Tulsi Gabbard was confirmed as the director of National Intelligence yesterday (Feb. 12) in a 52-to-48 vote that left Senate Democrats aghast at the prospect of having their former colleague heading up the nation’s intelligence apparatus. Shortly after, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s bid to lead Health and Human Services advanced in a party-line move to end cloture, and a final vote is expected later today. Rumbles on the Hill suggest RFK is a lock. This latest round of Senate antics has been a proverbial kick to the Dems’ prone political body. In an existential crisis of its own making, the minority party is seeking a spiritual salve. And it might just find one – assuming its members are willing to accept some inconvenient truths.
Nominee Nuance
Since President Donald Trump put forward his nominees, congressional Democrats and their colleagues in the national media have fought a losing battle, which is fast approaching its end. The president gambled that his message and goals would prove more compelling than the person he chose to deliver them. For RFK, it is the Make America Healthy Again agenda; for Gabbard, it was the de-weaponization of the intelligence agencies.
Senators opposing these candidates played the game of attacking the individual, not the causes they represent. Republicans may not have agreed with these choices – after all, both nominees are former Democrats – but they appear united in supporting the mission. The only GOP holdout on Gabbard was Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). As The Tennessee Star reported on his decision, he said that Gabbard’s record "was unworthy of the public trust … [and the] nation should not have to worry that the intelligence assessments the President receives are tainted by a Director of National Intelligence with a history of alarming lapses in judgment.”
During Kennedy’s committee gauntlet, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) accused the nominee of receiving more than $2.5 million from suing vaccine companies. While PolitiFact rated this as “half true” (which also means it was half a lie), those who tuned in would have likely asked themselves why a vaccine manufacturer would be paying cash to someone who sued them. Could it be because it lost? Wouldn’t that be a justified lawsuit? Cherry-picking attacks like this leave the audience bereft of care for individual nominees’ personal foibles.
And who can forget the last four years of vitriol aimed at denigrating Donald Trump as a “threat to democracy”? These accusations fell flat – as demonstrated by his resounding 2024 victory – and are a form of politics that has passed its sell-by date in America. An electorate that is informed and immunized against partisan attacks demands better ideas, not better oratory.
Argue Your Case!
Senate Republicans are largely united in their mission to approve Trump’s Cabinet picks. Democrats knew in advance that they would lose these votes – and likely the upcoming Kash Patel battle. So, what did they gain with such opposition? The answer: not much. However, they could have scored major points by targeting the agenda over the individual.
Senate Democrats trotted out tired rhetoric that no longer has much power over the hearts and minds of voters. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals playbook is so well known that it forms a pantheon of memes; it’s a spent force. The final arguments before the votes for Gabbard and Kennedy were personal attacks that sought to discredit the individual nominee rather than the ideas they were being onboarded to represent.
The reality is that no matter who the candidate was, the rebuttals would have been essentially the same. It was a language that was amplified by the Fourth Estate, and it ultimately did not work. By taking on the agenda, the Senate Democrats could have scored some points. Because they didn’t, they ended up looking petty, weak, and precisely what they are: unsuccessful.
