If and when the Republicans ever get back the White House they should expect clear sailing for every nominee. No longer is rigid opposition to abortion, global warming skepticism, an anti-gay voting record, gun control and everything the left holds near and dear (“4% with the Human Rights Campaign, 14% with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 12% with the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), 5% with the League of Conservation Voters, and 7% with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees”) grounds for opposing a nominee.
So, I fully expect, say, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to be fine with nominees who “repeatedly voted against amendments to allow servicewomen to pay for abortion services at military hospitals out of their own pockets.”
Right-wingers will be gratified to know that, say, Sen. Al Franken won’t have a problem with a nominee who made “fierce and tragically successful efforts to kill the Kyoto climate treaty in the U.S. Senate.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) alas will have to remain mute when a nominee touted by the Chinese government gets a nod for a top post.
I guess Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) who just sent out a tear-jerking e-mail (“Two years ago, we were shocked and saddened when a shooter wielding a gun equipped with a military-style high-capacity magazine turned a quiet Saturday morning in Tucson into a scene of unspeakable bloodshed”) can keep his trap shut when the next GOP presidential nominee says he “opposed background checks at gun shows and an assault weapons ban.”
Have we dispensed with all the liberal litmus tests, which prevent liberals in good conscience from confirming an individual with one of these strikes against him, let alone all of them? Well, silly, you say, of course they will revert to their liberal positions as soon as Chuck Hagel is off the stage.
Oh, so there is some overriding justification for Hagel that outweighs each and every one of these concerns. Hmm. Can’t be years of executive management. Can’t be a record of accomplishment in the U.S. Senate. Can’t be kudos from adoring staff who say he never raised his voice. Can’t be for the sake of racial or gender diversity. Well then, it must be his devotion to slashing defense and, as his supporters claim, his determination to reorient the United States away from a special relationship with Israel.
Who knew that all you had to be was accusatory of American Jews’ loyalty, opposed to Iran sanctions and in favor of “devastating” cuts to defense to get a pass on every liberal issue from the Democratic senators?