Have Senate Confirmation hearings become a clown show?

[iluvatar5150]

They've been a clown show for a long time.

 

[KCfromNC]

The Democrats political prosecutions are meaningless...

The post was talking about criminal convictions of the leader of the GOP, not the political persecution of Democrats by the GOP controlled House.

 

[Fantine]

You didn't ask me but I would answer Fetterman and Gabbard. I believe they are both pro choice and likely hold other views I find morally wrong, I do respect them and find them ethical and true to their stated values.

I can't think of any other names off the top of my head in office, but those two come quickly to mind who hold/held public office in recent years.

I think the problem with some prominent Democrats is that often the moral is to win. When the moral is to win, then it doesn't matter how you get there and all ethical standards are thrown out the window.

Basically, I think we have as a people somehow lost hold of an objective standard in ethics. Traditional liberals and conservatives haven't lost that yet, in the main. But there's elements of the new democratic party that has.

I am confused. What is unethical about the hearings? The purpose is to determine whether a nominee's experience, beliefs, and ethics qualify them for their positions. Considering that most of the nominations were inappropriate and frightening, met by at least half the country with horrified exclamations, I am glad they are being investigated.
Later, in the post mortems of their shameful resignations, we will remember that some brave souls tried to warn us.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Most of us have never seen a more unqualified pool of nominees in our lives. Since the current president wants to dismantle and severely downsize many departments, it seems as if he was looking for a wrecking crew. And so if they are controversial and unpopular, that could be a bonus, and their unpopularity would make it easy for him to cast blame on them as he throws them under the bus.

Then it should've been easy enough for them to grill them without having to resort to blatantly loaded questions and personal attacks, correct?

If the nominees are in fact, as you say, uniquely unqualified, does that message get lost when senators resort to those kinds of tactics? Those tactics leave the general voting public with the perception that the nominee is actually the more level-headed and rational of the two people in the exchange, thereby giving the nominee a measure of perceived credibility if they end up being viewed as the "adult in the room".

Or to use an analogy. If a flat-earther is on the hot seat, and the person grilling them is resorting to name calling, loaded questions, and yelling and ranting & raving like Alex Jones, it's going to make the flat-earther seem more reasonable (which is the opposite of what you'd want to happen, correct?)

I use that analogy, because that's what Sen. Michael Bennet (CO) reminded me off when he flew off the handle and started yelling at Tulsi Gabbard, he behaved like Alex Jones lol. Red-faced, yelling "traitor", etc...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They've been a clown show for a long time.

I guess perhaps I just didn't notice it as much before in past cycles...

It's possible that Senators have always used this "badgering" approach of asking loaded questions followed by "This is a simple yes or no question", but perhaps they used to be more subtle about it?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I am confused. What is unethical about the hearings? The purpose is to determine whether a nominee's experience, beliefs, and ethics qualify them for their positions. Considering that most of the nominations were inappropriate and frightening, met by at least half the country with horrified exclamations, I am glad they are being investigated.
Later, in the post mortems of their shameful resignations, we will remember that some brave souls tried to warn us.

Actually, the confirmation hearings are a second interview for a job.. literally, they are job interviews.

No one has ever once asked who I slept with, or whether I drink wine in the evening after work in a job interview. They want to know my work history, and whether I can do the job to their, usually high, standards.

I'm not seeing questions about the job itself from many people. There's nol questions like 'have you ever had a situation where you felt in over your head and how did you resolve it' type of questions that seek to answer the question of whether they might be able to handle the job itself, and the responsibility thereof.

All the screaming yelling and insults are just plain ridiculous and an utter waste of the peoples time because it obfuscates the actual capabilities of the interviewee...

When dissent is based on "I don't like their politics", well, people have to get over that because the people who voted for the new administration do like their politics.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A couple things...

I am confused. What is unethical about the hearings? The purpose is to determine whether a nominee's experience, beliefs, and ethics qualify them for their positions.

If the Senators are using this an opportunity to make a name for themselves and get a sound byte into the news cycle "for the likes", then they're not taking this process seriously either, which is unethical, as this is one of the more important parts of their jobs.

I think evidence of that is the fact that in a few of these hearings, some of them went on for over an hour before they even got into the subject matter of the position. You had people wasting a lot of time with "well your social media post in 2018 said X, but then in 2023 you said Y...so were you lying then or lying now?" (as if nobody's ever evolved or changed their mind on an issue before)

Considering that most of the nominations were inappropriate and frightening, met by at least half the country with horrified exclamations, I am glad they are being investigated.

