Hell to the NO… Who’s going to do it?
The democratic leadership sure as hell won’t do it. Trust me, I understand how Washington politics works; in that, the party in power controls all of the committee assignments, and consequently they alone have the power to call and conduct hearings. The minority party has to follow their lead, but they can use the platform to challenge the validity and tone of the hearings.
As an example, I love the spirited fight in Democratic politicians like Rep. Elijah Cummings, and many other up and coming dems, but we need more of them – a lot more. Not bashing Symone D. Sanders, Strategist & CNN Political Commentator, but she’s all over the place as the mouthpiece for the Democratic Party’s reflection and rebirth.
Consider the fact that Trump isn’t even in office yet, and the glaring conflicts of his businesses being intertwined with his “kids” roles as his advisors – who (seemingly) will be running the country’s domestic and international affairs – to his “in your face” nominees for National Security Advisor, to Attorney General, the Democratic leadership is basically silent. We don’t hear a whimper from them. No, they don’t have to wait for him to get in office before they “call him out” on the aforementioned issues, and if not that, then why not highlight his general recklessness with respect to his approach to foreign policy snafus.
We only need to reflect on how the Repugs obstructed everything the current president did, or attempted to do for the past eight years. The minority party can obstruct, using selective (Senate and House rules) rules and creative tactics to make life miserable for the majority party.
Let’s face it, the Republicans have a pit bull mentality, and they now have an incompetent clown as the head of their party. Give them credit where it’s due though, this dude was a fighter and he took no prisoners, and as a result, he won. Okay, he won at all cost. No one is suggesting a “take no prisoners” approach to winning in politics, but can the dems at least have someone in our leadership who is a fighter. Let me be clear, I am in no way criticizing Hillary Clinton for her campaign and her style. This (first ever) women candidate still is the most qualified person, man or woman, to ever run for the office of the presidency. She had to contend with some the most hateful, untruthful, derogatory, and yes, personal attacks as anyone who ever ran for the office. She had to navigate pass promising the world to young voters, to carefully trying to tell the “coal country” and “rust belt” idiots that those damn factory and coal mining jobs were never coming back, while at the same time – not losing their support. This belief is backed by my personal knowledge of this woman, having followed he political career for the past 35 years, and backed by the most intelligible and honest appraisal of her politics by the Washington Post’s Editorial Board article, dated October 13, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-for-president/2016/10/12/665f9698-8caf-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?utm_term=.785c368e49f6
The only difference between me and many of the so called “experts” is that, I am saying to hell with changing course and go off chasing the “white working class voter.” This past election cycle, these voters voted AGAINST their own self-interest, party, because these angry white guys couldn’t stomach a women becoming the Commander in Chief, and partly because these same people “got a rise” out of the buffoonishness of this “tell like it is” and “the outsiderness” of this clown. Again, we can agree or disagree if we like, but more people voted for him, in spite of Hillary’s qualification, because it’s basic human nature to like people who exude confidence. Even (SOME) women, who on the one hand may cringe at his loathing and boastful talk about assaulting (other), seem to like the aggressive nature of this dude.
It’s really about having the spine to fight, and even though the (house) committee hearings are controlled by the majority party, and even though the majority party in the (Senate) controls their hearings and have the power to approve any and all presidential nominations to his cabinet, the federal judgeships, and the Supreme Court, the minority party can use those hearings and nomination forums to raise “holy hell” about the absurdity of the nominations and highlight to the voters just how flawed those nominations are and what (negative) impact they will have on their lives.
The Democratic leadership is too doggone spineless and seems to be more concerned with how they are viewed, than standing for the basic principles the party is founded on and should be exposing to be. I will never forget what Nancy Pelosi said immediately after she became Speaker of the house after the Iraq war. Her first statement was, in effect, she would not waste the House of Representatives time investigating the war. So, all of the war crimes committed by George Bush went un-investigated and possibly prosecuted, Now fast forward, when Hillary Clinton became a presidential candidate, every ignorant, absurd and baseless claim imaginable was front and center by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, (a Republican from Utah, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) and his minions on the House Oversight Committee.
So, the answer is no. There won’t be any checks and balances.