So, who do you think will be the next Secretary of State?
I haven’t a clue. One of the reasons I haven’t a clue is the same reason that a Democratic friend of mine had for saying that a Trump presidency would be “exciting,” and that’s Trump’s unpredictability. Particularly now, when the idea of his administration is still very new, and very few appointments have been made, we don’t know the direction he will take other than some broad outlines of promises and some specific proposals that may or may not pan out.
But a pick for Secretary of State sets a definite tone. Many names are being bandied about, but here’s one that probably took everyone by surprise:
Donald Trump is scheduled to meet this weekend with 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to discuss the secretary of state position, NBC reported Thursday.
Romney the loser, the non-fighter, the pushover, the greedy rich guy, the Trump-hating turncoat, the uptight privileged son of—well, you get the idea. There is hardly a figure on the Republican side more hated by a great many of the more vocal Trump supporters (which is not all Trump supporters, to be sure) than Mitt Romney.
I don’t feel that way about Romney, but the idea that he might be picked still surprises me, although it kind of pleases me. I think Romney would be tough when he needed to be. I also happen to think he won’t be Trump’s pick, but I don’t pretend to be able to predict at this point and that’s only a guess.
When I think of Romney and foreign policy, what immediately comes to mind was his prescience and correctness in 2012, and how Obama mocked him for it during the third debate. It Romney became SOS, it would be sweet vindication:
But if Trump is truly considering Romney, it heartens me because it would indicate that vindictiveness will not be as strong a motive for Trump as president as it seemed to be for Trump as candidate. And this is in line with a change I began to notice in Trump the night he walked into the roomful of supporters to give his victory speech. It would also indicate less friendliness towards Putin than many have previously observed in Trump.
Other possible SOS candidates were mentioned in the article. We already have heard about John Bolton, but here are some more:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus’ name has also emerged as a possible contender, according to The Guardian.
And on Thursday, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley met with Trump in Manhattan to discuss the coming job opening.
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who began the week as a top contender for secretary of state, left Trump Tower on Thursday after just more than an hour.
Hmm, Petraeus. Didn’t he already plead guilty to “unauthorized removal and retention of classified information” and pay a fine? And isn’t he on probation till April, 2017? Ah well, maybe there’s somewhat of a new tradition among secretaries of state for those sorts of violations. And yes, Petraus’ crime was of a relatively minor sort, but still troubling.
I don’t know much about Haley’s international experience, but it seems to me that as a governor she hasn’t had much. And Giuliani has some potential conflicts of interest, although I’ve always liked him.
Or maybe it will be someone entirely different from all of the above.
Romney would be better suited for OMB or Treasury.
Romney would be a brilliant choice politically for State.
I hope he “hires” Romney! I think he would be an asset in any number of posts, such as OMB or Treasury (as F mentions) or maybe Commerce. I think Giuliani would be better suited to AG.
I’m feeling slightly more optimistic about Trump, based on his current demeanor and the steps he has taken since the election, but most of my colleagues are still in meltdown mode (I work for a university).
I tend to bristle at those–usually on the right–who cast aspersions on Romney. I definitely do not think of him as weak; nor for that matter privileged. He refused his inheritance and went on to significant achievements on his own work and merit.
I think it would be a stroke of genius if Trump can mend fences with Romney, and bring him into a high profile position. Trump would gain a lot of credibility in sectors where he needs it.
I don’t that Romney would gain anything. But, I do think he is a man of service; and would answer the call if he thought it were genuine, and if he thought he could make a difference.
Added benefit. He’s rich enough he doesn’t need to shake down Arab oligarchs while destroying entire regions of North Africa/Middle East.
Didn’t Romney call Russia America’s number one enemy? I think he is right about this, but I was enjoying the postponement of WW3 after Hillary lost.
I doubt djt will offer Mitt a high level position in his administration, but Trump is full of surprises. At last Vanderluen and I are in total agreement, Romney would be an excellent SOS. But if offered would Romney accept?
