Gabe, I'm reflecting on the depth of civics/political process learning I have been doing due to your columns. It seems to me that the citizens of our country pay attention to, and know a bit more about many aspects and representatives of our government than we did years ago. I suppose it can create overwhelm along with all the drama topics and representatives generate.
I don’t care one iota if the Republicans squabbled OR if past clauses, aided President Trump. Republicans that voted for unqualified cabinet members are cowards and minions. You are using politics as a viable excuse for incompetence. DuringTrump‘s first presidency, which real historians saw as a failure, there were ladies and gentlemen who were buffers to HIS incompetence. Now, the staff, is more deranged than the president himself.
Journalists such as Brett Stevens writes in his column in the New York Times, “there are things I like that Trump has done.” WHAT? So minor changes that you agree with Brett are worth mentioning, in spite of an impending constitutional crisis? We are in danger of losing our democracy and more importantly, our Republic.
Read Tom Friedman‘s article instead, and find out how Netanyahu uplifted Hamas through payments through Qatar . Netanyahu is a right wing crook and he LOVES Trump. He is opposed to a two state solution, and will do anything to stay out of jail.
I am an RN and was head nurse of an emergency room . We saved lives, because of science and medicine and it is inconceivable to me that supposed learned men and women would vote to have someone as manipulative, disgusting, dishonest and anti vaccine as RFK to a cabinet position., not to mention his love of conspiracy theories. We are losing because we worship money, notoriety, bombastic behavior and supposed genius.
Remember, please remember, that very learned and smart and wealthy Germans conspired with Hitler to slaughter millions.
More important than money and yes, genius is character, empathy, and righteousness.
Gabe, I mostly like your reporting. (Heck, I’ve like it enough to pay for a subscription!) But not when you write, “But none of them put forward as many divisive picks as Trump.” IMO that’s a phony attempt at objectivity; little more than cloying both-siderism. You would not lose your legitimate journalistic credentials if you had written it as, “But none of them put forward as many unqualified picks as Trump.” It’s an important and accurately nuanced difference from what you wrote.
Hi Dave, thanks for reading and for your support. I always try use the most objective language possible in the newsletter, to be sure that anything I write can be backed up by data and evidence. I don’t think there’s an objective standard of when someone is or isn’t “qualified” to be a Cabinet Secretary — obviously people are welcome to have opinions on it, but it seems to me like that’s a sliding scale that is very dependent on the person and the circumstances. (Eg was Xavier Becerra objectively “qualified” to be HHS Secretary? Some would say yes, some would say no - depends what you count as a qualification!) “Divisive” makes much more sense to me here - I don’t think one could argue with the amount of controversies this crop of nominees have generated (some might think the controversies are unfair, but they’re controversial nonetheless). Of course, that’s not a perfectly measurable descriptor either, but it’s one that I think is a lot less based on opinion than “qualified,” which 10 people might have 10 different views on depending on which qualifications they are or aren’t taking into account. You’re welcome to disagree, of course, but that’s my thinking here.
Not sure that Matt Gaetz was a serious nomination. More Art of the Deal with even Gaetz knowing he had zero chance. Pam Bondi was always waiting in the wings.
I'm surprised you would pin the blame on Harry Reid for getting rid of the filibuster for cabinet appointments. If I remember correctly, the reason we were having a debate about the filibuster for nominations in 2013 at all was because Mitch McConnell and the Senate GOP were set on blocking Obama's nominations (primarily to appeals courts but also to several federal agencies) on purely political grounds—i.e. no matter who he nominated, they didn't think he should get any more appointments, and committed to blocking all of them. The federal government obviously cannot operate if the President cannot nominate *anyone* and the Senate refuses to even *consider* nominations—an important component of the obligation to provide advice and consent. I cannot advise if I don't first listen. Killing the filibuster wasn't particularly popular even among Senate Democrats in 2013; that rule change was born of operational necessity in the face of Republican intransigence. Again, McConnell was clear that *anyone* would be blocked. One of the final straws was Patricia Ann Miller, a judicial appointee Republicans would have happily confirmed under previous administrations.
I respect your aim to be unbiased, but do not confuse objectivism with centrism. If we are to draw lessons from history and understand how we got from A to B to C, it's vital that we not rewrite the context of A into a more centrist lens. That's not fair and balanced reporting; that's playing into the GOP partisan playbook. We can be unbiased about the fact that we are where we are today not because Harry Reid finally used the nuclear option, but because McConnell left him no choice.
Hi Adiv, I don’t think this is an accurate read either. It’s true that Democrats decided to invoke the nuclear option because Republicans were blocking many nominees. It’s not true to say that Republicans didn’t let “anyone” advance. Whether or not the # of nominees that were being filibustered were enough to merit the nuclear option being invoked can absolutely be debated (as is true of Democratic filibusters during the Bush administration), but it isn’t right to say that literally zero nominees were confirmed.
Gabe, I'm reflecting on the depth of civics/political process learning I have been doing due to your columns. It seems to me that the citizens of our country pay attention to, and know a bit more about many aspects and representatives of our government than we did years ago. I suppose it can create overwhelm along with all the drama topics and representatives generate.
