No single requested it, but the Washington Post has provided a list of Trump’s cabinet nominees and a list of cabinet-level nominations, and it has chosen which ones it likes and which people it disapproves.
Advertisement
If you thought it would garbage them all, you were wrong. But don’t get excited. WaPo’s analysis of Trump’s government confirmations is a masterwork in thinly veiled disdain encased in the notion of justice. The leftist paper only made objections to four nominees ( two cabinet secretaries and two cabinet-level officials ) in an open attempt to appear fair and balanced while signaling begrudging approval for the rest.
Its logic? Trump won the election, so he deserves the chance to develop his staff — unless, of course, a nominee is plainly unqualified in WaPo’s eyes. But let’s not child ourselves: these tepid endorsements waft of resignation, no real support. The Post is playing together, objecting just enough to maintain the appearance of fairness and giving its finger on the size of the most contentious picks, knowing that these confirmations are generally a foregone conclusion. As a result, it is playing together, not taking a philosophical stand against all of the nominees it dislikes.
Its claim to release its evaluations if troubling information emerges during the hearings is even more absurd. Transcription:” We’ll get someone to change our opinion on as many as we can”.
Advertisement
Recommended: Democrat Senator Blames Trump for California Wildfires
Pete Hegseth, the candidate for Secretary of Defense, was the first cabinet minister the Washington Post found to be undesirable. The WaPo newspaper board claims that the original Fox News anchor lacks the moral character and character needed to lead the Pentagon. He persuaded Trump to forgive accused battle criminals and has a well-known story of womanizing and excessive drinking, but he claims he’ll give up the bottle if he holds one of the world’s most vulnerable and prominent positions.
The second, of course, is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:” With bird flu on the rise, now is not the time to put an anti-vax crime theory in charge of public health”.
May I find an eyeroll?
If WaPo’s problems didn’t involve it in hiding its hatred for the Trump nominees it thought were acceptable, it would be simpler to supply cred to its issues. For instance, it said of Housing and Urban Development Secretary nominee Scott Turner,” The original motivational speaker has not run a big business, but that is not disqualifying”, and it first described Transportation Secretary candidate Sean Duffy as a “former real Television star”, before noting that he was also a senator and adding disparagingly,” He’ll still need to study”.
Advertisement
That’s pretty after four decades of Pete Buttigieg as transport minister.
OMB Director candidate Russell Vought and DNI Director candidate Tulsi Gabbard were the two cabinet-level officers the Washington Post found to be inadmissible, but they did not have anything to state about the candidates they thought were good.
The entire strategy is absurd, revealing less about thoughtful analysis and more about a deliberate attempt to play both sides, accepting Trump’s inevitable confirmations while using posturing as a motivating force to put pressure on the more contented picks. It’s the same play Sen. John Fetterman is producing to appear fair.