I’m fine with Romney at OMB or Treasury or Commerce but not for SecState. Romney is a team player and that is not what State needs. Bolton would drain the swamp that is State and has no illusions when it comes to foreign affairs. Giuliani for AG. I’m very pleased with Flynn as Trump’s National Security Advisor. Hopefully, he’ll prevail upon Trump to drain the top of the Pentagon swamp.
China is IMO, the far greater long term threat, than is Russia.
I bet Romney will be named head of the RNC. I can’t see Trump and Romney working together. Romney is a Preibus pick.
I don’t think Romney would want the position, and I don’t think Trump would offer it anyway.
Trump is cunning and tenacious.
While he was fighting for the election, he destroyed his opponents. His belligerence was not from stupidity, but a calculated strategy. Now that he has emerged victorious, he must build a coalition to govern. He’ll likely want to reward conservatives for electing him, and reduce the hostility of liberals. I would expect him to float a few names just for show, and also to hand some actual positions to both liberals and conservatives.
Romney as a cabinet member in a Trump administration! Who would have expected anything this bizarre a year ago? In looking back through the hundreds of comments on the many articles Neo has written about this election, several things stand out:
1. There has been an overall decline in civility. Few people posting here started out as Trump supporters, quite the opposite. Yet no matter how heated the argument most went out of their way to acknowledge another point of view. As it became more and more likely who was going to win the nomination, the comments became sharper.
2. There has been a real change in attitude toward Trump by a good portion of regular commenters. Not to single out Richard Saunders alone, but what he wrote on Feb. 20 is representative of the opinion at the time:
I dislike and distrust Trump as much as anyone, mainly because I have dealt with many, far too many, of his type in my 39 years as a tax lawyer. Trump is a real estate guy, one of the best. To a real estate guy, getting the Deal is the most important thing. If he has to lie, he will lie; if he has to bluster or insult, he will bluster or insult; if he has to sweettalk he will sweettalk; he will even tell the truth if he has to.
That kind of stuff is no longer welcome, even by its author.
3. The change in opinion is now positive toward Trump, or at least not as hostile. He won, so give him a chance. Fair enough. But there is also a real jumping on the bandwagon. Is it because he put Priebus in charge? Or have people come to grips with his post-modernism, and have started to accept his big government proposals and protectionism while at the same time they realize he will not repeal Obamacare or deport millions and millions of illegals?
4. And finally to sum it up, we are witnessing the beginning of the transformation of the GOP from a small government, low tax, individual liberty loving party into a big government, populist, authoritarian monstrosity little different in many respects than the Democrats, notwithstanding the roll back in regulations and possible conservative judge appointments.
Here is what Neo said in a comment back in February:
I’m well aware that the goal of the Trump activists is to destroy the GOP and take it over.
They are well on the way to achieving their goals.
“…we are witnessing the beginning of the transformation of the GOP from a small government, low tax, individual liberty loving party into a big government, populist, authoritarian monstrosity little different in many respects than the Democrats,” –Other Chuck
Beginning? This was my general perspective of the Republican party long before this election. I always wondered why my liberal friends didn’t love GWB with all the programs and policies he advanced.
And Jeff Sessions wins…
we are witnessing the beginning of the transformation of the GOP from a small government, low tax, individual liberty loving party into a big government, populist, authoritarian monstrosity little different in many respects than the Democrats
sorry.. THAT was what the people are complaining about… ie. that for 30 years post reagan they abandoned their roots and tried to out democrat the democrats who were trying to push international communism… but when the republicans were pushing it they were pushing communitarian (communist totalitarian).
ie. communism won among the ruling class because for them it promises permanent rulership over the people and an end to servitude.
yeah its hell, but they would rather rule in a hell of their own creation and control than live and serve in a heaven someone else makes.
so far ALL the assumptions of Trump have been wrong and yet, wrong assumptions continue BECAUSE you let the lying press define him in your minds, because outside of that, there is no way to know him.
