It may be too late (these things are usually pre-determined) but Bush should reach across the aisle to replace Tom Ridge as Homeland Security Director. Joe Lieberman is an obvious choice but there are others. Feel free to use the commments here as a suggestion box. [How much does the Homeland Security Director make?-ed. What's the matter? You don't like your job?]
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Joe’s a go in my book too. Maybe he can straighten out that mess they call the TSA.
While Lieberman would be an excellent choice, and a fine show of statemanship, Bush will be accused by Senate Democrats as another Rove ploy to steal Senate seat (Connecticut currently has a moderate Republican Governor).
Lieberman would be a great choice to weld together the disparate cultures that make up DHS. He’ll have to be tough, though.
I can’t see any Democratic senator accepting, given the obvious consequences for the caucus. Let’s also not forget how the last prominent Democrat in the Bush White House–Norman “Sleepy Norm” Mineta–has fared.
Then you have the curious case of the full- employment olive branch extended to the ungrateful Max Cleland, who took a $100,000-a-year government sinecure and then proceeded to stab Bush in the back.
Instead of reaching across the aisle, how about a Republican with actual law enforcement experience like Rudy Guiliani?
Roger:
I agree with you, Lieberman is strong and has a good relationship with both sides of the aisle.
I think Lieberman is a good choice, too. And Fresh Air, I don’t think that Lieberman would act anything like Cleland. There were times this election season when it wasn’t clear to me from his public approbation of Bush’s policies whether he was actually going to vote for Bush or Kerry in the privacy of the voting booth, despite the fact that in public he supported Kerry.
I doubt Giuliani would accept Home Land Security.
Kucinich is the obvious choice.
Seriously, Lieberman makes sense, but I agree that they won’t let go of a Dem senator easily, for fear of inching closer to the filibuster-killing 60.
I’d like them to approach Rudy and see if he’ll bite. No other quality/acceptable Dems currently come to mind.
Why worry about Homeland Security when the
new UN definition of terrorism has resolved the problem.
Wow, our thanks to the UN for this impressive conclusion!
I think we’ve figured out this defintion long ago, but the geniuses at the UN have finally defined terrorism?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=721&e=7&u=/ap/20041130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_global_threats
“….also defined terrorism, something the 191-member U.N. General Assembly has tried unsuccessfully to do for years and rejected the argument of those who say people under foreign occupation have a right to resist. “There is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians,” the report said.”
“Terrorism was described as “any action … that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
Gee guys, does this insight now qualify this activity under your definition? “Iran Group Signs Up Suicide Volunteers” at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_seeking_suicide_bombers
Should we expect a flood of UN sanctions against Iran?
As has been demonstrated by Ridgeís resignation this job will, for the immediate future, be a lightning rod and probably a career ending one for any aspiring politician such as Giuliani.
I suspect that more ex-governors, retired senators or retired, little heard of, FBI agents (and retired police chiefs) will remain the primary pool of potential candidates
Yours is a party that has almost totally renounced the concept of bipartisanship. 3 hour votes, spying on opposition computer systems, the K Street Project, changing the card system so many times it’s pathetic (2-no-1-no-2-no-none). Two questions:
1) Does the White House even own any olive branches to extend? Is it anywhere in the President’s character to cooperate?
2) Would it violate Dennis “the Hammer” Hastert’s “Hastert Rule” to vote for a Democratic nominee?
Tim
Giuliani doesn’t want this headache. Look what it’s done for Tom Ridge’s presidential prospects.
I agree in principle that this is a perfect place for a Democrat: Bush can appear magnanimous and bipartisan, and if (God forbid) a terrorist attack happens, he can deflect any negative flack onto his Democratic Sec’y of HS.
On the other hand, given the enormous amount of pork that the DHS is in charge of administering, I wonder why this President would want to hand the reins over to a Dem. I mean, do you think Lieberman would put up with the millions of dollars that are being spent to secure police stations in Ottumwa?
Bush would be better to wait until Rumsfeld goes away, and then put a pliable Democrat at the DoD to give the War on Terror the bi-partisan bona fides it desperately needs.
Don’t worry Tim, in only 49 1/2 months a brand new Repupublican president will be sworn in, that plus a solid 62 seat majority in the Senate plus the 5 Justices that W will appoint to the SC will make all the difference in the world. Just hang in there, help is on the way.
I vote for Zell Miller! He obviously is passionate about national security and he’s leaving office….
Roger,
I don’t think there is a Democrat who would take Homeland Security. I think Bernard Kirek is the man for the job.
