Confirmation Hearing: IBNU for Secretary of State (Confirmed)

[wxtransit]

It is completely fair to post the facts of the matter since the nominee isn't entitled to the votes of the Senators but should make his case to earn them. There is also plenty if reasons to believe that the nominee does not understand the position well enough to objectively do a good job in it. It is also a concern that if the nominee is able to be bribed into this position, then he may sell out Atlasia's interests when dealing with foreign policy.

The nominee was not bribed at all, at least by this President or his affiliates. The nominee has a great understanding of global diplomacy and a commitment to activity. He may be a newer player, but he is ideal for making this position relevant again. Not a single one of us here knows every Atlasian law or historic anecdote inside and out. This is a game, and this nominee is willing to put in the collaborative work necessary to create relevant foreign policy dealings working with myself, the Senate, the NSC, and our GM and his assessment of foreign nations. Let's drop the witch hunt and focus on reality.

Due to the fact that the controversy surrounding the allegations has created quite a cloud over whatever the truth may be in this situation, I have elected to recuse accusations of bribery or forgery from my position on the nominee.

Nonetheless, at the moment, I do not feel comfortable supporting the nominee. Though the nominee has spent commendable effort responding to the questions posed by members of this honorable body (of which I would have posted some had my questions not been already asked by other members), I do not believe the nominee has the necessary background for nomination. While I also find the President's sentiment about including newer players into the game commendable -- it is one of the most pressing issues facing our nation and one which I hope to address during this Senate term -- I do not feel that the position of Secretary of State is a proper position for such a launching-off point for someone less experienced in Atlasian politics. A Secretary of State needs to have deep knowledge about Atlasian history and the diplomatic history of the world along with the political experience to avoid unintentional missteps that could plunge the nation into unnecessary conflicts. Based on the answers from the nominee and the nominee's background, I do not at present believe the nominee meets this standard.

In addition, I have serious disagreements with the President's characterization of the nominee's activity. I have great respect for the President and do not believe he is intentionally misleading this body; however, I do believe there is significant evidence in opposition to the ability of the nominee to remain active in a office that -- I should know -- carries significant weight behind activity. As the nominee had failed to be active in a significantly lesser role than that of Secretary of State, I do not feel that the nominee meets the standard for activity.

I will reserve my final judgement until the nominee has answered all of the questions posed by this body as a matter of principle, but I personally did not feel it would be worth the nominee's or the Senate's time to engage of a line of questioning that I would only be posing as a matter of procedure rather than true investigation. If new evidence comes to light that would shift my opinion of the nominee, than I am open to shifting my stance and engaging in questioning.

[wxtransit]

snip

I understand your concerns. With that, I will only say that I stand fully by the nomination of IBNU. If, for some reason, he fails to reach the activity I expect out of this position, I will be pro-active and work to find a replacement.

With regards to the deep knowledge of Atlasian history, this may be a matter of our respective timelines not crossing paths until now. For my entire time serving in government, the SoS has done absolutely nothing, no offense to those who have served. It is time we change that. Indeed, at the end of the day, this is a game we play to have fun and pass time. I'll be quite frank, there are some questions posed that I couldn't answer on the spot myself. There are good people to approach and ask to clarify if such a situation arose.

What I don't want to see is a, justifiably so, excited new senate body forget our recent past. I pledged during the campaign, and reiterate now, to try my best to build activity up and make this a fun place for all of us. This entire senate is a signal of new opportunities for Atlasia. Please give the nominee a chance to be a signal of new opportunity in the oft-ignored SoS position.

Honestly, the fact that we have discussed so much already is a positive sign in the right direction.

If someone with more free time and patience than myself wants to make an honest assessment of IBNU's prior activity (which is hardly that relevant to his new commitment), I expect they would find more than 14 posts in the Lincoln Council threads, which is all we have gotten out our SoS from the last two+ years.

