Before I get into my case for John Kerry – and against Susan Rice – as the next Secretary of State (after Secretary Clinton concludes her successful 4 years in the position), let me just make a couple points.

First, John McCain and Company (Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, etc.) are completely off the deep end with their absurd, over-the-top, manufactured, ad hominem “case” against Susan Rice regarding the CIA-approved talking points she used for a round of Sunday morning talk shows following the Benghazi attack. My view is that McCain et al. are doing this for purely political reasons, as they must know that there’s not the slightest shred of evidence Susan Rice did anything wrong here. The whole situation is beyond absurd, but sadly not surprising for Mr. GETOFFMYLAWN. So, screw McCain, the guy’s completely lost it, not even worth listening to at this point (if anything, his opposition to Rice makes me want to SUPPORT her, just because McCain is such a douchebag). Sad; I used to respect him, but since he picked Palin as his running mate, he’s been totally wacked out.

Second, let me just make clear that Susan Rice is extremely well-qualified to be Secretary of State. The woman is brilliant, talented, experienced, you name it. That’s certainly not the issue here either.

So, why am I urging President Obama to nominate John Kerry, not Susan Rice, as our next Secretary of State? Several reasons.

First and foremost: I’m sorry, but this is not cool. At all.

Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project.

…Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America.

Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel — including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 — the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.

Rice also has smaller stakes in several other big Canadian energy firms, as well as the country’s transportation companies and coal-fired utilities…

This is deeply troubling, especially given that, “Over the past 18 months, a number of questionable relationships between State Department officials and TransCanada have been uncovered.” As Bill McKibben of 350.org notes, “The State Department has been rife with collusion with the Canadian pipeline builders, and it’s really distressing to have any sense that that might continue to go on.”

In stark contrast, John Kerry has been a climate and clean energy champion. When the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Kerry for president in 2004, it called him “a man whose unparalleled record on environmental issues has earned him an extraordinary lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), and he is clearly the strongest environmentalist in the field.” In endorsing him for reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2008, the LCV touted Kerry’s “clear commitment to protecting America’s environment through bipartisan action, not mere rhetoric.” They specifically pointed to Kerry being an “original cosponsor of the bipartisan Four Pollutant Bill, which would limit mercury, sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide emissions from power plants,” as well as “an outspoken proponent for addressing the threat of global warming through national and international efforts.”

The contrast between Kerry and Rice on energy and environmental issues would, in and of itself, be sufficient for me to support Kerry over Rice for our next Secretary of State. There are other reasons, however. For starters, I believe that Kerry is superbly qualified to be Secretary of State, given his 25 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (he’s now chair). I’m greatly impressed with Kerry’s work on nuclear arms control issues, as well as – in his website’s words – his work in “Spreading Democracy and Human Rights Throughout the World,” “Fighting Global HIV/AIDS,” and “Fighting International Crime, Corruption and Drug Trafficking.” Clearly, John Kerry has everything it takes to be a superb Secretary of State. I doubt almost anyone would disagree with that.

On that last point, I presume that Kerry would win quick, easy, probably unanimous, confirmation by the U.S. Senate as the next Secretary of State. No fuss, no muss. More importantly, President Obama won’t have to spend any political capital on this one, which is important given all the other important issues he’s focused on.

The only downside to Kerry becoming Secretary of State, frankly, is political: the possibility that Democrats could lose Kerry’s U.S. Senate seat, possibly to Scott Brown. On the other hand, if Democrats come up with a strong candidate, there’s no reason to think they can’t hold that seat in solid-blue Massachusetts. There’s also the possibility  that Brown won’t even run for the seat. Plus, even if Kerry’s not nominated as Secretary of State, he might be nominated as Secretary of Defense, which would once again open up his Senate seat. So, bottom line, I’m not going to lose any sleep over this one.

Bottom line: Kerry would be a superb choice as Secretary of State, easily confirmed, with no political capital needing to be expended. Susan Rice, in contrast, would be a knock-down, drag-out fight, over a nominee who’s certainly not more qualified than Kerry, and who has extensive ties to fossil fuel interests at a time when global warming is arguably THE most critical crisis facing our country and our planet. Is this a no brainer or what?

The conventional wisdom, which I’d point out is almost always wrong, is that Ken Cuccinelli is much more “conservative” (in quotes because the word today has essentially lost all meaning; many of these self-proclaimed “conservatives” are actually far-right-wing extremists and radicals) than Bill Bolling. Is there any truth to that? Let’s look at their interest group ratings, courtesy of Project Vote Smart, from when they were in the General Assembly.

Bill Bolling (looking at his last year in the State Senate, 2005, unless otherwise noted)

ZERO from NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia

ZERO from Planned Parenthood of Virginia

100% from the Virginia Chamber of Commerce

ZERO from Equality Virginia

100% from the Family Foundation of Virginia

ZERO from the Virginia League of Conservation Voters (although other years are all over the place)

11% Lifetime Rating from the Virginia AFL-CIO

ZERO from the Virginia National Organization for Women (2000 rating is the last available)

Also, the NRA said “Bolling’s strong support of the Second Amendment has earned him an “A+” rating.”

