Looking Through The Lens Of History

On Thursday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about the Senate confirmation hearings. He notes that at the three hearings this week  the Democrats were hoping to stop the nominees, things did not necessarily move in that direction.

The article notes:

But now several of Trump’s most controversial nominees–controversial meaning that the New York Times and The Washington Post really, really hate them–have taken their turn. Today, Robert Kennedy, Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard all testified in confirmation hearings. These are the nominees (along with Hegseth) that the Democrats are seriously determined to block, and you could see it in their hysterical, if sometimes hilarious, questioning.

I was able to watch only brief portions of today’s hearings and don’t have an opinion on how, in general, they went, other than the fact that the Democrats were in full howl-at-the-moon mode.

I hope all three nominees are confirmed, although I could go either way on Kennedy. Even here, though, Kennedy came across as I expected. He is walking away from some of his more out-there positions of years ago, and is focused on “making America healthy again.” I think there is room for him to do considerable good as an advocate for more healthy lifestyles.

But I really hope that Tulsi Gabbard is confirmed. From my own (admittedly minimal) experience with her, I have a great deal of respect for Gabbard’s patriotism, her intelligence–she is very, very smart–and her military bearing. And, to be honest, in my dealings with Gabbard I just liked her.

America’s “intelligence community” is sick and throughly politicized. Tulsi is, I think, a great choice to set it straight. I don’t agree with all of her opinions–my view of the Iraq war is more positive than hers, for instance–but I trust her to oversee an objective, competent and non-politicized intelligence operation. Which is what Trump wants, and a huge improvement.

The article notes a bit of history often overlooked:

The Democrats can’t block any of the President’s nominees, so their grandstanding is directed mostly at their own base. I suppose they also hope to persuade four Republicans to vote against Gabbard and the others. That shouldn’t happen. Of this group, the only one who isn’t plainly an excellent choice is the eccentric Robert Kennedy. But Kennedy, too, is President Trump’s choice, and there is a clear rationale for why he might be a very good Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Beginning with the Clinton administration and until this year, I believe there were only two occasions on which any senator of a president’s party voted against any of his Cabinet nominees. That number grew from two to three when three Republicans voted against Pete Hegseth’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense. Let’s hope that Senate Republicans don’t continue to break with tradition.

If the Republicans are not willing to support their own President’s choices, why should they be considered Republicans? I am willing to support any primary opponent who runs against a Republican who opposes President Trump’s choices.

About The Confirmation Hearings

We have had a few days of confirmation hearings, enough to get a feel for what will be asked and how people will conduct themselves. So far, many of the questions asked have very little to do with the future and much to do with accusations or possible past mistakes. It is entertaining to watch some of the Democrats making accusations being reminded of their own actions.

On Wednesday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the hearings.

The article lists his three main observations about the hearings:

First, Trump’s nominees have uniformly done well. Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Marco Rubio and Chris Wright have all come across as competent and likable, in contrast to most of their Democratic interlocutors, who have been shrill at best, and often dim-witted.

…Second, the main themes behind Trump’s nominations have come through. Trump nominated Pete Hegseth because he wants a soldier running the Pentagon–an idea to which I have enthusiastically come around. Pam Bondi will run a non-politicized Department of Justice. Marco Rubio will implement an America First foreign policy. And Chris Wright wants reliable, affordable energy. All of these themes are popular with the general public.

Third, the Democrats have played only to their hard-core base. Their questions often have focused on hobby horses that the general public has long lost interest in: Will you concede that Trump lost the 2020 election? Should the January 6 protesters be pardoned? And so on.

Somehow I don’t think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote ‘advise and consent.’

The article concludes:

Finally, all of Trump’s key nominees are going to be confirmed. Republicans control the Senate, and there is no sign that any Republican senators are wavering. Some nominees will sail through, like Marco Rubio, who not only benefits from a traditional senatorial privilege, but is genuinely popular with senators on both sides of the aisle. Others, like Pete Hegseth, will be the focus of Democratic opposition. But it won’t matter: Republicans have the votes, and Republicans are united behind the Trump administration. Democrats can howl at the moon, but they have no power to stop the administration from taking office and moving forward.