Loading...
Title : Is it hypocritical for Senator Manchin to go to a party for a Trump appointee after he said he couldn't vote for the man "in good conscience"?
link : Is it hypocritical for Senator Manchin to go to a party for a Trump appointee after he said he couldn't vote for the man "in good conscience"?
Is it hypocritical for Senator Manchin to go to a party for a Trump appointee after he said he couldn't vote for the man "in good conscience"?
That's what Instapundit implies, linking to a Washington Free Beacon piece about a glamorous party hosted by Katherine Graham for the new Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross.But it seems to me that to cry hypocrisy is to act like the people who are persisting-resisting Trump after the election, who go heavily into not-my-President politics. I think serious fighting should occur at the decision point — an election, a confirmation process — but then, when a person reaches the position of power, through the constitutional process, we should give them the respect and dignity of the office. They deserve basic trust as they attempt to carry out their responsibilities. Then, watch what they do, pressure them, try persuade them to do what you think is best, and criticize them and protest if and when you see them going wrong.
In the confirmation process, a Senator is using evidence from the past to predict how well the nominee will perform. Manchin — according to the Free Beacon — was looking at "Ross's career as a billionaire investor—which earned him the nickname 'King of Bankruptcy'—and his involvement in the West Virginia mining industry." Now that Ross is the Commerce Secretary, Manchin can quite properly look toward the future, hope for the best from Ross, and maintain his own influence. I don't think this is hypocritical. The confirmation decision was a guess about what Ross would do if he attained power. The party attendance was about acknowledging the reality of Ross's position and treating him with the respect he deserves for winning confirmation.
In my career as a law professor, I saw many times when a job candidate had opponents who argued against an appointment, even with great intensity. But after the vote, if that person joined us as a colleague, he or she would be welcomed and not snubbed by anybody. I cannot imagine thinking of opponents of an appointment as hypocrites for being friendly and supportive to a new colleague! In fact, I would be critical if they treated the new person with anything less than full acceptance. Their old predictions that this person will perform badly should be put aside as we support him or her and hope the work will be good. If the work isn't good, criticize that.
And that's also how I feel about President Trump.
That's what Instapundit implies, linking to a Washington Free Beacon piece about a glamorous party hosted by Katherine Graham for the new Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross.
But it seems to me that to cry hypocrisy is to act like the people who are persisting-resisting Trump after the election, who go heavily into not-my-President politics. I think serious fighting should occur at the decision point — an election, a confirmation process — but then, when a person reaches the position of power, through the constitutional process, we should give them the respect and dignity of the office. They deserve basic trust as they attempt to carry out their responsibilities. Then, watch what they do, pressure them, try persuade them to do what you think is best, and criticize them and protest if and when you see them going wrong.
In the confirmation process, a Senator is using evidence from the past to predict how well the nominee will perform. Manchin — according to the Free Beacon — was looking at "Ross's career as a billionaire investor—which earned him the nickname 'King of Bankruptcy'—and his involvement in the West Virginia mining industry." Now that Ross is the
But it seems to me that to cry hypocrisy is to act like the people who are persisting-resisting Trump after the election, who go heavily into not-my-President politics. I think serious fighting should occur at the decision point — an election, a confirmation process — but then, when a person reaches the position of power, through the constitutional process, we should give them the respect and dignity of the office. They deserve basic trust as they attempt to carry out their responsibilities. Then, watch what they do, pressure them, try persuade them to do what you think is best, and criticize them and protest if and when you see them going wrong.
In the confirmation process, a Senator is using evidence from the past to predict how well the nominee will perform. Manchin — according to the Free Beacon — was looking at "Ross's career as a billionaire investor—which earned him the nickname 'King of Bankruptcy'—and his involvement in the West Virginia mining industry." Now that Ross is the
Loading...
Commerce Secretary, Manchin can quite properly look toward the future, hope for the best from Ross, and maintain his own influence. I don't think this is hypocritical. The confirmation decision was a guess about what Ross would do if he attained power. The party attendance was about acknowledging the reality of Ross's position and treating him with the respect he deserves for winning confirmation.
In my career as a law professor, I saw many times when a job candidate had opponents who argued against an appointment, even with great intensity. But after the vote, if that person joined us as a colleague, he or she would be welcomed and not snubbed by anybody. I cannot imagine thinking of opponents of an appointment as hypocrites for being friendly and supportive to a new colleague! In fact, I would be critical if they treated the new person with anything less than full acceptance. Their old predictions that this person will perform badly should be put aside as we support him or her and hope the work will be good. If the work isn't good, criticize that.
And that's also how I feel about President Trump.
In my career as a law professor, I saw many times when a job candidate had opponents who argued against an appointment, even with great intensity. But after the vote, if that person joined us as a colleague, he or she would be welcomed and not snubbed by anybody. I cannot imagine thinking of opponents of an appointment as hypocrites for being friendly and supportive to a new colleague! In fact, I would be critical if they treated the new person with anything less than full acceptance. Their old predictions that this person will perform badly should be put aside as we support him or her and hope the work will be good. If the work isn't good, criticize that.
And that's also how I feel about President Trump.
Thus articles Is it hypocritical for Senator Manchin to go to a party for a Trump appointee after he said he couldn't vote for the man "in good conscience"?
that is all articles Is it hypocritical for Senator Manchin to go to a party for a Trump appointee after he said he couldn't vote for the man "in good conscience"? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Is it hypocritical for Senator Manchin to go to a party for a Trump appointee after he said he couldn't vote for the man "in good conscience"? with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-it-hypocritical-for-senator-manchin.html
Related Posts :
President Trump Threatens To Veto Defense Budget If Section 230 Is Not Terminated (Update)
Why Mossad’s Yossi Cohen Is Prime Minister Netanyahu's Chosen Successor
Covid-19 Coronavirus Pandemic In The U.S. -- News Updates December 2, 2020
US Temporarily Withdrawing Some Staff From The US Embassy In Baghdad Over Concerns Of Retaliation Over The Anniversary Of The Death Of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani
At the Sunrise Café...
0 Response to "Is it hypocritical for Senator Manchin to go to a party for a Trump appointee after he said he couldn't vote for the man "in good conscience"?"
Post a Comment