How half the country chooses to receive the news of the nominations is of little consequence.

Qualifications & Suitability aren't dictated by whether or not half of the general public chooses to get themselves in a partisan tizzy.

Take for instance a person being nominated for a position in the Department of Education, and a question comes up about teaching evolution or LGBT content. No matter how the nominee answers, roughly 50% of population is going to clutch pearls and act like it's the end of the world.

Setting a standard of "half of the country can't be agitated by the pick" basically means, by that standard, literally no person in the country is going to be good candidate because no matter who you pick, half of people will cry about it.

 

[A2SG]

The Democrats political prosecutions are meaningless...

Probably because they're less adept at evading accountabilty for them.

When a prominent figure is declared guilty of a crime

Don't you mean proven guilty of a crime? 34 felonies to be exact, in this case. Plus others.

because a politician holding the very highest office in the land chooses not to compete against them for public office in an ethical and traditional way (because their polling numbers were tanked) instead preferencing to jail their prominent political opponent, don't expect the public to believe anything you say ever again thereafter and don't expect them to join the "horrible criminal," chorus.

Um, President Biden didn't find Trump guilty of his various and numerous crimes. Juries did. Based on evidence.

In the history of mankind political prosecutions have never made a person a real criminal,

But being found guilty in a court of law, based on evidence, does.

it just makes them someone who offends tyrants and despots. That's always a popular character trait among those living under said tyranny.

John the Baptist, was a convicted criminal. Do you know anyone who disparages him as criminal? But to his credit he absolutely angered tyrants, and often.

Is he running for office in 2028?

-- A2SG, not sure he's eligible, though...

 

[Truth7t7]

I've been watching a few of them over the past few days, and apart from a select few Senators, it would seem as if most of the Senators are merely using these as a political opportunity to go into business for themselves and protect their personal brand or get "likes".


People have questioned the "seriousness" of the some of the nominees leading up to these hearings, but from what I observed, it would seem as if the people doing the questioning are the ones that a little more unhinged and unserious.

It would seem as if the bulk of the exchanges are simply either personal attacks or loaded questions.

And by loaded questions, I'm referring to the onslaught of questions framed in such a way whether neither a simple yes or no is a flattering answer, and then making screaming demands that the person has to answer "Yes or No"

I think I've heard the words "This is a yes or no question" (following a loaded question) no less than 50 times during these hearings.


Questions like "Being that you claim you want to make America healthy again, and the best way to do that is by implementing universal healthcare, are you willing to commit to pushing for universal healthcare if you get the job? This is a yes or no question"

And: "You claim to be an advocate for law enforcement, yet you associate with people who glorified people who stormed the capitol on J6, are you proud of the fact that you're aligned with people who assaulted police?, this is a simple yes or no question"


They'd might as well rename these hearings the "When did you stop beating your wife?" panel.

It's their last ditch efforts to sling mud at Donald J. Trump in a complete circus

President Trump asked for recess appointments and the world could have skipped the clown juggling act, the Republicans have a majority in the Senate and could have well called a recess and Installed the cabinet

We know who the Republican hold outs are as seen in Pete Hegseth's vote 51/50 with VP Vance being the tie breaker, and ex-speaker McConnell stood alone in his rebellion to the Republican party in Trumps MAGA, Collins and Murkowski are historical hold outs expected

1.) Susan Collins (Maine)
2.) Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
3.) Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)

 

[Hazelelponi]

Don't you mean proven guilty of a crime? 34 felonies to be exact, in this case. Plus others.

Choice WH prosecutors and money hungry "victims" slandering a defendant in front of hand picked activist judges in the most left leaning city in this nation don't count as "proof" of anything but prosecutorial corruption and government malfeasance.

But this isn't the place to argue the case again. I've proven this all over this forum yet still the silly accusations keep coming because it's a point to slander someone's name.

This thread is about the Senate Confirmation hearings. Let's stick to that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I guess perhaps I just didn't notice it as much before in past cycles...

It's possible that Senators have always used this "badgering" approach of asking loaded questions followed by "This is a simple yes or no question", but perhaps they used to be more subtle about it?

You're just more aware of it.

 

[durangodawood]

I question whether these things should be televised at all. It encourages politician grandstanding.

Otoh, video is an opportunity for Americans to see how abysmal this crop of nominees is.

 

[Truth7t7]

Um, President Biden didn't find Trump guilty of his various and numerous crimes. Juries did. Based on evidence.