i know him and know people who know him and the disparity between how he is presented and how he actually conducts business is very far apart. even more so, he is smart enough to put the people in opposition to him off balance, and you guys are so used to being spoonfed things you dont even think that there are other ways to do things than consipre, and collude then tell everyone how you reached across the aisle and punked the public.
if you did business with him you would be shocked. he is all business no fun. when you come into the ofice, there is no, hi, how are you, how is the family, want a danish. its sit down give the numbers, ask what you want, present the deal and out you go. he is very much like the people i have done business with.
i remember i was seeing my lawyer one day and i said hi, we went to sit down, and he started asking me about the family. first question out of my mouth was: is this chit chat on the clock? he said yes. i said stop wasting my money, and that was that…
you guys are going to be blown away as your thinking tradition, and definitions, and maintaining the status quo of such, and all he is thinking about is how to make a team of people that can do what he needs and doesnt care about such definitions…
but please.. since reagan, every republican has grown the government at record pace, and was only outpaced by the most extreme dems. like Obama who has already run up 2.4 trilion for the current year through 2017..
reagan borrowed too, but his borrowing had he effect of better economics, not just social programs and so on, which do NOT lead anywhere as poor people are generally economically illiterate and if you give them cash they spend it not build anything with it. (not all of course, but that is solved by the lack of enough given and the rules that prevent such actions or else)
sigh
note that now he is in he direct public eye with so many looking its going to be hard for the press to continue their false story on him that they have portrayed for decades… which is why he is apeparing to change..
do you really think his demeanor is changing, or do you think that your perception of him is changing as you get to see him in ways the press refused to let you see before?
he hasnt changed..
🙂
@Other Chuck – yes, I see that too.
Because trump is such an unknown quantity, it is hard to be firmly critical until we have something more specific to point to, though there certainly remains plenty room for serious concern.
It is counter productive to adopt the anxious frenetic stance that several on the left have, until then.
But, the comments! Oy Vey!
Big government and greater power centralization – all the way.
The most significant difference from the dems is that it is their guy directing it all.
.
Cannot decide if trump is looking to “unite” or is looking to “bring his enemies close”.
Take Romney. It would be very hard for Romney to then oppose trump. He’d now have to adopt, defend and argue trump’s “positions”, almost no matter what.
And, it would give trump great pleasure to “fire” Romney should there be a disagreement. We know that trump is capable of making that fully humiliating.
As of Friday morning it looks like Jeff Sessions will be Attorney General. An old Trump Loyalist is picked first. Unfortunately for the Donald, many of his other loyalists like Giuliani and General Flynn have played the international lobbyist game and have probably ruled themselves out.
My guess is all key positions will go to Trump Loyalists (cultists?) in the end much like Obama did with his progressives.
To me the key issue will be how Trump deals with his business. The WSJ today has a great editorial on what will eventually need to be done at great anguish to the Donald. Even then as his kids struggle to keep the rickety Trump new business afloat they will inevitably raise significant conflict of interest issues. Since Trump has made a big deal out of “draining the swamp” his own business wetland will be a prime target.
Sorry,
I put Mitt in the same category as the rest of the Rino’s. While the rest of you look up to him, they were playing his comments about Trump on the radio yesterday- “Trump is a phoney, His presidency would be about as useful as a degree from Trump University”. etc.
Romney simply isn’t a street fighter and based on his comments about Trump. he isn’t very principled. Sort of like Christy trying to load up all the establishment lobbyists into the mix.
Am I saying Trump is principled? Nope, jury is still out on that question. But I have been surprised by the people he has invited into his cabinet. Lets hope the draining of the swamp continues. 🙂
@Dirty – great point. trump’s family have been rather heavily involved, it seems, since the election. It remains to be seen how “separate” they will become, but, yes, to the extent they are, it provides a sharp contrast to, and speaks volumes of, trump’s rhetoric.
Anyone else still notice that obamacare is still a verboten topic wrt any cause for clinton’s results?
