Secretary Rice and the Democrats
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
If there is a takeaway message from the Senate vote yesterday confirming Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, it is this: The Democratic Party is badly divided on the central issue of defending America in the war on terrorism. Of the 44 Democrats in the Senate, 12 voted against Ms. Rice’s confirmation. The “no” votes included the party’s 2004 standard-bearer, Senator Kerry; his Massachusetts colleague Senator Kennedy; and the increasingly out-of-the-mainstream Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey. Senator Bayh of Indiana, who cultivates a reputation as a moderate and is said to have national political ambitions, cast a surprisingly obstructionist vote against Ms. Rice. Some of the senior figures among the Senate Democrats cast “no” votes – Byrd, Harkin, Levin.
New York’s senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, did the right thing in voting to confirm Ms. Rice, allowing President Bush the latitude to choose his own team in fighting the war. Mrs. Clinton will no doubt want similar latitude from Senate Republicans if she is ever in the position of choosing her own secretary of state.
A similar test is shaping up with respect to Mr. Bush’s request for $80 billion in supplemental funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Kerry and his running mate famously supported the Iraq war but opposed Mr. Bush’s request for $87 billion to support the troops there. Senators Schumer and Clinton both voted the right way and supported the $87 billion. How will the Democrats handle the request this time around?
In some cases, differences within a political party are a sign of strength, of a willingness to have a healthy exchange of ideas. There are plenty of Republicans, for example, who support abortion rights or who oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But when it comes to a matter as basic as national security policy, it sure looks as if it is going to take at least until 2008 before the Democrats can find a message that they can rally around. Until then, Americans can look forward to seeing Mrs. Clinton voting differently than Mr. Kerry, leaving us all confused about what, if anything, the Democrats stand for when it comes to the question of how America will fight the war.
