It would please me if John Kerry received some kind of cabinet position or another and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick appointed Barney Frank to fill out his term in the Senate. Some people worry that Scott Brown could win the seat back in a special election, but I think Barney would destroy him. And, in any case, if we’re really worried about it, the Massachusetts legislature can just change the law back to the way it used to be and eliminate the special election. With Senators Elizabeth Warren and Barney Frank, the Bay State would drive the Republicans absolutely nuts. It would also add another comedian to the ranks of the upper chamber.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
33 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Wow, great minds think alike. I was just reading this article from Think Progress on Barney Frank’s appearance on CNN and I was thinking wouldn’t it be awesome if Barney Frank became the Senator from Mass. In my eyes, Barney would probably be the most formidable candidate against Scott Brown. Not knowing Mass politics, though, I never knew if Frank played well state-wide.
Did you not see this
No, I hadn’t seen that. Of course, he wouldn’t have to run, at least initially.
John Kerry.
Right.
A man who couldn’t deal the pressure put upon him by Turdblossom Central when he ran for president.
A man who caved in when the 2000 election was essentially stolen from him.
This is the asshole you want negotiating with hard professional controllers like Vladimir Putin? With radical Islamists who are willing to die to see The Great Satan go down? With political operatives of all types who are permanently on the make for “More, more, more!!!” from the U.S.?
Motherfucker couldn’t even handle Karl Rove.
Please.
Keep him in the Senate where he can’t do much harm except bore people with his endless drone.
Lieutenant Kerry, reporting for duty!!!
ZZZZZzzzzzzz…
Please.
AG
I love it when your forged-titanium certainty in your own superiority is accompanied by such a bone-headed, obvious error, like a beacon repeating the word “idiot” to any who pass by.
And no, I’m not going to tell you what it is.
Please. I’m dying to know. What is my “error” here? Oh. You mean the typing error? Sorry. 2004. You’re right. I’m an idiot. I often think of Kerry and Gore as two sides of the same fake coin. Sue me.
Kerry lost an election to a certifiable fool. At least Gore ran against a fool who hadn’t proven his follhood in public for 4 years. How did Kerry lose? I actually think the fix was in there, too, but it was weak one. Don’t change assholes in midstream and all that. Luckily…for the fixers…so was Kerry. Weak. But the loss was caused by:
1-The whole Swift Boat campaign and Kerry’s total inability to counter it.
2-The fact that the Ratpubs still had to resort to vote fraud to pull the election out of the fire because Butch II was a bigger idiot than even Kerry.
and then
3-Kerry did not fight back. Of course he may simply have been following orders like the good, obedient lieutenant that he is, but there comes a time for justifiable mutiny and…on the plentiful evidence of the fall of the U.S. both economically and internationally that commenced immediately after the Butch II took the throne and continues to this day…that was the time. He didn’t do it it, and here we jolly well are now, still trying to dig ourselves out of the hole.
Kerry for Sec. State?
Please.
AG
Yes. He may be a war hero, and a liberal, and have a conscience – see Viet Nam war testifying – but as a negotiator he’s a pushover. I wish Hillary was staying another 4 years – that’s what we need : a realist, a tough negotiator, an experience political infighter, and someone with cache from the Clinton administration, which is worth a lot outside this country. We do not need another naive bloviator who will give in at the drop of a hat, or get cut off at the knees like he did when attacked by the Swift Boaters.
I’m amazed at how many people are fond of Kerry. I admit I don’t know the breadth of his work even though I it’s clear he has a depth of knowledge in foreign policy. But, I think the cabinet needs someone who is less of a militarist.
I think there are a lot of changes in todays world and we need not only someone who understands foreign policy but can see the world with fresh insight.
I admire Kerry’s actions in the anti-war movement of the early 70s. That took some moxie. But Kerry’s AUMF vote and his “reporting for duty” tone at his convention are hard for me to dismiss. He may have just been trying to follow the public spirit of the times. It may have been based on his political self interest. But 200,000+ dead Iraqis say that isn’t always a good thing.
You’re not going to get William Jennings Bryan at State again. That was a century ago. And he resigned.
I’m just looking for someone without quite so much blood on his hands. Iraq was one of the major foreign policy decisions of our time and Kerry failed miserably.
How did the incumbent SoS vote on the AUMF again?
Are you assuming I am a fan of the current SoS? Are you forgetting that the diary and my comment was about Kerry? Are you trying to evade the topic?
I think it’s more “clarifying” whether you support Secretary of State Clinton.
OK, you do not.
The commenter who does not think Hillary Clinton has been a good Secretary of State also doesn’t think think John Kerry would be a good choice for Secretary of State.
Noted.
“Noted”? You’re better than that.
My opinion is more nuanced than how you represent it. But now we’re getting off the track aren’t we?
Overall I’m not a fan nor a detractor of Clinton. Actually, she has done a good job given what has been on her plate. She has had some successes and some failures. She seemed to be willing to be a team player and support Obama’s policies even when she campaigned against them.
But her situation I think was also about political pay back. I think we missed some opportunities by not having someone in the seat with more informed progressive policy ideas than SoS Clinton.
