I watched this interview of Thune with Bret Baier last night and it is worth reading over on the Fox site. It is particularly worth parsing what he is actually saying among the assurances of support for the president, his agenda, etc.
A couple of comments are provided below:
"All these people have a process that they have to go through. All these nominees are – it's a – you know, advice and consent. That's the Senate's constitutional role when it comes to confirmation of nominations to the executive branch of the government. And we take that role seriously,"
He was also asked about recess appointments which many on the web have offered as way to appoint Gaetz without a vote.
"Well, it's an option, but obviously, it takes, you know, you have to have all Republicans vote to recess as well. So the same Republicans that you mentioned that might have a problem voting for somebody under regular order probably also have a problem voting to put the Senate into recess,"
He then affirmed that "........
these nominees deserve their day in court. They deserve a hearing, a confirmation hearing, an opportunity to be vetted. And the Senate will perform its constitutional role under advice and consent. But we are not going to allow the Democrats to thwart the will of the American people in giving President Trump the people that he wants in those positions to implement his agenda,"
However, he then concluded. "
But obviously, there is a process whereby we get down and scrub all these nominees and figure out whether or not, one, they're qualified and are they people who are fit to hold these offices."
I do not see how Gaetz survives an actual hearing - particularly when democrats start reading to the American people the
republican chaired findings of the republican led House Ethics Committee. It was due to be voted on with regard to its release this week (today actually) until Gaetz suddenly resigned. One would have to assume the votes were there to release it. They will paint him as the worst pedophile, sex trafficker, and drug addict since Osiel Cardenas Guillen.
The democrats will attempt to portray Gabbard as, at best, a Russian stooge. She has strongly, if perhaps unintentionally, publicly supported the Russian propaganda narrative with regard to the Ukraine war echoing a lot of the false statistics promulgated by Scott Ritter (now primarily living in Russia) and COL(R) Douglas Macgregor. Still. assuming there is no actual there there, she probably gets confirmed.
RFK jr will be a lightning rod for the "anti-science" narrative of the democrat party. That said, I suspect he will be effective as a witness, and barring something crazy in the hearing, can likely get fifty votes (all that is needed because Vance breaks any tie).
Assuming the Gaetz's hearing, if it ever takes place, will be a dumpster fire, Hegseth's hearing will be the most critical to a nominee. There is very little public record on him. Of the 150 mil people who voted this year and 75 million or so who supported Trump, perhaps a 1.5 million watch Fox. The democrats and press will portray him as unprepared/qualified for this appointment - not a difficult assignment. He has the opportunity to surprise those who do not know of him with his intellect and preparation for the hearing. We'll see. As of now, I would give him a fifty-fifty shot. That could swing significantly either way based upon his individual meetings with senators and the hearing.
20 republican senators will be up for election in 2026 and only 13 democrats. Depending on which state, several of those republicans will be working the calculus of whether it is better to be perceived as loyally supporting Trump or protecting the country, and even the president, from his worst instincts.
It should be a must watch TV spring.
We also communicate periodically outside the AH Forums. We probably agree 95%+ of the time. It's the other 5% that makes discussions with well read intelligent individuals interesting and worthwhile.
