U.S. Senate Democrats setting a new low in obstructionism

DEMOCRATS who used to decry partisanship and obstructionism are now embracing it whole hog, setting a new low even by Washington standards.

Historically, Congress has generally deferred to presidents, voting to confirm Cabinet nominees unless major issues arise. While members of the party out of power often vote against nominees’ confirmations, the process is generally allowed to proceed in an orderly fashion.

This year, Democrats in the Senate have chosen a different path, one in which opposition isn't based on any serious objection to a nominee and in which Democrats appear willing to sacrifice their personal reputations in pursuit of no obvious goal.

This week, Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee refused to even attend meetings where votes were scheduled on the confirmations of Steven Mnuchin and Tom Price, President Trump’s nominees for treasury secretary and secretary of health and human services. Nothing screams “serious public servant” like playing hooky.

The Democrats said their boycott was necessary because they needed more information on both nominees. Yet these demands for information have reached a point where it’s reasonable to wonder if they are even capable of reviewing the volumes of information they’re requesting.

Trump’s nominee for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, appeared before a Senate committee nearly 90 minutes longer than President Obama’s two education secretaries did in their confirmation processes. Then Democrats submitted 837 written follow-up questions (1,397 including all questions within a question). In contrast, Obama’s education secretaries had to answer just 53 and 56 written follow-up questions from Republicans.

Similarly, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, nominated to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, faced 1,078 written questions before Democrats boycotted his confirmation vote Wednesday.

Democrats are now saying they can’t support Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., to serve as attorney general, because they think Sessions supports the agenda of the president who appointed him. “How could we possibly conclude that this nominee will be independent?” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Funny, we don’t recall Democrats demanding that President Obama’s appointees be people who would actively and publicly oppose his agenda.

As political theater, there is some entertainment value in watching Democrats act constantly bewildered and befuddled, declaring they have no understanding of any Cabinet nominee’s views despite those same nominees having answered literally thousands of questions. (Admittedly, that entertainment value comes at the expense of Democrats’ selfdignity.)

But theatrics can be tolerated only so long. A presidential election has been conducted. Donald Trump won it fair and square. The public has opted to change course. Democrats don’t have to like that, but if they want a different outcome in four years, they should advance an agenda and vision that competes with the views of the Trump administration.

What they’re providing instead is partisanship for the sake of partisanship, working to thwart the will of the voters.

Government already has a reputation for incompetence. Senate Democrats are doing their best to make Americans think that bad reputation gave them too much credit.