It is true that the Democrats have acted in virtual lockstep against many of President Trump’s nominees. It is also true that they have done so not for partisan reasons as implied, but rather because many of President Trump’s nominees have been grossly unqualified for the roles for which they were nominated (Betsy DeVos being the most egregious example) and thus opposing them was less “acting like drunken toddlers” and more “doing their actual job”. Of course, it’s also worth noting at the same time that Republicans voted in lockstep to approve these grossly unqualified candidates, often following receipt of substantial donations to the relevant committee members’ campaign funds, which seems less kosher to me.
You still haven’t explained why you hope Republicans behave in a spiteful, petty fashion rather than like adults.
He did. He said it was the Democrats’ fault.
I’m sure Mitch McConnell would love it if the Democrats governed based on terror of what future Republican governments might do. It wouldn’t change anything McConnell would do in the future, but it would surely make his present job of doing everything possible to aid the hateful and harmful policies of Trump much easier.
It would be profoundly foolish if the Democrats to govern based on terror of future Republicans. Far better and wiser to try and actually provide oversight of this president and challenge his nominees when they are obviously professionally or ethically/morally unqualified.
So your response to the fact that Republicans voted in lockstep to oppose Obama appointees is to hope that that sort of nonsense continues into the far future.
The overwhelming number of Trump appointees have been unqualified, incompetent, and/or corrupt (as demonstrated by the huge number that have resigned in disgrace) and the tragedy is not that the Democrats have opposed them, but that so few Republicans have.
One hopes that McConnell has long since departed after the next election and that bi-partisan consideration of appointees can return to the Senate.
I don’t believe they did. For example, just taking Secretary of State:
Obama nominated Hillary Clinton. She was confirmed by the Senate 94-2.
Obama nominated John Kerry. He was confirmed by the Senate 94-3.
President Trump nominated Rex Tillerson. He was confirmed 56-43.
President Trump nominated Mike Pompeo. He was confirmed 57-42.
Considering how he ended up being perhaps the worst Secretary of State ever, you should be questioning the 56.
Considering he is probably the most nakedly partisan Secretary of State in many years, that seems about right. I’m happy to show quotes of Republicans who have said Clinton worked with them well, especially while she was in the Senate. Pompeo’s sole occupation while serving in the House was to attack Democrats, often in stupid ways.
ETA: I would also ask you to explain why Trump appointee Mattis was confirmed 99-1, but Obama appointee Hagel was confirmed 58-41.
That’s nice, but has nothing to do with tomndebb’s assertion that “Republicans voted in lockstep to oppose Obama appointees”
Let me remind you of your own first post in this thread:
Are you really engaging in this bullshit nitpicking of tomndebb’s statement because he didn’t include the word “virtual” in front of “lockstep?”
I certainly don’t see it as “bullshit nitpicking”. He claimed that “Republicans voted in lockstep to oppose Obama appointees”. That’s not true, as I demonstrated by citing the broad Republican support that Clinton and Kerry received. If he had included the word “virtual” in there, I wouldn’t have changed my post much, except perhaps to include a few more examples of significant portions of the Republican caucus supporting additional Obama executive-branch appointees.
If you want to argue that the Dems were justified in their widespread opposition to President Trump’s nominees, as tomndebb did in the second sentence of his post, you can certainly do that, but that’s quite a different tack than tomndebb’s approach in his first sentence of arguing that the Republicans did it first.
Would you say that Republican senators are actually open-minded about Democratic appointments, and cast their votes based on the merits of the nominee?
I suppose that’s one plausible explanation. Personally, I suspect it is more closely related to a historical deference to the president to have his choice of cabinet personnel, which the Republicans seem to have adhered to more than the Dems. It’s also possibly tied to a generally-more-acrimonious nature of our politics that seems to get worse with every passing year.
This must be an example of conservative humor – statements intended for humorous effect that just aren’t funny.
To be fair even republicans are not keen on Trump’s nominees:
OK. The basic point still stands, even if I did accidentally delete “virtual.” Trump has consistently appointed crooks, incompetents, and people with anti-science agendas. There seems to be no valid reason for anyone (especially Republicans) to vote to approve people who will destroy this country while feathering their own nests.
And now those meanie Republicans look like they aren’t happy about a potential nominee to the Federal Reserve board, Herman Cain. Why are the R’s so mean to Trump?