I think she is genuinely weaker as a nominee for a position that could affect a huge part of the country. Not to mention, the questions were not the problem - the answers or lack of answers were.
It is very rare when a sitting Senator is rejected. There are good reasons to reject Sessions as racist, but consider that he will be voted on by his peers. It might be hard to stand against a man you then will have to work with.
I watched the Tillerson hearing - in part - and he was asked many tough questions - on his personal and Exxon"s lobbying on sanctions and his relationship with Russia. If there was any holding back, it was not obvious to me. I assume the Senators make an assessment of whether a nominee is totally unfit or not -- and I would guess that DeVoss is proving that she is completely unqualified.
As to Tillerson, I hate that he is refusing to be open about any vision or diplomatic philosophy that he might have. My biggest concern is that it has been years since he had a boss or even "peers". As such, how will he act as one of the people in a room with his peers. If they think he sees them as subordinates, it is hard to see how that will work. In addition, think back to how both Kerry and Clinton always made it clear that they represented President Obama's position. That takes a certain amount of self discipline - and they had a brilliant President who for the most part they agreed with. (In fact, for EVERY cabinet officer, the relationship with Trump could be problematic - he is incredibly chaotic and seems to have no patience for learning much about the decisions he will have to make.)
With Tillerson, if confirmed, an early test will be how he represents US interests (Not Exxon's) with regards to Russia. Unlike on most domestic issues, foreign policy does not split as easily on a party line basis. If Tillerson/Trump really do move to weaken NATO and EU, while lifting up Russia -- they likely will have as much trouble from the Republicans.
= new reply since forum marked as read
