Trump Cabinet confirmation hearings **live commentary thread**

[Virginiá]

Putting my personal biases aside, they look really bad when they keep on delaying his nominees. This is going to stick with them during midterms and Trump voters won't forget it.

No one is going to care. Seriously. I think supporters of both sides really have a tendency to put too much weight on actions like this towards the next elections. In all likelihood these people are going to get confirmed eventually and 2 years from now no one is going to care about some procedural issues that ultimately had little effect. I'm not even convinced anyone would care if one of these nominees got blocked entirely and was replaced by someone else.

In fact, I would bet voters are going to be more concerned about any number of new things Trump does over that time period. You should probably be more worried about Trump alienating a portion of his core supporters rather than banking on mundane, yawn-worthy issues like this to rile them up and make them forget everything else.

[Virginiá]

While I despise DeVos for so many reasons, there may be a silver lining to her and the other nominees: Trump is staffing his administration with a bunch of people who really aren't qualified at all, and in some cases have unpopular policy plans, and the ensuing incompetence will make it harder for them to pass his agenda. Look at the mess he's already made. Imagine what could have been had Trump been very professional about this and filled his administration with experienced & effective officials?

We were probably getting a pro-voucher / anti-public school nominee anyway, so maybe at least with DeVos we can more effectively impede their agenda.

[Virginiá]

Looks like Manchin needs a primary challenger!

In the end, odds are you end up with a Republican whose voting record you will come to dislike much more than Manchin's. If you want a more preferable WV Senator, go for 2020's race.

Take what you can get.

[Virginiá]

You don't win if you don't try you guys. Plus he already voted for Sessions and Munuchin so he already made his bed.

Yes, and maybe that is a fine attitude to take in states that are more competitive, but this is West Virginia. Democrats are rapidly going extinct there. The outcome of what you're saying is highly likely to be the opposite of what you want.

Honestly I don't get why you (and so many others) still propose these kinds of actions given the very obvious parallels to the chaos on the GOP side. They cost themselves a number of important races over the years because they had to have someone more pure and more willing to oppose Obama. It's ridiculous.

If you guys aren't willing to allow the Democratic Party to have a share of moderates/centrists then I'm unsure how you expect a broad governing coalition to form. It can't be all liberals. America is not that liberal. Give Manchin some breathing room.

[Virginiá]

I have to say, I am pretty ecstatic to learn that the US Labor Department will no longer be brought to you by Carl's Jr ^©

[Virginiá]

Warren flippped her vote.

When she caught a lot of flack for voting Aye the first time, she pretty much stopped voting for Trump nominees, along with other potential 2020 prospects.

[Virginiá]

Generally, I find myself of the mold that if Trump nominates a decent, qualified person for a cabinet post, Democrats should give them fair consideration and vote accordingly. That being said, why would any Democrats vote for people like Carson or Perry? They are not qualified to run their agencies. Carson is, well, Carson, and has no experience in pretty much anything HUD does. Perry literally didn't even know what the Energy Dept did before all of this, and couldn't even remember its name when he wanted to eliminate the agency, and somehow he is qualified to run it? Is this some elaborate joke or...?

I'm sorry, but even Democratic Senators from the reddest of red states should be able to go home and tell their constituents flat out that they have no problem voting for a clean, qualified nominee but not some random person (or donor/loyalist of Trump) who is blatantly not appropriate for the job. Just because Trump, or any president really, nominates someone does not mean they should automatically get the green light.

That only thing I can understand here is fears of losing reelection, but that doesn't explain the votes of people like Masto or Warner, among others.

[Virginiá]

Warner knows he isn't safe in that seat. Last time, the GOP publicly gave up on the race months before election day, but he still almost lost.

Warner is up next in 2020 - a presidential year in a state that is not only trending Democratic, but one where Trump seems perpetually underwater in approval polls and probably will continue to be during reelection. 2014 was a GOP wave year and saw low turnout, and while Warner barely scraped by, I really don't think that makes him at risk. One close reelection like that doesn't automatically mean he is in trouble next time.