Thanks for the objective analysis today.
Thank you, that means so much to me!
I don’t care one iota if the Republicans squabbled OR if past clauses, aided President Trump. Republicans that voted for unqualified cabinet members are cowards and minions. You are using politics as a viable excuse for incompetence. DuringTrump‘s first presidency, which real historians saw as a failure, there were ladies and gentlemen who were buffers to HIS incompetence. Now, the staff, is more deranged than the president himself.
Journalists such as Brett Stevens writes in his column in the New York Times, “there are things I like that Trump has done.” WHAT? So minor changes that you agree with Brett are worth mentioning, in spite of an impending constitutional crisis? We are in danger of losing our democracy and more importantly, our Republic.
Read Tom Friedman‘s article instead, and find out how Netanyahu uplifted Hamas through payments through Qatar . Netanyahu is a right wing crook and he LOVES Trump. He is opposed to a two state solution, and will do anything to stay out of jail.
I am an RN and was head nurse of an emergency room . We saved lives, because of science and medicine and it is inconceivable to me that supposed learned men and women would vote to have someone as manipulative, disgusting, dishonest and anti vaccine as RFK to a cabinet position., not to mention his love of conspiracy theories. We are losing because we worship money, notoriety, bombastic behavior and supposed genius.
Remember, please remember, that very learned and smart and wealthy Germans conspired with Hitler to slaughter millions.
More important than money and yes, genius is character, empathy, and righteousness.
Gabe, I mostly like your reporting. (Heck, I’ve like it enough to pay for a subscription!) But not when you write, “But none of them put forward as many divisive picks as Trump.” IMO that’s a phony attempt at objectivity; little more than cloying both-siderism. You would not lose your legitimate journalistic credentials if you had written it as, “But none of them put forward as many unqualified picks as Trump.” It’s an important and accurately nuanced difference from what you wrote.
Hi Dave, thanks for reading and for your support. I always try use the most objective language possible in the newsletter, to be sure that anything I write can be backed up by data and evidence. I don’t think there’s an objective standard of when someone is or isn’t “qualified” to be a Cabinet Secretary — obviously people are welcome to have opinions on it, but it seems to me like that’s a sliding scale that is very dependent on the person and the circumstances. (Eg was Xavier Becerra objectively “qualified” to be HHS Secretary? Some would say yes, some would say no - depends what you count as a qualification!) “Divisive” makes much more sense to me here - I don’t think one could argue with the amount of controversies this crop of nominees have generated (some might think the controversies are unfair, but they’re controversial nonetheless). Of course, that’s not a perfectly measurable descriptor either, but it’s one that I think is a lot less based on opinion than “qualified,” which 10 people might have 10 different views on depending on which qualifications they are or aren’t taking into account. You’re welcome to disagree, of course, but that’s my thinking here.
I wonder according to you why the word unqualified even belongs in Webster
Another example of Harry Reid’s legacy not being what he hoped or expected. Hyper partisanship can come back to bite you in the rearend.
Thanks for your hard work in compiling all those interesting statistics. .
Not sure that Matt Gaetz was a serious nomination. More Art of the Deal with even Gaetz knowing he had zero chance. Pam Bondi was always waiting in the wings.
I'm surprised you would pin the blame on Harry Reid for getting rid of the filibuster for cabinet appointments. If I remember correctly, the reason we were having a debate about the filibuster for nominations in 2013 at all was because Mitch McConnell and the Senate GOP were set on blocking Obama's nominations (primarily to appeals courts but also to several federal agencies) on purely political grounds—i.e. no matter who he nominated, they didn't think he should get any more appointments, and committed to blocking all of them. The federal government obviously cannot operate if the President cannot nominate *anyone* and the Senate refuses to even *consider* nominations—an important component of the obligation to provide advice and consent. I cannot advise if I don't first listen. Killing the filibuster wasn't particularly popular even among Senate Democrats in 2013; that rule change was born of operational necessity in the face of Republican intransigence. Again, McConnell was clear that *anyone* would be blocked. One of the final straws was Patricia Ann Miller, a judicial appointee Republicans would have happily confirmed under previous administrations.
I respect your aim to be unbiased, but do not confuse objectivism with centrism. If we are to draw lessons from history and understand how we got from A to B to C, it's vital that we not rewrite the context of A into a more centrist lens. That's not fair and balanced reporting; that's playing into the GOP partisan playbook. We can be unbiased about the fact that we are where we are today not because Harry Reid finally used the nuclear option, but because McConnell left him no choice.
Hi Adiv, I don’t think this is an accurate read either. It’s true that Democrats decided to invoke the nuclear option because Republicans were blocking many nominees. It’s not true to say that Republicans didn’t let “anyone” advance. Whether or not the # of nominees that were being filibustered were enough to merit the nuclear option being invoked can absolutely be debated (as is true of Democratic filibusters during the Bush administration), but it isn’t right to say that literally zero nominees were confirmed.
Hi Brennan, that’s incredibly kind of you to say. I’m so glad you’ve found WUTP to be helpful. Thank you so much for your support!