Trump Cabinet confirmation hearings **live commentary thread**

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

For once, Virginia is right. Carson and Perry were very bad and blatantly unqualified Trump picks, just like John Kerry was a very bad and blatantly unqualified Obama pick. None of them should have been confirmed by any reasonable Senate.

[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.

[The Other Castro]

Richard Spencer under consideration for Secretary of Navy
https://mobile.twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/839279800996986880

Before anyone says anything, no, it's not that Richard Spencer.

[Virginiá]

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

How was that hackish?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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

How was that hackish?

-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.

[KingSweden]

Richard Spencer under consideration for Secretary of Navy
https://mobile.twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/839279800996986880

Before anyone says anything, no, it's not that Richard Spencer.

Ha is about to post literally the same thing

Francisco and Grenell seem like pretty mainstream/solid choices, TBH. Still dunno why Forbes hasn't been tapped for SeCNav considering the depth of support he had

[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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'm not an anti-Virginia hack, and I change my mind in response to new evidence.

My question was not about whether you opposed the picks, but whether you thought the Senate ought to reject them. I don't consider these to be at all the same thing, but I'll presume you conflated the two acts. If so, I shall continue in my firm belief you are a Democratic hack, but slightly modify it to accomodate the fact you are able to express opposition to the leadership of the party you desire to be brought back to power, and are thus not a total hack, but merely a general one.

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?

If your goals here were purely ideological, then I would not accuse you of simple hackishness, as the opposite of hackishness is firm principle. Note I did not specify what the "hackish reasons" I thought drove you to your conclusions were. Thus, I did not actually answer your "How is that hackish" question, but merely gave a jumping-off point for answering it in the future, once I know a bit more about your thought process. Thus "hackishness must be understood in its context". My question was one for context, which you partially helpfully provided.

[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.

[Classic Conservative]

Jon Huntsman to be appointed Ambassador to Russia
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jon-huntsman-ambassador-to-russia-235841

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to be appointed UN Food and Agriculture Ambassador
http://kcur.org/post/source-kansas-gov-brownback-be-named-ambassador-un-food-and-agriculture

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Jon Huntsman to be appointed Ambassador to Russia
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jon-huntsman-ambassador-to-russia-235841

Really should be challenging Hatch instead.

[KingSweden]

Jon Huntsman to be appointed Ambassador to Russia
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jon-huntsman-ambassador-to-russia-235841

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to be appointed UN Food and Agriculture Ambassador
http://kcur.org/post/source-kansas-gov-brownback-be-named-ambassador-un-food-and-agriculture

Would Brownback have to resign to accept that position?

[publicunofficial]

Appointing Huntsman to a major position was the obvious next step in Trump's plan of publicly castrating Mitt Romney.

Also I'm not entirely sure what the UN Food and Agriculture Ambassador does, but I'm sure Brownback will find a way to be terrible at it given his track record.

[KingSweden]

Appointing Huntsman to a major position was the obvious next step in Trump's plan of publicly castrating Mitt Romney.

Also I'm not entirely sure what the UN Food and Agriculture Ambassador does, but I'm sure Brownback will find a way to be terrible at it given his track record.

He might actually not be as terrible as we all would assume. If there's one thing electeds from KS get it's Ag issues

[Gass3268]

Jon Huntsman to be appointed Ambassador to Russia
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jon-huntsman-ambassador-to-russia-235841

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to be appointed UN Food and Agriculture Ambassador
http://kcur.org/post/source-kansas-gov-brownback-be-named-ambassador-un-food-and-agriculture

Would Brownback have to resign to accept that position?

Yup, he's bailing on his mess in Kansas.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

1:45 PM TOMORROW: CLOTURE VOTE on Verma.

[KingSweden]

Jon Huntsman to be appointed Ambassador to Russia
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jon-huntsman-ambassador-to-russia-235841

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to be appointed UN Food and Agriculture Ambassador
http://kcur.org/post/source-kansas-gov-brownback-be-named-ambassador-un-food-and-agriculture

Would Brownback have to resign to accept that position?

Yup, he's bailing on his mess in Kansas.

And Kansas Republicans cry out in joy

Bet Jeff Colyer does everything he can to clean it up over the next 18 months and have a big platform to run on

[Heisenberg]

Jon Huntsman to be appointed Ambassador to Russia
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jon-huntsman-ambassador-to-russia-235841

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to be appointed UN Food and Agriculture Ambassador
http://kcur.org/post/source-kansas-gov-brownback-be-named-ambassador-un-food-and-agriculture

Would Brownback have to resign to accept that position?

Yup, he's bailing on his mess in Kansas.

And Kansas Republicans cry out in joy

Bet Jeff Colyer does everything he can to clean it up over the next 18 months and have a big platform to run on

It'll now be interesting to see how this affects the plans of Republicans who were planning on running. (Have any officially declared yet?)

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Cloture vote on Verma now beginning

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Heitkamp: Aye
King: Aye
Manchin: Aye

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So far, the vote is 38-19 Verma

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nos flooding in, all from dems. Verma up 48-36 currently.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Cloture is invoked on Verma, 54-44. Two cowards didn't vote. FINAL VOTE scheduled for 5:30 PM Monday.