The case heard by Judge Juan Merchan was biased political lawfare, the complete case is a mistrial and will be thrown in the trash dumpster on appeal, the very reason it was dropped by Merchan with no jail time

President Trump is still on appeal to remove his name from the biased political lawfare, the tainted Jury was not of his peers, they were hand selected by the prosecution and approved by the biased Judge who donated to the Biden/Harris campaign, and who had a daughter working for the same, complete judicial political lawfare that will soon be tossed in the trash on appeal "Mistrial"!

 

[seeking.IAM]

What hearing isn't a clown show as our legislators from both sides of the aisle hustle to get their soundbite on the evening news to jockey for political position or convince their voters that they are something to behold?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I question whether these things should be televised at all. It encourages politician grandstanding.

Otoh, video is an opportunity for Americans to see how abysmal this crop of nominees is.

But as I reference in a previous post, I don't know that's going to be the takeaway people have.

When you see Tulsi Gabbard sitting there calmy trying to explain her position (which can't be done in the "yes or no answer" format), and Sen. Michael Bennet (D - CO) doing what looked like a borderline Alex Jones outburst impression... "Tulsi is the crazy one" isn't what got conveyed in that exchange.

And for some of the other ones, people are still astute enough to recognize a loaded question when they see one.

 

[durangodawood]

But as I reference in a previous post, I don't know that's going to be the takeaway people have.

When you see Tulsi Gabbard sitting there calmy trying to explain her position (which can't be done in the "yes or no answer" format), and Sen. Michael Bennet (D - CO) doing what looked like a borderline Alex Jones outburst impression... "Tulsi is the crazy one" isn't what got conveyed in that exchange.

And for some of the other ones, people are still astute enough to recognize a loaded question when they see one.

Your main concern seems to be about the imagery here. I'm not as confident as you that it really matters. Thoughtful people are going to ignore the wild performances anyway and focus on the candidate. The rest seem to like blowhard grandstanding. Look at who we elected president - twice.

As for me I'm concerned about a national security advisor whos proven to fall for the manipulations of various tyrants. Thats the real clown show once you strip away the meaningless nonsense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your main concern seems to be about the imagery here. I'm not as confident as you that it really matters. Thoughtful people are going to ignore the wild performances anyway and focus on the candidate. The rest seem to like blowhard grandstanding. Look at who we elected president - twice.

Public opinion seems to be downstream of the imagery though, does it not?

There's a reason why so many, who previously voted democrat, didn't come out in the same numbers as they did before, and why they end up distancing from certain political movements (despite, on paper, seeming like they would be in alignment)

Optics is everything, as the expression goes...

An example of what I'm talking about would be certain climate activist groups.

On the actual "nuts & bolts" of the scientific aspect of the conversation about climate, the activists have a more accurate, scientifically-sound take on it... That being "damage is being done to the environment, humans are the one doing it, and a major source is reliance on fossil fuels"

On paper, most liberals (and a good chunk of independents) agree with that viewpoint from a technical standpoint.

The problem is, for some liberal-leaning people (and a large portion of independents and moderates), nobody wants to associate themselves with "those unhinged 'Just Stop Oil' lunatics who block traffic and vandalize art museums"

...and for people who are/were "on the fence" on that subject (and this is the big one)

They're going to see one team present their case wearing a nice suit, speaking in a calm voice, and making (what superficially sounds like) an eloquent argument for their position, and they're going to see the other team supergluing their hand to a wall and throwing tomato soup on the Mona Lisa.

...keeping in mind, it's the "undecideds" that often end up being the deciding factor in elections.

 

[durangodawood]

Public opinion seems to be downstream of the imagery though, does it not?

There's a reason why so many, who previously voted democrat, didn't come out in the same numbers as they did before, and why they end up distancing from certain political movements (despite, on paper, seeming like they would be in alignment)

Optics is everything, as the expression goes...

An example of what I'm talking about would be certain climate activist groups.

On the actual "nuts & bolts" of the scientific aspect of the conversation about climate, the activists have a more accurate, scientifically-sound take on it... That being "damage is being done to the environment, humans are the one doing it, and a major source is reliance on fossil fuels"

On paper, most liberals (and a good chunk of independents) agree with that viewpoint from a technical standpoint.

The problem is, for some liberal-leaning people (and a large portion of independents and moderates), nobody wants to associate themselves with "those unhinged 'Just Stop Oil' lunatics who block traffic and vandalize art museums"

...and for people who are/were "on the fence" on that subject (and this is the big one)

They're going to see one team present their case wearing a nice suit, speaking in a calm voice, and making (what superficially sounds like) an eloquent argument for their position, and they're going to see the other team supergluing their hand to a wall and throwing tomato soup on the Mona Lisa.

