Max Cleland for Secretary of Defense

[earthside]

Earthside.com suggests that the Democrats in the U.S. Senate should block the Gates nomination, then in January confirm former Georgia U.S. Senator Max Cleland as Secretary of Defense.

Here is our suggestion if the Democrats want to show some spin and communicate that the days of Bush calling ALL the shots are over. It is political common sense to block consideration of the Gates nomination until January when the Dems take over the Congress (common sense if you want to actually exercise oversight). Then the Democrats should holding hearings and vote to confirm former Georgia U.S. Senator Max Cleland as Secretary of Defense.

Ha! What would Bush and Cheney and Karl Rove do?

"But ... but ... but only the president can nominate member of his cabinet! You ... you can't do that!"

To which we (and the Democrats in the U.S. Senate) should respond, "So what. We did it anyway."

Bush can go to court to get his way or he can say, "Okay. I'll accept a real American hero as Secretary of Defense because we are all in this together -- and the strength of our military is more important than putting another pencil-head analyst, retread of my dad's administration, in charge of the Pentagon."

Cleland for Secretary of Defense

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. No thank you

I think there are many others who are more qualified.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. That's just a dumb, dumb political move.

Not to mention there would undoubtedly be a filibuster, which we could not end. Spend some time in reality, please.

[onehandle]

3. Maybe in 2009, when we control it all. nt

[Limelight]

4. Is that even possible?

The Secretary of Defense serves at the presidents behest and he can be removed anytime the president deems fit. Even if he got appointed he'd get fired 5 minutes later.

[Greeby]

5. I agree with Mike Malloy on this

If we're going to continue to have a Department of War, it should be headed up by someone who understands the horrors of war

[Kelly Rupert]

6. This is a terrible, unconstitutional idea.

First of all, it would lead to a constitutional crisis, and one that would be quickly resolved. The constitution plainly states, "and he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States."

If this happened, the Supreme Court would quickly strike down the Democratic nomination of Cleland. Either the Democrats would have to retreat in shame, or they would have to declare the President, Supreme Court, and Constitution itself void. I don't think the post of SecDef is quite worth trashing our entire system of governance over.

Secondly, the motion wouldn't get out of the senate. The Republicans can filibuster.

Thirdly, even if it happened, the President could dismiss him the first day he walked into office.

[NYC Liberal]

7. Not possible, it'd be unconstitutional, and it's a stupid idea.

Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

In other words, it's a two-way street. The President ALONE (in this case at least. Congress does have the power to specify who appoints) has the power to nominate "public ministers." They are only CONFIRMED if approved by a majority vote of the Senate.

Why are we bothering with this? Not to mention, as someone else already said, Bush can fire him, which he would do not minutes after Cleland was confirmed. If he doesn't get filibustered. Not to mention, even if he was confirmed and then fired, are we going to just do this over and over?