On CBS morning show, a reporter mentioned all kinds of things, including Comey’s on again / off again investigations, but not a word on the aca.
In fact, there is a curious lack of discussion in the media about the major impact it is having just this year.
I have heard from folks affected, and there’s more anecdotal evidence…
http://theresurgent.com/this-is-why-hillary-clinton-lost/
I do NOT think it would be Romney — but I think it would be brilliant play by Trump to actually offer it to him. Such an offer would likely be accepted, but would take quite a bit of discussion beforehand (?).
Yet merely an “official” consideration is an excuse to start building a Rep Trump coalition to get things done, and give Romney reasons to stop being anti-Trump, even if not yet pro-Trump.
I know I sometimes offer to go out to lunch with folk whom I’m pretty sure won’t be able to, as a low-time way of demonstrating my desire to lunch with them. Sometimes they even say yes, which I then happily accept (and maybe miss a work out that day).
At 69 now, Mitt would probably be feeling too old to run in 2024 (at 77). But he’s the most noble & admirable candidate for Pres. since Reagan.
I think Trump is wise to talk to many Rep leaders about possible ways they can work together, and it’s likely he is looking for allies for programs.
He remains full of uncertainty, but having names for Cabinet places, like his list of possible names for SCOTUS, is a stabilizing signal.
If Trump nominates Romney for SecState I’ll be truly surprised, as I’ve been so many times over the last year.
On the other hand, I think Trump has a strategy of trolling the media – Trump knows and has lived by a rule: any kind of publicity is good publicity. Keep people talking about you, any way you can.
I put the Muslim Registry in that camp. Get that bit of news going, get people talking (and freaking out), deny you ever said it, oh, here’s a video from a year ago showing you said it, etc. etc. etc. (I’m very much opposed to the registry, btw, but I *think* I know when I’m being trolled)
We’re in a post-truth culture now. Such as his claim that he already has prevented Ford from moving a plant to Mexico.
All that matters now is if you are a “street fighter”. Guys like Romney are ridiculed because they actually cared about the truth, respect, etc. All those old, passe’ values.
As has been said earlier, I’ll believe Trump is going to “drain the swamp” when he has credibly established that his own businesses won’t benefit from the conflicts of interest he appears to be setting up.
Big Mag, yes I’ve noticed the same lack of focus on Obamacare. What Trump plans is anyone’s guess. I was marginally hopeful when Carson signed on. Now that he’s out it seems likely that we’ll get a version of single payer disguised as Medicaid expansion, with tax subsidies for the middle class to purchase nominally private insurance.
Because most people don’t know doctors personally, they don’t have a clue what havoc the ACA has made. The thousands of pages of regulations along with possible criminal penalties are a nightmare. I doubt if the damage can be reversed. Too many doctors have already retired, left the profession, or have cut back their hours after joining a group practice.
How about Jared Kusher? If anyone has read Winston Churchill’s history of WWII you would know about the Italian Foreign Minister, Count Ciano. Ciano was Mussolini’s son in law and his diaries showed a somewhat more realistic view of the world than his wife’s father.
Unfortunately this realism resulted in him being executed by Mussolini when Ciano angered the Nazi’s.
Trump shares a lot of traits with old Benito so why not pick family?
DJG, I don’t know about shared Trump and Benito traits, but I agree with “why not family?”. To those who are concerned about family influence, I simply refer them to JFK/RFK. Many considered that to be a brilliant partnership. (I was not one)
Until proven otherwise, I assume that Trump will cross the T’s and dot the I’s on matters of conflict.
I am a big admirer of Romney and would love to see him in the administration for a number of reasons; not the least as a demonstration of solidarity. It would also enhance Trump’s image with respect to his alleged thin skin and propensity to hold grudges. I trust–hope–that Trump is not cynically trolling his name, or setting him up for an act of revenge.
“We’re in a post-truth culture now” – Bill
Would like to take the liberty to change that up a bit.
I think we are in a self selection society / culture.
.