But speaking of Democrats, how about soon-to-be Former Senator John Breaux for Treasury Secretary. He can take the job without reducing the number of Dem’s in the Senate and he is perhaps the only Democrat who agrees with President Bush on privatization of Social Security. If it happens, you heard it here first.
Joe Lieberman is a particularly bad choice. Not because he wouldn’t be good but because it would take a moderate voice away from the Democrats. I may be a particularly partisan Republican but I believe that we need a viable and credible opposition. If Bush is looking for a Democrat then I think a retiring moderate would be a better choice.
Sam Nunn.
Bernard Keric might be a good choice. Asa Hutchison is also being mentioned. I think Lieberman wouldn’t take it. Kerry spouted off a lot about poor homeland security–maybe he should take it and be responsible for the safety of the country (just kidding)
Actually, it’s spelled “Kerik” (former NY Police Commissioner)
Scalesfree: How’s the Kool-Aid?
Lieberman has been a disgrace on border security as Peter Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America has pointed out. He talks about securing the borders but then behind the scenes undermines all efforts to do so.
Tom Ridge got a bit of a rough ride I think. He did a lot of work to ensure that Canada fell into line with the US on security issues. The outstanding issues were deftly resolved by Ridge working with the Canadians – no “unilateralism” here! – and the US is now sufficiently happy to be talking about an extra border crossing between Windsor and Detroit to facilitate more trade. I don’t however expect to hear about this in the US press.
It’s a bit of a thankless job having to come out with all those warnings. Someone who’s politically ambitious might not want the position.
Roger,
With all due respect, Joe Lieberman?
Um, no.
Homeland Security Secretary is perhaps the worst imaginable job in the world, super-high stress, total exposure and liability for even the smallest real or perceived failure, and it requires someone with chief-executive experience, like a Governor, or a military Chief of Staff, or a huge organization like Bechtel or Haliburton.
Actually, the best person for the job is Dick Cheney, alas, he’s spoken-for. Second best is Don Rumsfeld.
Senator Lieberman for all that is known about him seems to be a fine and capable man, for the job of Senator, or perhaps Vice-president, not Homeland Security Chief.
Former Governor (and Senator) Zell Miller could be a suitable choice if not for the fact that he seems to have suffered from “burnout” and the job may be to Herculean even for him.
And no, Sir Rudy will not accept if offered the job.
And lastly, and most telling, is to think about how much confidence you might have offering the job to John Forbes Kerry. Yikes! If you don’t think he could pass muster in the role, think of him for a moment as Commander in Chief. Double Plus Yikes!
I wish I could think of a prominent Democrat for the job, but I can’t.
Sigh.
I’m not sure whats with all this “reaching across the aisles” crap. I can safely say there would be no republican anywhere near John Kerry’s cabinet if the election results had been different. I respect Joe Lieberman quite a bit- I also think he’s a Zell Miller democrat- he doesn’t like his own party much anymore but won’t cross the aisle in any kind of official capacity.
Bipartisanship is fine. But its Homeland Security, possibly the most important issue domestically (and in some ways, globally). The importance of job warrants the best man/woman is picked for the job, with much less concern for party affiliation.
Half the reason Bush was hamstrung during his first term was folks who were thought to be loyal were not quite as loyal as first thought. He needs a DoHS that knows his stuff and won’t publicly contradict the boss.
Also, I know this is a pipedream but I’d sacrifice making any significant “values” policy changes (gay marriage, abortion, etc) for the left to get behind the president on the war on terror and let him get as much of the job done as possible over the next 4 years.
I agree, they need a Democrat. Where’s Bull Connor when we need him?
I second Rick Ballard’s comment above, and would just point out that no high profile democrat, office holder/apartchik/whatever, is going to have a thing to do with Homeland Security since it will indeed involve a healthy bit of immigration and border controls over the next four years. They’ve invested forty years of labelling any move toward secure borders as racism; I don’t care what name you put forward, calling Nancy Pelosi a ‘centrist’ is more believable than a national-level Democrat participating in any capacity that will in any way, shape, or form threaten to reduce the fog of illegals who tend to vote Dem.
And no, national security won’t be a metric in their decision.
The Dems aborted a generation of voters, have watched their plantation vote evolve into middle class citizens, are holding the Unions’ hands on their deathbed, and have come to realize that Hispanic and other immigrant Americans actually like the idea of voting for THEIR interests, not just to elect Democrats.
