Kerry Names Replacements for Rumsfeld

Kerry Names Replacements for Rumsfeld

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said Wednesday any number of people, including Republican Sens. John McCain and John Warner, could replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, rejecting concerns that a change in Pentagon (news - web sites) leadership could hurt the war effort.

"If America has reached a point where only one person has the ability in our great democracy to manage the Pentagon and to continue or to put in place a better policy even, we're in deeper trouble than you think," Kerry told broadcaster Don Imus. "I don't accept that. I just don't accept that. I think that's an excuse. The fact is that we need a change in policy."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20040512/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_iraq

He actually has ideas. Imagine that.

On the Daily Show last night, Stewart said about Rumsfeld, "It's like the mafia,once you're a made guy, nobody can whack you."

Perfect analogy, it's a mafia brotherhood, not a government where you're expected to come through and do a good job.

You should have seen him on the hearings yesterday. I suspect he was named because the Virginia governor is a Democrat.

http://warner.senate.gov/about/aboutthesenator.htm

JOHN WILLIAM WARNER, Republican from Virginia, began his twenty-fifth year of service in the United States Senate on January 7, 2003 after having been elected to his fifth term on November 5, 2002. He is currently the third longest serving U.S. Senator in the history of the Commonwealth after Harry F. Byrd and Carter Glass.

Senator Warner was born on February 18, 1927. He is the grandson of John W. and Mary Tinsley Warner of Amherst County, Virginia, and the son of the late Martha Budd Warner and the late Dr. John W. Warner, a physician and surgeon.

Senator Warner has had the good fortune — the privilege — to have been a public servant in seven different positions, with cumulative service of almost forty years. His first opportunity began during World War II when in January, 1945, at age 17, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He served on active duty until the summer of 1946 and was honorably discharged as Petty Officer 3rd Class, electronic technician's mate.

...more...

Welcome to DU DarthReagan - Warner is definitely not a Dem

Senator is John Warner. Mark Warner is a Democrat!

I think was that if John Warner the Republican was made Sec of Def, then Mark Warner the Democrat would be able to appoint his replacement.

SaveElmer - I couldn't make heads or tails of the post :)

I had to read through it a couple times myself...having two politicians here in VA with the same last name is a bit confusing. Mark Warner ran against John Warner in '96 for the Senate too..almost beat him. I always wondered how many voters voted for the wrong person. Mark Warners slogan was "MARK NOT JOHN"

Get an obviously qualified Senator ... one whose seat is otherwise secure ... and one from a state with a Democratic governor who'd replace the Repug with a Dem. That shifts Senate control to the Dems. Win-win.

I also noticed that when asked about his choice for Defense Secretary, he didn't mention Wes Clark. He probably doesn't want to tip his hand regarding his VP selection.

You have to be retired from the military for at least 10 years.

I just found this out last night. :)

Learn something new every day.

Do you have a link for this, by chance. Not doubting you, just curious to see the language.

You'd want a secretary that could function as a civilian and not a military officer.

:bounce:

I don't remember which number-the 7th? or the 8th?

as Barbara Walters "long time friend" and "escort" for a number of years now. In other words, they've got a thing going.

he looked much shorter in person. I wondered what Liz must have been thinking. :shrug:

did you think he would name a Democrat? I think the point Kerry was trying to make was that almost any Republican with a Defense background would be better than what we have now. Warner is a moderate repug----voted no to impeach Clinton.

john warner??????? ..john mcain is not to bad, at least he acts like a human being sometimes but warner? kerry is showing his true color..stay the course..

He's the ranking Dem on the Senate Armed Services committe, and a liberal. Maybe Kerry is showing his true color. ;)

for a moment i thought kerry was going over the center. carl levin would be excellent-

that *Co had "choices" -

Don't think it had anything to do with showing "colors" (jmho)

Kerry would only seriously consider McCain or Levin.

Interesting list of possible replacements. Could Carl Levin be the next Defense Secretary? He would be THE BEST!

The best thing about this, I think, is that he provided a list at all. All the criticism of him not seeming Presidential enough, not able to be trusted with national security issues, ad nauseum.

This is a direct response, imo.

As attractive as the qualifications might be, taking Democrats out of the Senate and opeing up any possibility for an increased Republicna majority there is a very risky tactic. Now, even though Granholm would probably appoint a Democrat (even though Michigan's legislature is R-controlled), that person would be far, far less likely to be secure in their Senate seat than Levin. His seniority and ability to "bring home the bacon" makes his seat secure.

It'd be far better to seduce an entrenched Repug like Warner, imho.