We have an abundance of information that didn’t exist or wasn’t easily acquired only a couple or three generations ago.
Today, we can find out a great deal about a vast variety of things.
We also suffer from information overload.
Between TV, emails, facebook, twitter, etc., all the things which demand our attention in between or along side our every day responsibilities, there really isn’t time to follow up and carry out our due diligence on all this “information”.
So, we select our sources.
If we pick the ones that tell us what we want to hear and/or merely confirm our world view, we are getting a very filtered and skewed idea of reality.
Once we lose the discipline or desire to seek views that challenge our own, then we risk letting ourselves to be molded by those sources providing us the input. This also allows us to “overlook” counterfactuals, or dissonant facts, even obvious ones.
Thus, with no due diligence, and ignoring “inconvenient” facts, “post-truth” happens, and we begins a slide into what would otherwise have been unacceptable, in thoughts, beliefs and action.
.
Many here, and elsewhere on the right, correctly criticize (or jeer) how universities have become “monocultures”, where dissent is becoming less and less allowed.
Yet, we are doing this to ourselves, voluntarily.
Could it be these universities are merely reflecting our society’s own behavior?
While he was fighting for the election, he destroyed his opponents.
More like the Alt Right destroyed his opponents and Trum just came to pick up the pieces and loot.
Neo “It would also indicate less friendliness towards Putin than many have previously observed in Trump.” Friendliness is the beginning of a negotiation, Neo. Commencing a negotiation with hostility seldom yields a desired outcome. My take has been that Trump respected Putin as a savvy, worthy future adversary, thus the “friendliness”.
Big Maq posts, “…universities have become ‘monocultures’, where dissent is becoming less and less allowed. Yet, we are doing this to ourselves, voluntarily.
Could it be these universities are merely reflecting our society’s own behavior?”
The answer is “NO”, and you know it.
Between the Left’s Gramscian takeover of higher ed and the collusion of the Dept of Education and Justice’s Div. of Civil Rights, it is being done to us, not by us. Title IX has become a perversion. Which is why today I would not send any of my kids to a private college or university, where the First Amendment is only a concept, not an enforceable principle, and where an alleged rape is not necessarily investigated exclusively by the administration using an unconstitutional DOE code of procedure.
One of my boys went to Haverford College, which, always “liberal”, has turned into a Leftist slimepit, constantly oozing PC. Catharine MacKinnon, the Leftist lesbian feminist law professor got an honorary degree there 25 years ago. Her speech culminated with her shrieking “All men are fuckers” repeatedly…and no one took her mike away. One of her later achievements is getting rape designated an act of genocide, at the so-called International Court of Justice, apparently.
Frog:
The word “friendliness” in the context in which I used it doesn’t mean what you think it means. My use of the word meant “thinking a person is innocuous, an ally, a friend, in your corner” etc. etc..
What you actually meant, I believe, was “politeness” or “diplomacy” or “cordiality.” Not “friendliness,” which is not appropriate in terms of Putin and negotiations. Those other words are appropriate.
I see Haley’s name being floated around.
I don’t know whether she can tame the beast that is the State Department, nor whether Romney could do it either.
During the Bush administration it seemed that the State Department had it’s own agenda separate from that of the president. Yes, foreign policy should have some continuity– but I think there would be a consensus here that continuity of the Obama foreign policy isn’t what we need.
We will of course disagree which direction it should take, but we need an “authoritarian” to reign in the State beast.
Maybe Romney could be clinical like he was at Bain Capital when the hard decisions had to be made to liquidate a company that had no chance of revival. Would he be at State?
Bolton sounds like that kind of guy, and his neo-con philosophy might be an interesting good cop/bad cap strategy balancing other factions inside the Trump administration.
Whoever is selected he/she needs to be someone who is professional enough to at some point advance the policies of the president.
@Frog – you may believe “NO” is the correct answer, but I question that assumption.
Self-selection.
Are you diversifying your sources of information, or are you sticking to a comfortable, confirming bubble?