...keeping in mind, it's the "undecideds" that often end up being the deciding factor in elections.

I agree that some people make political decisions for basically stupid reasons - such as: who else agrees with this and whats their vibe?. Yes, there is some value to catering to that stupidity, just as a political reality.

Otoh a lot of these congresspeople blowhards are behaving like that precisely because they know of its advantages. Showing youre tough. Not allowing the nominee to filibuster all over your allotted 10 min - which they will do. Etc. Does this outweigh the former? Dunno. But in our age its increasingly rewarded.

You and I personally, if I can speak for you, vastly prefer a rational presentation of facts and a calm appeal to values over showboating. But I think we might be in a minority. And we will make decisions based mainly on facts and not irrelevant stuff like who glued their hands to the road.

(I will add that there is definitely a place for appeal to raw emotion. The sob story. Etc. Sometime its necessary for a proper understanding of events and consequences.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Otoh a lot of these congresspeople blowhards are behaving like that precisely because they know of its advantages. Showing youre tough. Not allowing the nominee to filibuster all over your allotted 10 min - which they will do. Etc. Does this outweigh the former? Dunno. But in our age its increasingly rewarded.

That introduces another point I wanted to talk about.

This idea of "line up 20 senators, and they get to do a speed-dating style of questioning" is ridiculous.

Not only is it not enough time to actually deep dive in the places where it's needed, it often leads to a lot of repetition in terms of some of the questions (which is a huge time waster)

I have no problem with the process being televised, but how it should work is, the various committees delegate 1 or 2 people to run the show, and they handle the "interview" as it were (after all, this is a person interviewing for a job) No other job interview in any other realm works like that (that I'm aware of)

That basically forces the whole "here's this complex topic, you have to answer with a yes or no" thing that seemed to be happening a lot. And basically concedes to the idea that it should be treated like political theater.


If you talk to members of a minority party, they'll claim they want a moderate when the other side gets to pick the nominees, yet, frame those rapid fire questions in such a way where it's virtually impossible to convey moderation when "it's a yes or no question".

A good example of that was when they were grilling RFK Jr. on abortion.

"Mr Kennedy in the past you've said that you support a woman's right to choose, but now the people you've aligned yourself with are the same people who want to restrict abortions and make it illegal, are republicans wrong about abortion?"

Him: "Well, let me start by saying like I've always said, every abortion is a tragedy, but..."

"NO NO NO! This is a simple yes or no question, are the republicans wrong about abortion?!?"

Him: "Mr. Trump and I have discussed this issue before, and I've said...."

"Let the record show he won't answer the question! Given that he refuses to commit to protecting abortion rights, I won't be voting to confirm, I yield my remaining 40 seconds to the chairman"


That kind of nonsense wouldn't happen if they allowed for a more long-form conversation with one or two people instead of the "gauntlet style" thing they do currently.

And, just thinking about it rationally, what do they think that's actually going to accomplish? Are they thinking it's a "if we run that guy out of town, then maybe Trump will nominate the founder of "ShoutYourAbortion"...nevermind the fact that we don't have a majority"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's their last ditch efforts to sling mud at Donald J. Trump in a complete circus

President Trump asked for recess appointments and the world could have skipped the clown juggling act, the Republicans have a majority in the Senate and could have well called a recess and Installed the cabinet

We know who the Republican hold outs are as seen in Pete Hegseth's vote 51/50 with VP Vance being the tie breaker, and ex-speaker McConnell stood alone in his rebellion to the Republican party in Trumps MAGA, Collins and Murkowski are historical hold outs expected

1.) Susan Collins (Maine)
2.) Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
3.) Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)

Collins has to do it by virtue of necessity. A New England republican senator is a rarity. In fact, I think she's literally the only one right now (anyone can fact check me if I'm wrong about that). The moment she gets on-board fully with "MAGA", is the moment she loses reelection, and that seat gets occupied by a democrat.

I think some people falsely assume that because a person with a particular letter next to their name was able to get elected in a state, that means that the people in that state are receptive to voting for any old person with that same letter next to their name, that's not the case in certain regions.

On the other side of the fence, the Democrats found that out the hard way when they ran Joe Manchin out of town in WV for not being "sufficiently liberal". He got out of the way just like they wanted, a more progressive democrat tried to run for that seat, and got creamed by a staggering margin by Jim Justice.

Much like the Democrats were looking a gift horse in the mouth by getting rid of Manchin thinking they would get a more progressive person elected in West Virginia, Republicans would meet the exact same fate if they tried to primary Collins in favor a more conservative republican.