Trump Cabinet confirmation hearings **live commentary thread**

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Tillerson's responses on the Ukrainian question concern me; I think he is too anti-Russia and too similar in his stances to #NeverTrumpers McCain and Graham. I would not vote for him if I was Senator, and would plead for a more acceptable candidate, such as Rohrabacher. But if I knew for certain Tillerson was lying (which is certainly possible), then I would vote for him.

I think Tillerson is an acceptable candidate for who he is, but not for his answers.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-I very much am. When Tillerson denies Russia's rightful claim over Krim and says "I would have recommended that the Ukraine take all of its military assets it had available, put them on that eastern border, provide those assets with defensive weapons that are necessary just to defend themselves", that is a recipe for worsened relations and greater confrontation. Ukraine is not a part of NATO; it is a loser country with people who are nearly incapable of coordinating themselves, but are more than capable of ripping America off. It was poorer than China (China! Who would have thought that in 1990?) before the war; the present government is less popular than Yanukovich's at its worst (much less Putin's at its worst), and Ukraine is not a U.S. ally in any sense, and America has no commitments whatsoever to its defense. Putin's actions in relation to that country were more than justified by U.S. support for its completely unconstitutional parliamentary coup.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-I think Perry and Carson are simply unqualified, and Puzder an enemy of the working class. Sessions is somewhat too pro-surveillance and a bit too much of a drug warrior, but is a Trump loyalist and a strong friend of the border. Cruz is for him, Amash is not a fan. Would not be sure what to do with him.

The others I have no strong feelings on, and would probably vote for if I was in the Senate.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The worst would be Romney. I oppose Tillerson for his excessive Russophobia. Rohrabacher, who truly understands Putin and has a solid grasp of foreign affairs, would be best.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Both Corker and Romney would be confirmed ~97-0. There was no reason Trump needed to use Tillerson.

-Nope. Both would have substantial Democratic opposition and neither has as much experience negotiating with foreign countries as Tillerson. Romney, to my knowledge, doesn't have any such experience at all (except for being a Mormon missionary in France, which is underwhelming), making him an easy Democratic target for this. If we're only going to look at people with carbon-copy views on the issues, it's best to appoint the guy who has the most experience at negotiating and winning overseas.

Obviously, Rohrabacher would be best overall, as he is on record supporting Trump and has broad agreement with his foreign policy views. Tillerson, Corker, and Romney are not in broad agreement with Trump's foreign policy views.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Do you know how confirmation works or what?

Bob Corker is widely respected across the aisle for his foreign policy experience.

-Corker would have the easiest time getting confirmed of the known candidates. It is highly doubtful, however, that the Democratic Party would be unified in favor of him. Given that Corker is a Republican, a fairly large group of extreme Democrats (such as Warren, Booker, and Sanders) would no doubt come out to oppose his confirmation, if purely for the anti-Trump signaling value and their general opposition to anything Republican.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

News on Puzder: Obviously, his hearing has been delayed until February. Rumors spread that even Puzder himself is considering to drop out of the whole thing (CNN, DailyCaller). Hopefully that is true or he simply doesn’t get confirmed. This dude is a horrible pick.

-Oh, he's one of the worst. Way too Jeb-style.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I love seeing hacks bow the knee, no matter how bad the actual picks are.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

And ... Puzder is out.

-Yes!!!!!

This Jeb- and Mitt- endorsed enemy of the American worker must go!

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

And ... Puzder is out.

Win for the resistance.

-No; it's a win for Trumpism.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Scott Walker

he would be a good pick

-Meh.

[(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.

[(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.

[(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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Additional No Votes:

Paul (anyone know why?)


Coats up 48-5 so far.

-Coats was too pro-big-government for his taste.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No surprise. Coats is a pretty uncontroversial choice

-Very sad. I would have voted against.