How many confirmation votes would Antony Blinken or Lloyd Austin get today?

[Utah Neolib]

After the whole Afghanistan thing

[Bootes Void]

this question makes no sense unless if biden had some other secretary of state to take the fall

[Ferguson97]

this question makes no sense unless if biden had some other secretary of state to take the fall

I assume this is a scenario where they need to have their confirmation renewed for whatever reason.

[Bootes Void]

this question makes no sense unless if biden had some other secretary of state to take the fall

I assume this is a scenario where they need to have their confirmation renewed for whatever reason.

thats not really a thing though, there are no term limits on cabinet positions

[Ferguson97]

this question makes no sense unless if biden had some other secretary of state to take the fall

I assume this is a scenario where they need to have their confirmation renewed for whatever reason.

thats not really a thing though, there are no term limits on cabinet positions

This is a hypothetical.

[Non Swing Voter]

Procedural obstacles and whatever aside.  Neither would be confirmed.  I'm actually kind of surprise neither have been fired, particularly Blinken.  The whole point of someone like him was to restore confidence in a less politicized and more professional and competent Government after the Trump debacle.  This has totally destroyed that perception.

[Calthrina950]

Procedural obstacles and whatever aside.  Neither would be confirmed.  I'm actually kind of surprise neither have been fired, particularly Blinken.  The whole point of someone like him was to restore confidence in a less politicized and more professional and competent Government after the Trump debacle.  This has totally destroyed that perception.

Blinken has worked for Biden for almost twenty years, going back to when he was still in the Senate. My assumption is that he's high in Biden's confidence. But I wouldn't be surprised if neither he nor Austin managed to survive to 2024. Many progressive Democrats were skeptical of Blinken when he was first nominated by Biden.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Procedural obstacles and whatever aside.  Neither would be confirmed.  I'm actually kind of surprise neither have been fired, particularly Blinken.  The whole point of someone like him was to restore confidence in a less politicized and more professional and competent Government after the Trump debacle.  This has totally destroyed that perception.

I don't think anyone except hacks understands the Afghanistan catastrophe as particularly political, at least not in the sense that you mean. The withdrawal did happen the way it did partly due to domestic public opinion, but the nature of that public opinion wasn't really partisan or sectional in nature, for once.

[Calthrina950]

It's a national disgrace that anyone voted to confirm Austin in the first place. If the Biden administration wanted to make something of the disaster in Afghanistan, they could at least fire him, treat the incident as discrediting, and re-establish the principle of civilian control of the military.

Why so? Is it because he's a retired General? The same was true of Jim Mattis.

[Calthrina950]

It's a national disgrace that anyone voted to confirm Austin in the first place. If the Biden administration wanted to make something of the disaster in Afghanistan, they could at least fire him, treat the incident as discrediting, and re-establish the principle of civilian control of the military.

Why so? Is it because he's a retired General? The same was true of Jim Mattis.

Yes, as many fine people noted at the time:

It could be an early test of whether the remaining Nevertrumpers and the Democrats will fight this. A lot of people are going to think it's an arbitrary rule, which to some extent it is, albeit a good arbitrary rule. If he can get Mattis confirmed, then he can go on to get rid of other arbitrary rules such as our ethics laws, the 22nd Amendment, there being only nine justices on the Supreme Court, etc.

Even if he weren't full Jack D. Ripper on Iran, I still wouldn't be excited because I fail to see what's so uniquely great about this guy to justify weakening civilian control of the military just for him.

...


...


...no.

No; the fact that Congress gave him that wavier was a disgrace and any nominee who needed such a wavier is already unfit to be Secretary of Defense.  It is extremely important that this position only be held by a civilian or individual who retired from the military quite a while ago (although even the latter makes me uncomfortable).  Rules like this exist for a reason and making these "one-time" (translation: "we're setting the precedent for ignoring this rule") exceptions for short-term expediancy is really dangerous.  

They were right then, and subsequent events have only made the warnings about Trump's dangerous precedent more prescient.

These concerns are certainly legitimate. One Democrat who was a blatant hypocrite in all of this is Kristen Gillibrand. She was the only Senator who voted against Mattis, on the grounds noted above-that there should be civilian control of the military. However, she, along with every other Democratic Senator, voted to confirm Austin earlier this year, in complete contradiction to what she said before. Of course, she only voted against Mattis so as to advance her position as being ardently anti-Trump.

[Calthrina950]

These concerns are certainly legitimate. One Democrat who was a blatant hypocrite in all of this is Kristen Gillibrand. She was the only Senator who voted against Mattis, on the grounds noted above-that there should be civilian control of the military. However, she, along with every other Democratic Senator, voted to confirm Austin earlier this year, in complete contradiction to what she said before. Of course, she only voted against Mattis so as to advance her position as being ardently anti-Trump.

Yes, Gillibrand consistently sets a new low for cynical double-standards. I seem to remember Warren at least objecting to the nomination initially, but it seems that the administration pulled any of the Democratic skeptics along with it by the time the nomination came to a vote.

It's disappointing how united the Democratic caucus were in supporting Austin, given what's transpired. But it seems like many of Biden's cabinet appointees are mediocrities. Garland, Raimondo, Granholm, Blinken, Becerra, Austin, Mayorkas. Biden could have gone with different options.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Austin shouldn't get any votes but I think we all know the Senate would vote to confirm.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not enough

[Kingpoleon]

I don't think anyone except hacks understands the Afghanistan catastrophe as particularly political, at least not in the sense that you mean. The withdrawal did happen the way it did partly due to domestic public opinion, but the nature of that public opinion wasn't really partisan or sectional in nature, for once.

I think we underestimate just how much more common it is to be a partisan hack than not.

[brucejoel99]

Procedural obstacles and whatever aside.  Neither would be confirmed.  I'm actually kind of surprise neither have been fired, particularly Blinken.  The whole point of someone like him was to restore confidence in a less politicized and more professional and competent Government after the Trump debacle.  This has totally destroyed that perception.

Blinken has worked for Biden for almost twenty years, going back to when he was still in the Senate. My assumption is that he's high in Biden's confidence. But I wouldn't be surprised if neither he nor Austin managed to survive to 2024. Many progressive Democrats were skeptical of Blinken when he was first nominated by Biden.

Was this a thing outside of some on Rose Twitter? Because IIRC, Faiz Shakir was literally the biggest praiser of his nom.

[Utah Neolib]

Procedural obstacles and whatever aside.  Neither would be confirmed.  I'm actually kind of surprise neither have been fired, particularly Blinken.  The whole point of someone like him was to restore confidence in a less politicized and more professional and competent Government after the Trump debacle.  This has totally destroyed that perception.

Blinken has worked for Biden for almost twenty years, going back to when he was still in the Senate. My assumption is that he's high in Biden's confidence. But I wouldn't be surprised if neither he nor Austin managed to survive to 2024. Many progressive Democrats were skeptical of Blinken when he was first nominated by Biden.

Was this a thing outside of some on Rose Twitter? Because IIRC, Faiz Shakir was literally the biggest praiser of his nom.

Blinken, when he was nominated, was praised by many in both sides of the aisle, and probably a lot of progressives.

[Blue3]

Why would it change from less than a year ago?

[brucejoel99]

Why would it change from less than a year ago?

Literally in the OP:

After the whole Afghanistan thing