I've been pretty critical of Rand lately, and I'm still concerned about some of his foreign policy views. However, it has always been his position that he'll generally vote to confirm a President's cabinet picks as long as they're qualified, even though he disagrees with them ideologically. There are a couple of quotes that others made that explain what is going on.
"Isn't that kind of what hes supposed to do though? I mean, I'm all for grilling them in public to show that their ideals and principles are horrible...but if the guy passes the minimum requirements why shouldnt you confirm him? The role of the legislature is to confirm that the person the executive nominated passes basic criteria. If we wanted the legislators to pick the position, we would have said so and not given any authority to the executive."
"As long as the nominee is qualified for the job he's been appointed to, why wouldn't he be confirmed? Isn't the point of the confirmation process to keep the President in check? It's not to dictate who the Pres should have picked."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This