My personal opinion is that the Democrats have shown up for the chariot race with cinderblocks under their axles. Hell, tied to the traces, too. Look at the national party and ask which of them have any business outside of a debating club.
I second the nomination of Mr. Keric, after reading the Anchoress’ (grammar?) post via Instapundit and googling up his bona fides. We need a cop, not a reach across the aisle.
History Lesson: Bush didn’t begin to actively ignore the Democrats until their post 2002 election fit of apoplexy. Their behaviour over the last few weeks shows little utility for Bush (or the country) in attempting to engage them for the forseeable future. Like terror, the french, and vandals, some folks you don’t talk to, you just beat, and that’s where we are today in our domestic politics.
I’m really looking forward to 2006, myself. I see Giuliani as the new junior senator from New York.
He’ll have a pretty good freshman class with him, too.
BTW -
If I wasn’t reasonably certain that Mitt Romney is committed to fixing Massachussets before running for president, I’d put his name in the hat. In a heartbeat. In spite of the machine that runs that sad blue place he is scoring points.
He’s an unbelievably effective executive and hasn’t let government service change his style yet. He could fill ANY domestic cabinet slot and do good things.
The only Democrat I’d trust is Zell Miller. Or Victor Davis Hanson.
Incidentally: Gramm for Treasury!
i like kerik or schwartzkopf. a ny cop or a general. they both have management experience beyond the ordinary.
How about Ed Koch (provided that you give him a deputy who knows how to steamroll Washington bureaucrats)?
The name DennisThePeasant leaps out. The man has a rare combination of sobriety, seriousness and empathy.
What is the pay again?
[Ignore the fact that someone 'claiming' to be DtP has posted this...it wasn't me, er, him.]
TmjUtah
“Like terror, the french, and vandals, some folks you don’t talk to, you just beat”
Just couldn’t let that great line go by without comment. Well put summation of the actions we should be taking.
MeTooThen — “prominent Democrat” is kind of an oxymoron these days…
Hm. What about Randall Cunningham. Fighter Ace (Nam, real one), Democrat. Christian tho, which will probably raise hackles, screw Article Four of the Constitution…
Richard:
Unless I missed the change in affilliation, the Duke is a Republican. And there is a good reason why he retired as a Commander.
The trouble with leading DHS is that it’s a Woody Hayes kind of job: there are only three things that can happen to you and two of them are bad. Thus presidential aspirants are probably out (at least if they know what’s good for them).
Think retiring/retired Congresscritters and generals. Though I like the idea of Kerik a lot, I’m not sure he has the bureaucratic skills necessary to run such an unwieldy beast as DHS.
Maybe a lion-tamer or snake-charmer would do a better job…
FA,
Tommy Franks could do the job. Relatively apolitical (he was a bit miffed at not being asked to speak at the Dem convention). He’s got the organizational skills and abilities and he’s very much unafraid to step on toes. I still think that the primary job of the DHS is to transition non-functional bureaucrats to the private sector and Gen. Franks would be quite effective in implementing a review process that would achieve that goal.
mudmarine-
I wish it were not so. I truly do.
We can have two parties with widely divergent ideas on how to get things done as long as both parties have a common goal – support, protect, and defend the Constitution and by extenstion the nation.
I trust George Bush. On a macro level, I trust the people who elected a majority Republican legislature. I don’t trust the incumbents of the GOP as far as I could throw a Buick. They got a mandate to govern in 1994 and caved. Patriotism is good. Conservative is good. Ethical is good. I want them to act decisively on national defense, immigration (same chapter of the larger story, actually), tax reform, social security reform, tort reform, energy policy…and then I want them to win more seats nationally based on their demonstrated ability to govern.
I was glad to see Alan Keyes lose to Obama; he’s a good man but he’s not the face of the Republican party in spite of the best efforts of media and punditry to make that label stick.
The Democrats lose because their varsity, for the most part, ditched that constitution thing a long time back. The Rep varsity forgets that “voting for the lesser evil” is a lot more common than a partisan ideological statement of support on the part of any single voter. Those folks who spend a term or two inside the Beltway tend to believe their own press releases regardless of which side of the aisle they are on…and the longer they are there, the easier it gets for them to do just that.
The only other Dem I can think of that I would lean toward would be Bob Kerry.
I’d like to see either Giuliani or Karik(sp) take the job however.
I’d rather have the right person for the job … Republican or Democrat.
Kerik may not have the connections on the Hill or the international experience of a Lieberman. It is true that as suggested above, Cheney or the Rumster may in fact be the best for the job. But if we are talking Democrats, then a person like Lieberman, who like Miller is almost an outcast from his party, may have little to lose from taking the job. Not saying that he would, but rather that he might be a good choice.
