The 'I can't believe repeating Benghazi actually worked' thread

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/13/susan-rice-secretary-state-withdraws-gop-opposition

Well the true picture is a bit more complicated, as Rice seemed unable to operate smoothly in the old boys network atmosphere of the senate and the UN, seemingly making enemies everywhere except inside the White House. Rice also managed to lose some left-wing support after details of her trenchant support for the Iraq War, African strongmen and her above and beyond defence of Israel in the UN were highlighted.

Still the GOP, and especially McCain, is going to paint it all as part of the great Benghazi cover-up. So I guess look forward to hearing Benghazi even more whenever you turn on the cable news and the likely return of the charmless John Kerry to the national stage.

It was because of, scare quotes used advisedly, "Benghazi," not anything else, so to the extent that the right fires celebratory gunfire they'll be correct to. You lose again, Democratic Party.

The chatter about Rice not getting along was nonsense; it was all anonymously sourced and if you look into it it boiled down to the same two or three stories. Someone sensed blood in the water and put out a media hit on her, knowing that Politico would eat it up and repeat stuff endlessly.

This really does highlight the degree to which the Republican party has become totally repugnant. There might have been a legitimate conversation to be had over Benghazi re: security procedures, lapses, and the appropriate stance of US diplomatic personnel in dangerous countries (the whole Fortress Americana phenomenon). Instead we had John McCain and Lindsey Graham bleating endlessly about an interview. I shouldn't be surprised by the degree to which McCain can be a scumbag but I am. For a man who claims to love his country, he sure spit on it over the past month. He spent a month slandering a talented woman and for what? And in doing so, he ignored having a conversation that might have actually been good for the country.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/14/state-department-preparing-for-libya-bombshell/

Clearly Dan is talking out his ass with the OP.

The worst possible outcome for this is not only the removal of Rice's candidacy, but that Kerry being picked means that Scott Brown gets another chance. Which is, more than likely, what this was about in the long term. It's hard to decipher the difference between straight-up crank behavior and cynical gamesmanship by people like McCain, but once Graham got involved it definitely seemed more like the latter.

FUCK.

Hard to say whether this was the particular driving motive. Nevertheless, given that a fair chunk of the liberal establishment was in the Kerry as SoS camp, it didn't take a whole lot of insight on the part of the GOP to recognize that an impending Rice nomination was an opportunity to grab some politcal capital. Benghazi just proved to be a convenient narrative for McCain and Graham to fire off the first salvo. Yes, it was a terribly mendacious, hypocritical rationale for opposing her, but the tepid defense by the majority of the left (except for Obama) pretty much sealed the deal.

Edit: That said, I am starting to get the feeling that some of the liberal commentariat got caught with their pants down on this one. For instance, I just read two articles basically dismissing the risk of Brown 2.0 with a hand-waving "oh, the Mass dems will find someone to run against him" line, including one from the normally reliable Fred Kaplan of Slate. Excuse me, but isn't this precisely the approach that got us Senator Brown in the first instance?

I wouldn't call it a driving motive. I would argue that it was McCain and friends being their usual dishonest crank selves for the election, and then more strategic thinkers co-opting their moron rallying point as a means of getting an advantage in the senate.

I don't think Democrats mishandled this, though, because frankly it's difficult to win these sorts of contests over nothing with direct engagement. You get down in the mud with a pig etc. I certainly don't blame Rice for not wanting to be caught in textbook GOP intransigence indefinitely.

Right, I'd call it "informed crankism"

I suppose it depends on how badly you want it. It seemed pretty clear to me from the start, though, that a large contingent of liberals were lined up behind Kerry, which meant that Obama wouldn't be able to count on a full-throated defense from the left. In a way, it reminds me of the Harriet Miers fiasco, insofar as it became clear that that nomination was untenable not just because of democratic opposition, but also in large part because Bush's own base wasn't lined up with the choice. Of course, the major difference there being that the primary rationale for opposing Miers's nomination wasn't nearly as dubious.

Sort of. It depends on how inept Mass. Dems are. Brown shouldn't beat Democrats there in general; it was through the selection of a candidate who rivals Mitt Romney for tone-deafness that he won the first time. Not sure what happens now that Brown's a known quantity.

Never underestimate how inept Dems can be a lot of the time.

I had this reaction too--didn't the guy just lose a Senate race, after all?--but after reading an article about it I was reminded that only Republicans turn out to vote in special elections. Checkmate!

The Warren-Brown results aren't exactly comforting given the conventional wisdom about GOP overperforming in special elections.

Brown would be a terrible choice to run given the end of his senate campaign. Dude tanked in the polls because he basically came out as anti education and kinda racist. He got into office in the first place because "I drive a truck" beat that ".. what? you want me to SHAKE HANDS? With COMMONERS?!" thing Coakley was doing.

That said, as much as I love the idea of promoting Kerry.. fuck you for trying to take our awesome senator.

The various gaming-it-out pieces I've read seem to think it'd be a poor gamble for Brown (he'd face a tough race for a senate seat up for re-election in two years right after losing by 8 points, as opposed to taking a plausible shot at governor if he wants to do the American cursus honorum) but I'll relax when the Democrats nominate someone and that someone doesn't start Coakleying.

Rand Paul To Hillary Clinton: 'I Would Have Relieved You Of Your Post'

How does one even find the appropriate level of scornful disdain for bullshit Benghazi Rand Paul diatribes beginning with the words "Had I been President?" Christ. And, googling the story for a quote I see, shock surprise, Paul's proudly emailed his "grilling" of Clinton already. Politics 2013, ladies and gentlemen.

The appropriate response is "So run for President and see how that goes"

But the hearing was pretty much the idiocy we expected. A bunch of "you should have known!" followed by a lot of people pointing out that the guys in charge of the budget who keep slashing embassy security funding should be the last people demanding to know why embassy security funding requests were denied. And pretty much everyone with an (R) next to their name walked away saying they were not satisfied with the answers.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/hillary-clinton-fires-back-at-gop-senator-at

She handles it quite well I think.

If Rand Paul were president, would there even be a Secretary of State position to fire someone from? Would it even be the United States anymore? I mean, what would have to happen to the electorate in order for Rand Paul to get elected president of anything but the Neo-Confederacy?

As TPM pointed out, Rand Paul's budget proposal cut the State Department budget roughly in half. So he'd probably have fired her for simply existing and reminding him that there are in fact other countries out there.

If I may quote slightly out of context,

Break ope the locks o' the senate and bring in
The crows to peck the eagles.

Privatize those embassies. Let the market decide!