The only reason he ran in 2002 was because Bush was so awful, and he knew his re-election (Levin's, I mean) was pretty much a sure thing - which wouldn't be so with a new face. Now, if Kerry nominates him for Sec'y of Defense, whoever Granholm appoints to replace him would have 2 years to "introduce himself" to the electorate. And I *think* the special election to confirm her choice would be for the balance of Levin's term, which ends in 2008 - so if by chance a repub won the special election, we'd have another shot at him/her in two years.

**edited for clarity**

Get some names out there. Good stuff...

excuse for hanging on to Rummy. There are lots of other individuals who could do a credible job. Shrubby's problem is that he doesn't want people thinking about alternatives to Rummy because they might start thinking about alternatives to Shrubby.

He doesn't want to fed to the dogs

Good move. I'll buy that.
Suggesting Warner and McCain to replace Rummy is smart. He's taking action, which is more than our war prez is doing.
Thanks Sen. Kerry.
:yourock:

Take the initiative and get ahead of the madminstration to name some Republican Senators as candidates for Rummy's job ... and open up the possibility for a reduced Republican majority in the Senate. I like it.

People seem confused a bit by thinking that these are people that Kerry would consider for his own cabinet. Believe me, Kerry's cabinet is going to be a veritable brain trust when it comes down to it.

It's also funny that people seem to prefer criticizing Warner and co. rather than wondering for a moment whether Warner might actually be a step up from our resident Dr. Strangelove.

Or something...

Anyway, I'm having trouble thinking of many viable possibilities that would be a step down.

n/t

or do others think rummy looks like one of those WW2 photos of a Nazi officer, minus the the hat and coat

but then maybe thats Rumsfeld's biggest problem too.

John, they also need a conscience.

Tell them what is expected of them, to do the right thing.

Imus's political instincts always seemed completely yahoo Republican. His idol is McCain. But Kerry has been methodically courting him for over a year. Who knows how, but, whatever Kerry did or said, it was a brilliant strategic move. Imus's audience isn't as large as Stern's but among likely young male voters, that sweet spot in the independent electorate, Imus carries a lot of weight. Even my doctor listens to him every morning on the way to work.

I was watching Imus before work, and heard Kerry's complete interview. He did an amazing job. Before he came on, Imus and company were asking themselves what Kerry could possibly say in light of the Berg video yesterday.

Kerry did a masterful job. He can think on his feet far better than Shrub. He articulated the three scenarios that we face in dealing with Iraq. The first, just continue sending our soldiers as cannon fodder -- which is what the current admin is doing. Second, pull out all troops completely, leaving a leadership vacuum. Third, Kerry's own plan to internationalize the security force in Iraq and involve countries that have a stake in the Iraq being peaceful and democratic.

Kerry didn't fold when Imus asked who should replace Rummy. I was impressed that Kerry had already had a bipartisan list in mind. The Real Deal is also a real uniter.

I'm more to the left than most folks, so some of the people he named wouldn't be my first choice. But the important thing is that Kerry is proposing ideas and alternatives, and promoting the good sense to know when you have to take a different course of action.

What could have been a "get Kerry" interview turned out to be a great plus for our side.

I personally cannot wait for a debate between Shrub and Kerry.

I fully expect Shrub to attempt some sort of opt out or strange machination that limits a display of Kerry's talents in this area, but I don't see how he can just shut it down entirely and have any credibility left among the all-important undecided voters.

Think Gore and Bush's accusation of Gore's economic policies being based on fuzzy math.

Bush's handlers won't allow Shrub to actually have a debate with Kerry. It will be similar to the last prime time press conference. Bush will throw out a lot of loaded words without actually saying anything.

Bush's followers are like a cult. They are utterly and unequivocally devoted to their dear leader. He could get on a debate stage, belch and fart and his followers would think he's channeling the divine.

But the swing voters do listen to an extent, and although they can be swayed by hyperbole and sound bites, I believe they are paying more attention to the substance of what is being said than they are given credit for.

McCain or Warner either one would be much better than Rumsfeld.

He's a loser.

the press recently of a "what would Kerry do?" type attitude.

This morning Imus was telling Kerry that he should help out Bush. LOL

Kerry said if Bush comes around to his way of thinking about what we should be doing in Iraq that he would support him. Kerry speaks with authority and can think on his feet.

And the BIG question:

WHAT WOULD KERRY DO?

:)

...has the ability in our great democracy to manage the Pentagon and to continue or to put in place a better policy even, we're in deeper trouble than you think."

Maybe Rumsfeld is that "Army of One" we keep hearing about.

yes, so why not pick a DEMOCRAT to replace Rumsfeld???????????

Fuck MCCAIN and fuck (WAR)NER !

He wasn't saying who HE would pick.

He was offering plausible suggestions as to who AWOL should pick to replace Rumsfield.

When I saw them, they tended to be quite drunk. And wearing womens clothing.