Is Marco Rubio A Good Idea For Secretary Of State?
I’m queasy about the word that Rubio, along with Reps. Mike Waltz (National Security Advisor) and Elise Stefanik (UN Ambassador), are up for cabinet-level positions in the Trump administration.
Not that I think any of them are unqualified. On their merits, all three of them are good choices.
Last night, Marjorie Taylor Green tweeted out this old video clip of Rubio which is worth a little discussion…
That’s a level of moral clarity and intellectual aggression which is very, very attractive in a secretary of state. Ambush Rubio with a bunch of emotional terrorism like those Pro-Hamas Useful Idiots did, and your typical politician is going to step back and seek conciliation, because his instinct will be not to say anything that will infuriate the crazies.
But Rubio instead leans in and dominates the moment. He turns the ambush into his own personal stage and takes the criticism of Israel’s “genocide” against “civilians” in Gaza as an invitation to rightly attack Hamas for committing the war crime of hiding among the civilian population of that beleagured territory as they commit atrocities against Israeli civilians.
The Hard Left, and particularly the pro-Hamas Hard Left, refuses to acknowledge the barbarism of the animals they’re advocating for. They need to be called out for that, and Rubio isn’t just ready to do that but eager to get in the muck with them.
You want a Secretary of State like that. That’s a Secretary of State who can get things done.
But you lose Rubio in the Senate if you do this. And while Florida can get another solid Republican senator – there’s been talk that Byron Donald would get a chance to move up when Gov. Ron DeSantis appoints Rubio’s successor, should he end up with the Secretary of State position, and that would be fine – we don’t really have enough good conservatives in the GOP Senate caucus.
So that’s a concern.
But right now it looks like there will be 53 Republican seats in the Senate, and the Florida seat isn’t going Democrat any time soon. But with Waltz and Stefanik, it’s a bit more nerve-wracking.
They’re both good choices on the merits. Waltz is a former Green Beret who speaks brilliantly on geopolitics and furthermore is a strong advocate against the waste and fluff in the defense budget. That’s within the purview of the national security adviser, because when war with China and/or Russia (not to mention Iran) seems closer now than it’s been in a very long time, we can’t be wasting money we don’t have on defense; not getting bang for our buck could actually lose us a war.
And Stefanik isn’t a diplomat, but you really don’t want a diplomat for UN Ambassador. What you want is a talented, aggressive political pro. And Elise Stefanik is about as talented and aggressive a political as there is in all of Congress.
The problem is that there still aren’t enough called House races to guarantee a GOP majority in the event Waltz and Stefanik come out of the House Republican Delegation and go into the administration. The current projections have it that the Republicans will hold 222 or 223 seats, but it’s a very common thing for the GOP to fall just short. So if three or four currently-projected Republican seats don’t materialize as the counting goes on interminably in places like California and Arizona and then Waltz and Stefanik depart for the administration, you might find yourself with the slightest possible majority until special elections fill those seats.
Waltz’ seat won’t be filled by a Democrat. It’s a very stout conservative district. Stefanik’s? It should stay red, but that’s less of a guarantee. And don’t bet against the Democrats spending $20 million or more trying to flip it.
So I’m a little torn about raiding the House and Senate to staff the administration. Not because the people Trump appears to be choosing aren’t good. It’s the strategic risk which scares me.