I’m wondering why you expect one of the two major parties in the present system, in which the US is for better or worse, the hegemon, to throw up, of its own accord, an anti-hegemonic SoS, who is after all nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate of that same hegemon.
You’ve got a better shot at a pony. Hell, you’ve got a better shot at a pony as SoS.
“I’m wondering why you expect …”
You misunderstand me. I do not expect this country’s political system to give up its militaristic bent nor the country at large to easily give up its fantasies of American exceptionalism as global cop. I’m convinced about the pervasiveness of the military-industrial-congressional complex.
But with a president who has some IR cred due to studies, his formative years and his first term, I hoped we could begin to take a small step away from these ultimately disastrous quagmires.
You make sense in that our elected leaders are not likely to reverse this easily. I’m not hoping for a pony. I’m just hoping for a small step. And I don’t think we have a shot at it as long as most Americans don’t see the problem or don’t care. So, I don’t think embracing Kerry as a cabinet secretary is the answer even if those in power think it is.
So who would you put as Secretary of State?
I really don’t understand the animus against Kerry. I suspect it is primarily because he didn’t push back on the purple bandaid-wearing Swiftboaters. Kerry is a military officer who understands the limits of military action. He got stampeded in 2002, when he was running for re-election and anticipating a run against Bush. He had no way of knowing that the Bush administration would so screw up the Iraq war that it would be unpopular in two years. The unpopularity of Vietnam took 7 years to develop, even with the increasing unpopularity of the draft.
Even if you intend to restrict or even just moderate the military-industrial-media complex, you as a candidate are obligated to bow in that direction. And you have to be trusted by the military in your judgement enough to get their compliance to your orders. Obama showed the military respect and demanded that they perform well–and showed personal and heart-felt support for rank-and-file troops. That has allowed him to successfully withdraw troops from Iraq and position to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. That respect came with a price–the surge and the increased use of drones in Pakistan and other places.
Reversing the metastasizing military-industrial complex can only be done by action of Congress. They set it up 65 years ago to handle what they were encouraged to believe was a long-term global total cold war. That cold war ended twenty-three years ago and yet the institutions persist, looking for new ways to justify their existence. And that persistence itself creates the dangers it is meant to solve.
John Kerry will be as skilled a negotiator as the information provided by his advisers allow him to be. He will be operating within the State Department bubble instead of the John Kerry 2004 bubble. That will dramatically affect his ability to negotiate. Secretaries of State don’t do it by themselves.
“So who would you put as Secretary of State?”
I don’t know. This whole thing of mine may be unfair to Booman since this diary is really more about Frank than Kerry, but I think what’s missing from these kinds of discussions in the blogosphere are what qualifications are needed for the job.
IMHO, the SoS spot is one that requires someone particularly well suited for the times. That’s one of the reasons for the success of George Marshall.
Now we don’t need someone with military experience as long as the SoS candidate has learned enough about our failed aggressions of the past. There are firm limits on what war as a policy choice can achieve and there are heavy risks – sometimes hidden, sometimes not so hidden. I think you made a good point about Kerry, and it is a trait that we should look for in any candidate: “Kerry … understands the limits of military action.”
Aside from the usual, more generic skills: administrator, negotiator…
We need someone with background that would fit into the Asia pivot. Culturally Asia is far more challenging to understand for most Americans than Europe or European language countries.
I also think we’ve neglected Latin American issues too long and/or handled them stupidly (War on Drugs, Honduras, etc.) I think we need someone with better acquaintance of the rest of the Western Hemisphere.
I also think we want to make better progress on economics and trade. I’m more interested in seeing someone with credentials in those areas than a military background.
But Kerry’s AUMF vote and his “reporting for duty” tone at his convention are hard for me to dismiss.
This is probably because I don’t know the breadth of his work.
To someone who is familiar with the breadth of his work, the description of John Kerry as “militarist” is quite odd.
“the description of John Kerry as “militarist” is quite odd.”
Hey, I’m willing to be educated – but on the face of some major decisions of our times, yeah, he looks like a militarist. Senator Kennedy had no difficulties voting against the AUMF. There was ample cover for it in that left leaning state.
Kerry had ample social and environmental accomplishments to stand upon in 2004 and he and his handlers designed a convention opening designed to show America who the toughest soldiers were.
But then so many so called progressives have adopted a lot of the basic assumptions that support militarist policies of our government. Militarism is deeply embedded in the American character. As near as I can tell, Kerry has the same problem. Any move from that, however small, would be most welcome.
A couple of links:
This on Andrew Bacevich’s “The New American Militarism”. The first summary and next 2-3 reviews are fairly good:
http://www.softpanorama.info/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/American_exceptionalism/new_american_militar
ism.shtml
This has a couple of links to good WaPo articles Bacevich has written (toward the end):
http://www.thenation.com/blog/37184/andrew-bacevich-his-lost-son-and-obamas-war-afghanistan
Perhaps it would be useful, when considering the record of John Kerry, someone with three decades in the Senate, including lengthy hitches on Intelligence, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs, it would be useful to acknowledge that one vote and the tone of a speech are an inadequate basis to make a judgement.
