Rice conspiracy explained.

Ok, it's not exactly explained.  However, Rachel Maddow has proffered as reasonable an explanation as any--indeed, it may look like a conspiracy theory, but it's far less crazy than the Susan Rice conspiracy theory.  What happens if Susan Rice is not nominated?  The GOP is suggesting that they'd confirm John Kerry for Secretary of State with no fuss.  If Kerry is nominated, his senate seat opens up and Scott Brown can run for the Massachusetts seat.  Worth a gander here.

Backwards logic.

While the accusations against Susan Rice are beginning to simmer down, one would expect the opposition to her nomination (which has not been made yet) would take a calmer tone.  Rep. Jeff Duncan has decided to double down, instead, claiming that Rice has been "tainted" by this whole Benghazi affair.  Of course she has, because your party tainted her.  It's a little like throwing a pile of shit at someone and then complaining that he stinks of shit.

This is a brilliant tactic--1. Question the credibility of your opponent; 2. Once her credibility has been restored, argue that it doesn't matter because her reputation has been smeared (with no recognition that you are the one who smeared her). 

(This is not an endorsement of Susan Rice for Secretary of State).

Maverick McCain?

I remember when John McCain was a moderate, calling himself a maverick for breaking rank with GOP talking points.  Recently he seems to have been tacking to the other extreme, suggesting he would filibuster Susan Rice's nomination as Secretary of State.  Now he is saying he will support no nominee for Secretary of State.  Regardless of how one feels about Rice, the position needs to be filled.  How is this a reasonable (much less moderate) stance? [ARTICLE]