Ken Cuccinelli (looking at his last year in the State Senate, 2009, unless otherwise noted)

ZERO from NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia

ZERO from Planned Parenthood of Virginia

89% from Virginia FREE (note: Cuccinelli’s last rating from the Virginia Chamber of Commerce was 82% in 2005)

67% from Equality Virginia

91% from the Family Foundation of Virginia

10% from the Virginia League of Conservation Voters (note: other years are all over the place)

ZERO from the Virginia AFL-CIO

A rating from the NRA

Comparing these ratings, it looks like Bill Bolling was actually a bit more right wing than Ken Cuccinelli while in the General Assembly in a number of areas (social issues, business), and about the same in other areas. So much for Bolling being more “moderate” in any way than Cuccinelli? Looking at their actual voting records, that sure seems to be the case.

So why does Cuccinelli get most of the attention, both positive (from the Tea Party, religious fundamentalists, etc.) and negative (from Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc.)? I’d argue it has almost nothing whatsoever to do with substance, but is pretty much 100% style/tone. Namely, Cuccinelli is flashy, aggressive, abrasive, insurgent/grassroots, loud and proud of the right-wingnuttiness he stands for; Bolling is boring, dull, drab, relatively genteel/establishment, and quiet about his own right-wingnuttiness. Other than that, I’m not seeing much daylight between the two. How about you?

P.S. Per a comment, it’s also worth noting that Cuccinelli has been in a much stronger position to push his right-wingnut agenda as Virginia Attorney General than Bolling has been as the mostly powerless Lieutenant Governor.

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Thursday, November 29. Also, check out the video of President Obama calling on Americans “to speak out to keep taxes from going up on middle class families.” #MY2K

*Editorial: The latest punch line in GOP politics (“Mainstream Republicans once laughed off their party’s rightward trend until they were elbowed out of the way. The latest victim is Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling.”)

*Volume suddenly rises in Virginia governor’s race (“Bill Bolling on Wednesday abruptly dropped his long-held plans to run for governor next year, clearing the way for conservative firebrand Ken Cuccinelli…”)

*Ken Cuccinelli’s fight for conservative causes (In no way, shape, or form is Ken Kookinelli a traditional “conservative.” To the contrary, he’s a radical and extremist, nothing “conservative” about him.)

*Virginia Race Turns To Chaos Following Cuccinelli’s Rise (We’ll see; for now, it’s consolidated, not “turned to chaos.”)

*Mr. Bolling exits (sigh) (“Conventions draw the red-meat eaters, those folks who live and breathe politics while the rest of us are getting our kids to soccer games. They would no doubt favor Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Tea Party paladin and passionate defender of all things respectably right wing, over Mr. Bolling.”)

*The field clears for Cuccinelli (“Bolling’s latest decision effectively serves notice that the Republican Party of Virginia is poised to surrender to its more extreme, and temperamental, wing. The result is bad for the party and worse for Virginia.”)

*Editorial: Fewer choices in 2013 (“Bolling’s withdrawal narrows governor’s race in shrink-wrapped process”)

*Bolling hints of independent bid for Va. governor (Verrrry interesting.)

*Narrowing field could leave stark choice in Va. governor’s race (Bizarre quote by Jessica Taylor of the Rothenberg Political report. How is Terry McAuliffe not towards the “center of the party?” His best friend Bill Clinton is pretty much synonymous with centrism, the “third way,” etc., and Terry himself is a “pro-business” “centrist” if there ever was one. Does ANYONE out there in the national punditocracy know ANYTHING about Virginia politics?!?)

*Could Bolling run for governor as an independent?

*Bolling will not endorse Cuccinelli (“Bolling questions attorney general’s leadership potential.” Well, Cuckoo could certainly lead us all off the cliff pretty quickly! Heh.)

*Tom Perriello silent as speculation swirls on gubernatorial run

*Wilder says Va. gubernatorial candidates must take centrist approach (Wilder’s been wrong on pretty much everything for several years now, and something tells me he’ll be wrong on this as well when it comes to Ken Kookinelli.)

*RGA embraces Cuccinelli as nominee (Wait, national Republicans ditched Akin but embrace Cuckoo? What’s the difference exactly?)

*The ‘anti-business’ knock on Ken Cuccinelli (No doubt, Cuccinelli would be very bad for Virginia business.)

*Connolly falls short paying party dues (Not cool, especially given that he’s in a safe, “incumbent protection” district.)

*Jeff’s Notes: Running for lieutenant governor? (“The line for lieutenant governor candidates forms on the right, says columnist Jeff Schapiro.”)

*Goodlatte named chairman of House Judiciary Committee

*In Fairfax County, a tough budget season lies ahead

*Virginia Chamber to release new statewide economic development plan

*Va. Beach arena pitch gets mixed reaction from lawmakers

*Deeper water aims to keep Great Dismal Swamp fires under control

*Virginia panel gives list of dangerous animals

*Mighty chestnut may yet return to glory

*Traffic woes likely to persist for decades, officials say (Actually, thanks to Republicans’ utter failure to raise revenues, Virginia’s traffic woes are likely to get a lot, lot worse.)

And Tom Davis is supposedly one of the more “moderate” Republicans nowadays?  Wow, this party is FUBAR.

Yep, the same guy who believes in beating a “rebellious” wife, and who calls our governor his “dear friend” “Bobby” (also donates a lot of money to him) is at it again. As usual, don’t hold your breath waiting for McDonnell or any other Republicans to denounce Robertson for his “wild” attacks.