitment of taking a Kennedy seat has been exhausted.

But, I will say that both McCain and Graham have worked with Senator Kerry and they have a lot of respect for him and the way he conducts business. So, I am inclined to agree that Senator Kerry should have been the number one choice for this post-not Rice. And, my opinion is not in anyway shape or form, based on race.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
15. Also MA could just change the law to appoint again, rather than elect.
Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:40 AM
Nov 2012

They switched it in 2004 (I believe?), and with a DEM controlled... well everything... they could just switch it back.

iemitsu

(3,888 posts)
16. I respect Senator Kerry too but the fact that
Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:05 AM
Nov 2012

both McCain and Graham do and like the way he conducts business makes me doubt that he is the better candidate.
We don't need any more of the same.

6. I totally agree--BTW, it took me
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:28 PM
Nov 2012

A lot longer to get that thought together--plus I text like my fingers are webbed.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
17. Of course, but Rachel does have a point and I must admit I suspected the same.
Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:21 AM
Nov 2012

However, we probably don't know the half of it, as you say. Mere speculation...but based on wise fears...

RudynJack

(1,044 posts)
18. But it doesn't gain the repubs
Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:03 AM
Nov 2012

much of anything to pick off one seat. And McConnell and Boehner have proven themselves to be less politically adept than the President. Kerry won't take the role if his seat's in danger.

They're going after Rice because that's all they can do. They have nothing. Their agenda has been solidly rejected, and all they can do is try to gin up outrage over a non-issue. They learned nothing from the elections. It's still "attack, attack, attack". They didn't learn the lesson when they tried it with Clinton, either. They're just frustrated, tired children throwing yet another tantrum.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
23. makes sense. Best for America, Mrs. Rice and Mrs. Clinton work as a team for a couple months. then
Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:58 PM
Nov 2012

Mrs. Rice is SOS full time. And Kerry keeps his hard earned!!! elected seat.

PoliticalBiker

(328 posts)
24. I have a question as to whether SB can run
Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:09 PM
Nov 2012

I don't know what the rules are in MA for running for office, but doesn't one senator represent half the state and the other senator represent the other half of the state? And don't you have to LIVE in the district you represent?
If that is so, wouldn't SB have to move to be able to run for Kerry's seat should it become open?
IF that is so, wouldn't that appear a bit opportunistic and couldn't that opportunism be used against him in an election?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Rachael Maddow is saying ...