Do you know how he voted on Gulf War I? Do you care? When I see language like, But then so many so called progressives have adopted a lot of the basic assumptions that support militarist policies of our government. Militarism is deeply embedded in the American character
or a couple of prepared links that have nothing to do with John Kerry, but yet are supposed to be essential for understanding your position on John Kerry, I tend to believe that John Kerry’s actual record is not really that important, compared to this narrative you have in which even “many so-called progressives” count as “militarists,” when it comes to how you evaluate these things.
Like I said, “Hey, I’m willing to be educated”…
What would be “useful, when considering the record of John Kerry” is if someone would throw out a link that goes into his record in some depth that would make up for his disastrous vote in 2002 (and wikipedia is pretty lame BTW). This is essentially what befuddles me about how often his name is floated for cabinet. Everyone loves the guy but no one wants to review his record of accomplishments beyond a sentence or two. (Although kudos and thanks to brendan and his comment – that link was amazing.)
You characterize that AUMF as “one vote” but it helped snare the US into a one trillion dollar war with hundreds of thousands dead. That’s not just one vote. Naming a post office is just one vote. Votes have consequences. Some more than others. You know that.
I don’t know details of Kerry’s votes on GWI. If as you imply he voted consistently against it I think that is great. It’s a pity then that he decided to sell his vote in 2002 for a shot at the White House. It compromised his principles.
I stated up front what little I knew about Kerry and attempted to show substantial info about what I mean when I talk about militarism. You’ve been scant on information.
As for…
“a couple of prepared links that have nothing to do with John Kerry”
Don’t read if you don’t want to. Bacevich is a conservative Catholic and was a career officer in the armed forces. He’s appeared on Moyer’s show more than once and is worthy of a read.
Don’t read if you don’t want to. But don’t make up stuff about it “having nothing to do with John Kerry”:
The Frank n’ Franken Show would be hilarious.
I don’t know how I feel about Kerry.
I remain proud of his work to expose BCCI (which goes a long way to explaining the sheer hatred the Bush family holds for the man). But as pointed out above, he caved when Ohio was stolen. And he voted to go into Iraq.
I guess it would depend on what cabinet position it was.
Maybe at Defense.
I like some of the things he has done in his career, but not all.
And as much as I didn’t like the result I respect that he didn’t allow the 04 election to be settled in the courts. That is what Bush should have done in 2000.
Barney in the Senate would be a hoot though.
I want Ms. Rice shoved down the GOP’s throat, but barring that – POTUS does have a thing for practicality – I’d be fine with Frank in the Senate. Different method of telling the GOP to Suck On This, they need to truly understand and experience the concept of “legitimate rape”…
I have a modest proposal. Kerry for State, Rice for Defense, Frank for Senate, Panetta for DNI.
I predicted Panetta to State a while back, and Kerry going to Defense.
I think if Panetta wanted another position in the administration, we’d have heard him floated already.
My logic wasn’t based on what those folks necessarily wanted, but how their capabilities as demonstrated in their careers could be best used for the country.
No objections to Frank in the Senate. He was my favorite Congressperson by far anyway.
ummmmm….Guys? You’re all fulla shit.
Patrick wouldn’t appoint Frank to serve out Kerry’s term for 2 reasons:
This is the result of the machinations of the Dems in Mass during the Romney governorship. Used to, the Gov appointed and the term was served out. They changed the way it works 3 times to deny Romney the chance to appoint someone to Kennedy’s seat (he was swinging on the pearly gates long before he died).
karma.
Its also one of the reasons Scott got in in the first place. Lotsa people were pissed at the rules being changed in so obvious a fashion.
180 days, eh. Then Martha Coakley’s the obvious choice. 🙂
I don’t understand this obsession with John Kerry. Unless Kerry is hinting that he’ll resign his Senate seat early, Obama should keep him right where he is. In fact, no sitting Democratic Senators should be pulled away to sit in Obama’s cabinet. Obama needs every ally he can get in Congress.
One of Obama’s biggest mistakes in 2009 was pulling too many popular Democrats from elected office to sit in his administration. Napolitano was replaced by the notorious anti-immigrant Jan Brewer. Sebelius was replaced by the religious fundamentalist Sam Brownback. Obama’s own seat fell to Republican Mark Kirk after the Blagojevich fiasco and Joe Biden’s Senate seat would likely have gone Republican if they hadn’t nominated a moron to challenge Chris Coons.
If Obama pulls John Kerry from the Senate, his most likely replacement will ultimately be Scott Brown. He’s the person in a position to start up a campaign quickly and he’s popular in the state. As for Democrats changing the law (again) to support their preferred candidate, voters will rebel against that. Instead of losing the seat for 2 years, they’d lose it permanently in the 2014 election.
Your fantasy of Barney Frank is even crazier. Frank is a polarizing figure in Massachusetts. You may like his rapier wit. Voters, outside of his current district, don’t. He didn’t run this round largely because his new district made him far from a shoo-in for re-election. Statewide, it would be even more challenging.