Plus, either way, if Warner feels compelled to go easy on Trump because of that close reelection, then that makes no sense whatsoever. Trump is not popular in Virginia, and it's not a conservative state anymore. If anything, Warner should be fighting Trump, not enabling him. What he is doing is more likely to hurt than help him. It's boggles my mind, and the only explanation I can think of that does involve Warner being an idiot is that he actually supports all these people, which again is pretty dumb imo.

[Virginiá]

For once, Virginia is right (though for typically hackish reasons).

How was that hackish?

[Virginiá]

-Name a few Obama or Clinton cabinet nominees you thought the Senate should definitely not confirm. I can name some cabinet nominees by Trump I thought the Senate should definitely not have confirmed: Perry, Carson, Puzder, DeVos.

Hackishness must always be understood in its context.

So basically you had no idea if I had a double-standard for a Democratic president's nominees (Obama), and instead, because you believe I'm a hack, you just assumed I did and thus assumed my post was built on a foundation of hackery? What are you, some sort of anti-Virginia hack?


For your question:

I would have opposed Tom Wheeler (FCC) at the time (and maybe still even in hindsight). He seemed like a terrible pick, and perhaps had Obama not pushed for it, he might never had initiated the reforms he did that redeemed him in my eyes.

Numerous Deputies - lobbyists like William Lynn (Def.) and Michael Taylor (FDA).

Hillary Clinton as SoS - Why? What made her qualified for this? If I had to use one word to describe her tenure at State, I would say "regrettable," and for so many reasons.

[Virginiá]

My question was not about whether you opposed the picks, but whether you thought the Senate ought to reject them.

Of all those people I just listed, yes, the Senate should have rejected them. I'm not sure why I'd say I'd oppose them but then still say "yea sure confirm them anyway np." I could probably give you more but I'll be honest I only recently really tuned into politics the past 3 years, so I'm not very familiar with many of them and more so from Bill Clinton's administration - which admittedly out of sheer bias I would probably expect to find more unfavorable nominees.

and are thus not a total hack, but merely a general one.

Well look at that. This is a good day.

Do you think even blue state Democratic senators at risk to losing to their states' Scott Browns and Susan Collins's ought to have voted against these nominees you listed?

Yes. Look at it this way: You are a Senator charged with, in part, making sure numerous executive appointees put forth by the president are qualified. Would trading that responsibility for some pathetically small amount of (debatable) reelection insurance be justifiable? Uh, no. That is the kind of thing people constantly say they hate about politicians. Willing to sell out just to score some political points that might or might not even mean anything.

In Trump's instance, I understand the votes of people like Manchin et al, particularly when Republicans already have the votes to get the nominee though locked up. I'm not against a Senator saving face when it makes no difference, but when their vote can make a difference, I would usually hope they would opt to do just that - make a difference.

Then again, context is everything, right? A situation where a Nay vote that looks sure to cost a Democratic Senator their seat and thus a hypothetical unified Democratic government their Senate majority might warrant a vote for an otherwise unqualified nominee if there was some crisis that Democrats needed that majority to solve and the costs of having some unqualified cabinet appointee was a lot less than not being able to solve x. Of course I don't wish to get into every hypothetical here.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If only Brownback would do some humanitarian work in Kansas first.

[Virginiá]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/19/trump-nominees-lose-patience-vetting-240736

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump's administration continuing to blame everyone but themselves for their own problems. Seriously, this is like one of the basic components of his presidency: staffing. And he can't even get that right.

[Virginiá]

I'm still chuckling at the concept of Callista Gingrich as Ambassador to the Vatican. Can they reject the nominee?

If Senate Republicans could feel any shame, they would reject her, but that's not really how things have been going for some time now. They are mostly acting as a rubber-stamp for anyone he wants.