While I understand your sentiment, I must respectfully disagree with your statement. It is true that I am not fully apprised of the history of the office since I was Secretary of State (which I will be the first to admit I was not exactly a shining beam of activity in that office -- something that I fully regret and hope to have the opportunity to correct one day). As your statement is frankly the first time I have been briefed on the position since, it is disheartening to hear of the nature of the office of Secretary of State, and as such I fully understand your commitment to rejuvenating that office.

However, I do not believe that the nominee should be graded based on the most recent performances of Secretaries of State. I also do not believe that the Senate should confirm a nominee that even the President has felt the need to mention could need to be dismissed and replaced with a more active nominee should the nominee fail to meet a standard of activity. It is my opinion that the Senate should be confirming a nominee that is ready for the job when confirmed, not a nominee that (potentially) forces this body to reconvene in a short period of time to pick their successor.

I do understand your position surrounding the depth of the nominee's knowledge, and as someone who has gone through this exact confirmation process before, I agree with your sentiment. I do not believe I knew the answers to all of the questions posed before me in my hearing, and I feel that that in itself is not necessarily a disqualifying factor. I very much agree with you that this position is, at the end of the day, part of a game where we strive to have fun (and as such the nominee should never feel the pressure to decline seeking help when necessary). However, the reason I feel the need to bring up my lack of confidence in the nominee's knowledge is that it comes combined with my concerns about the nominee's activity. If just one of those two problems were present, I would feel far more comfortable confirming such a nominee -- particularly if it were just a lack of knowledge. However, in this case, it appears the nominee is confronting both questions in this hearing.

[wxtransit]

Fair enough, I guess. My statement was not intended to indicate that the nominee has activity questions, though. I believe he has stated emphatically that he will be active.

Alright, that's fair. It is my belief that actions hold far greater weight than words when making heavy decisions such as this question on confirmation, and for that reason I have brought up the nominee's history to the floor. I do find the nominee's statements admirable, but at the end of the day, the position of Secretary of State is not an entry-level position. It is not an impossible position to reach, and those holding the position should not be precluded from seeking help from others, but the individual at the reigns of the State Department should at least have some experience that implies they are fit to hold the position. Even though past Senates and administrations may have confirmed unqualified nominees, it is not the task of this Senate to live up to past Senates but to make the right choice for our nation, and I unfortunately do not believe that the nominee is the right choice to lead Atlasian diplomacy.

I do agree that this moment presents a potential turning point for the position of Secretary of State for several reasons, including your new administration and our new Senate. I very much agree that we should seize this turning point and explore the new foreign policy avenues and challenges that this nation could face, and I am excited to see what this future holds with regards to relations with China and the Asia-Pacific region, the Saudi Arabia question (oft-ignored by past administrations), and other important questions in Atlasian diplomacy. However, it is for this exact reason that I believe that the nominee is unfortunately not best suited for this role at this time. If we truly want to utilize this moment to its fullest, then an experienced Secretary of State would be able to not only turn the office around but have the know-how to deal with new situations that have not been brought up in this hearing. While the nominee may in theory be able to address both of these issues, there is unfortunately nothing in the nominee's record that suggests this nature other than the nominee's words. As this moment is such a crucial one in the history of our Republic, I do not think that confirming this nominee would be setting a good precedent for our future, with no disrespect meant towards the nominee or the President.

Given that this moment is an inflection point in the office of Secretary of State, it is my belief that we should set a precedent for future Senates and presidential administrations that we will confirm qualified nominees that have the activity and experience to deal with the challenges that our nation faces, along with the potential to explore new avenues currently uncharted in Atlasian diplomacy.

[wxtransit]

Nay.

I'm not going to waste the Senate's time by repeating what I've said earlier, but I do not feel that the nominee has successfully demonstrated a pattern of activity in this hearing that refutes their earlier record of inactivity. I agree with the President that this period is a crucial one for the State Department and Atlasian diplomacy, and with all due respect to the nominee and the President, I believe that there are more qualified candidates to lead us into this new period than the present nominee.

This hearing will set a precedent for the future of the State Department and confirmation hearings, and I hope this Senate makes the decision to set a precedent of activity and qualification to not squander this period of great potential.