There are multiple problems within DHS. The first is that there is no sense of mission or cohesion – that is, the new department is just an amalgamation of units with absolutely no history of working together. 9/11, sadly, seems an insufficient motivation. Only if you have seen it up close would you know how bad this really is. So first of all these cats have to be herded together. Second, there is unease among several departments (FEMA, Customs, etc.) that too much budget is being devoted to terrorism at the expense of their more traditional duties. That is in many ways a crock, but it is a deeply held bureaucratic mindset that must be overcome. A thankless task. Perfect for a decent retired politico, general or admiral who isn’t looking to climb the next rung.
The real problem is creating a managerial culture within DHS that sees the threat in its totality – where a new professional can start inspecting cargo containers at a port, then go to Monterey to learn Arabic, then be posted overseas to run an intelligence collection effort, then come home to gain experience in dasaster management, then top out as a regional DHS director. Maybe not that specific chain of assignments, but you get the idea. Broadly similar to the career progression of, say, a line officer in the Navy. We are nowhere – nowhere – near that type of thinking.
Rick B.–
Love the Tommy Franks idea; he would sail through confirmation. I’m not sure he wants to slay dragons in Washington every day for his day job, however. Seems to be having a pretty good time hanging out in Tampa and smoking Cohibas right now. He’s also a potential Rumsfeld replacement. How about this off-the-wall idea: Paul Bremer? At least he risked getting his ass shot off every day for a year. That should qualify him for something.
One thing that’s for sure about the former police commissioner of New York: If he wants the damn job, he’s going to have to change his last name so people can spell it.
nothisgirl-
“I’d rather have the right person for the job … Republican or Democrat.”
Amen to that.
TmjUtah
Well, I don’t have the intellect to post so much on this blog.
But just so you don’t get the wrong idea, I also wish it were not true, the quote I pulled of course. My greatest dream would be for all citizens of the world to live in peace, love and happiness. You can call me stupid, I don’t mind.
I abhor violence. I grew up with it. I fought a war with it. I truly wish there were other effective ways to deal with the a**holes of the world who feel that their way is better than mine and who will not compromise. We have tried most other ways, maybe all of them, in dealing with these folks. These efforts have not worked, near as I can tell. Its as if we think we have moved far from the caves of our beginnings, where presumably violence was a daily occurrence, and from which many think we can no longer behave that way. But I think we have not. It is still the guy with the biggest club. I don’t necessarily like that.
And when it comes to protecting the U.S. and our Constitution, I will do whatever is necessary to do.
I trust GW in the sense that I trust a pit bull to stick on a two year old. And that’s OK. I try to be a realist for a given situation. I am still waiting for a politician to stand up and say the things that I think needs to be said (emphasis on the I of course). Our country faces the most severe test of its existence since our beginnings IMO, perhaps even greater than the Civil War. That war would have just divided us, and maybe we could have co-existed and still preserved the essentialness of our democracy. I’m glad GW drew the line. I just hope we can stick to it.
Skookumchuk
…”then go to Monterey to learn Arabic…”
That might be the first reference to DLI here at Roger’s blog!
Good one.
He is not a politician, but I know he is a registered Democrat. John Reed, the former chairman of Citibank and the man who was called in to bail out the NYSE after Dick Grasso nearly killed it, has the type of high level executive experience the job needs.
I know that he is a man of outstanding integrity and a real mensch. He is not a politician. but we need him and people like him in public service.
How about Wesley Clark? He’s only a Dem because the Republicans didn’t need him for anything badly enough. It would dead-end whatever other political aspirations he might have. His militariness seems in line with the job specs. Yeah, he’s a goofball, but if coopting the other side is part of the plan (which I’m not so sure it should be), he just might be one that meets the needs.
rasta:
Oh no, not Wes “the Gladius” Clark. The man is insufferably arrogant, dishonest and a poor administrator to boot.
Right on all counts. If the job were just a figurehead position, like Agriculture or Education, he’d be perfect. But since it’s a real job, he wouldn’t do.
“I’d rather have the right person for the job … Republican or Democrat.”
It’s become a cornerstone of the Bush Administration, Hastert House & Frist Senate that for any measure or bill, success is measured not by its passage but by ensuring that no Democrats are allowed to be in favor of it. There are a number of ways they’ve found to accomplish this, they’ve turned it into a science.
