No surprise here.
Via the AP: Senate Confirms Rice As Secretary of State
The Senate vote showed some of the partisanship that delayed Rice’s confirmation vote by several days. Twelve Democrats and independent James Jeffords of Vermont voted against Rice. The Democrats included some of the Senate’s best-known members such as Massachusetts Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry, who was the party’s presidential candidate in last year’s election. Thirty Democrats voted for her.
Dave Wissing has the list of the 13 nays.
And this is interesting, and echoes, to some degree, my position of the extended debate on Rice’s confirmation vote:
On the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., suggested Democrats are sore losers. Rice had enough votes to win confirmation, as even her Democratic critics acknowledge, McCain said.“So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion,” McCain said. Since Rice is qualified for the job, he said, “I can only conclude that we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness over the outcome of the election.”
And along those lines, I concur with James Joyner, who ponders exactly what these 13 gained for themselves or their party in this process.
In my opinion, the question is whether she is the right person for the job. Ultimately, I think she’s not the best choice, no matter what her race. I also don’t believe it is even her first choice of positions. She is not really a diplomat, nor does she handle situations in the most diplomatic way. I’m sure she is technically qualified for the job, but I’m not sure exactly why Bush wants her in that Cabinet position.
However, I’m not sure what those Senators hoped to gain from their votes unless it was just peace of mind.
Comment by Jan — Thursday, January 27, 2024 @ 8:54 am
All fair enough–although I am not sure what it means that she doesn’t “handle situations in the most diplomatic way” insofar as I am not certain we have enough data based on public activities to discern such (unless you mean her fight with Boxer in the hearings).
Regardless, the political question is what the exact point was of a one day delay and extended “debate” when the vote was foregone. Peace of mind may be the answer, but I am not certain that is an adequate explanation.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Thursday, January 27, 2024 @ 9:06 am