“Bipartisanship is date rape” – Grover Norquist
I’m not sure whats with all this “reaching across the aisles” crap. I can safely say there would be no republican anywhere near John Kerry’s cabinet if the election results had been different.
John Kerry was so committed to bipartisanship that he approached John McCain numberous times with an offer to run as his Vice President.
I know that life is simpler when you ignore the facts, but Oceania has not always been at war with Eastasia. Saying it has doesn’t make it true.
Tim
scalefree:
Kerry wanted McCain for window dressing only. McCain told him he was nuts for proposing a patently unconstitutional arrangement. Kerry labors under the misconception that since they are friends McCain agreed with him. Kerry can’t imagine a situation where friends can have different political views. McCain would not have left the Senate to be in the cabinent. He wants to be center stage not a dummy in the shop window.
The Democrats view of bipartisanship is for Republicans to accept left wing positions. Since, the Republicans aren’t socialists their legislation can appear to reject bipartisanship if you are a mainstream socialist Democrat
Jerry,
1) I have no idea what you mean by “patently unconstitutional”. Which part of the Constitution would have been violated by a Kerry-McCain ticket?
2) As for center stage, do you think Vice President Cheney is “window dressing”? Blind, cartoonish assertions aside, why would McCain have been any less integral to Kerry than Cheney is to Bush? McCain & Kerry have worked closely together on a number of occasions, difference of opinion & all.
3) And finally, saying things like “mainstream socialist Democrat” just makes you sound even more silly & cartoonish.
This is what comes of the rise of Right Wing Media. You get this ridiculous, cartoon view of the world.
Tim
scalefree [Tim]
Perhaps you haven’t read the story of the Kerry’s pleading in Newsweek. Kerry promised McCain that “if he went on the ticket Kerry would make him solely responsible for Defense and Foreign Affairs.” McCain’s response was “John are you nuts? I don’t even think that would pass a constitutional test.” You are obviously uninformed.
Tell me, where do today’s socialist oriented mainstream Democrats policies overlap with Republicans? Not on defense, not on taxes, not on social security or terrorism. Certainly not on court appointees. How do you propose the Republicans reach out? By giving the Democrats final say on who gets to be a judge? Bush was cooperating with the Democrats before the 2002 midterms. After the Dems lost they switched tactics to blockade and became the modern equivalent of the Civil War Copperheads. If Bush was for it, then they were against it.
Grow up, you lost. Go into the opposition put together a program and bring it before the people. If they like it then you win.
mudmarine -
I think I know exactly where you are coming from when you accentuate the “I”.
I use more words to poop out simple ideas than almost anybody I know…but even I haven’t made a public case for “what needs to be said” because the policy makers we’ve elected clearly doubt that a majority of the electorate is ready for it yet.
I, too, loathe violence. I’m bang on necessary violence, though. You cannot capture a Kamikaze.
Fifty-plus-whatever percent of us are resolved to fight and win, as measured by November’s election. That’s well and good, if far from representing the level of public awareness of the true nature of the threat and the necessary lengths we must go to in my (there’s our “I” again) opinion, based on my experience and study.
If a large portion of our majority that voted to continue the war based their choice solely on preventing another 9/11, hunting down that particular organization, and nothing else, so be it.
I think the interconnectivity of all the jihadi movements all the way back to the Wahabbi tea rooms in Saudi and the halls of Tehran lends a lot of latitude to our definition of ‘organization’ when it comes time to declaring victory. So be that, too.
Director of Homeland Security: shittiest job in America. Who would want it?
If you want some names of Dmeocrats what about:
Dick Gephardt – his trae/economic policies are not in line with the GOPs but he usually seems serious on security matters (and culutral before he became a national Dem. politician – a throwback to the old Scoop Jackson liberal hawk?). No mangement experience but probably would have good relations with Congress.
Leon Pannetta – seems like a serious guy, as Clinton’s Chief of Staff and senior Dem congressman he knows how to get things done in Congress and excutive branch.
Lee Hamilton – on 9/11 commission he seemde less flaky and less intersted in partisan point scoring than Bob Kerrey, still the 9/11 commission’s partisanship and he lack of mnagement experience make him a questionable choice.
James Woolsey – Clinton’s first CIA director but perhaps more of a neo-con these days, but seems to get along with many in the administration
If you wanted to look outside the usual government types, a Silicon Valley CEO might be a good place to look to get someone familiar with managing fast growing organizations and familair with hte challenges of adapting to quickly evolving technologies – God knows there are always computer system problems in intelligence/law enforcement.