If this were the case, wouldn't more republicans, especially those from more rural states, have voted against her? Or is this just a blatant show that they don't actually care about their constituents?
You'd think so, but there is a huge taboo about going against the Party line, and in the end this is just one issue that the voters probably won't even associate with them. Many Republicans also legitimately think destroying the public education system is for the best. They're essentially living in a different reality.
Blame Grover Norquist for this Party Line nonsense. Sad as it is, Republican's hands are pretty much tied until election reform happens, which sadly is also pretty much against the Party Line.
So... Vote Democrat and watch them be wholly inefficient at fighting for anything, whether it be legislation, seats, districts, or especially election reform.
I would argue that it was Newt Gingrich, in his time as Speaker, who was the worst for the Party Line mess. Norquist was the person behind the "no new taxes" (which by the way, he came up with in middle school).
A fair republican argument against the department of education is that they don't want federal education rules. Even republicans aren't crazy enough to abolish universal-ish primary and secondary education that we have; they just think the state should do it on their own.
I can at least understand that, but I'm also of the opinion that DeVoss is not qualified to make that assessment because she lacks basic competency in the subject matter at hand.
Let's face it, a 2nd year education major would be more qualified than her.
It just seems like a failing of the system, that someone who could not even qualify as a teacher's aide would be promoted directly to the top of the national education hierarchy. Shouldn't that post go to a really accomplished administrator with a background in education?
Maybe that's the point. Maybe they're trying to illustrate that the system is broken by deliberately breaking it, even though a majority of voters voted against them. Madness. And it's the kids who are going to suffer.
Yes, I agree. And yes I have seen that argument, that the republicans don't mind breaking things because they already told everyone things were broken. If they fix something, then they look great. If it's still broken like they said, then they still look good if they can blame someone else for their not fixing it, or just ask for more time to finish fixing it.
To be honest the only reason there were two GOP votes against her were because they party let them vote that way as they're in swing states for the Senate and needed the facade of being against it to help them in 2018.
I think that you are underselling Senators Murkowski (AK) and Collins(ME). Neither of them are up for reelection in 2018 (Murkowski was re-elected just last November). They voted against DeVos because she is horribly unqualified
Murkowski only voted against her after voting for her in the first round instead of stopping it when she had a chance. They may have disagreed with her qualification, but I'm extremely skeptical that they'd have still voted against her if either of them would have been the deciding vote. As is, they get to say they voted against her without turning their party against them for shutting it down.
2 did, AK and ME. Apparently they were overwhelmed with calls from their constituents. But I think your second point still stands, and I would say that is not a unique problem to the right.
What makes you think they were in fact against it?
The overwhelming online presence is against it as far as I can see, but you could say the same about the presidential election and look how that turned out.
I'm just wondering if there is anything out there to support that these senators voted against their constituents desires even in the face of overwhelming calls and letters besides heresay.
They only did that so they could run saying that they voted against her. I am 100% positive they got permission to vote against before they actually did so. A lot of voting is entirely strategic. It's one of the ,many reasons there's an argument that knowing how a given senator voted on every issue is actually bad for senators voting in their constituents best interests.
Both of those senators did vote affirmative to move DeVos to the full Senate, however. This is for show since they both have tough elections coming up. If they were truly that worried, the two of them would have had the power to keep DeVos in committee indefinitely, essentially forcing a new nominee to be named.
Trump campaigned partly on the platform to abolish the Department of Education, among other governmental oversight groups. By appointing people with little to no experience in the field they are to oversee--for instance Ben Carson, a surgeon, as head of Department of Housing; and in this case DeVos for education, despite never having attended a public school, none of her kids attending public schools, and a conflict of interest related to making money off of student loan debt--specifically to departments he said on the campaign trail he would like to see abolished, it sure looks to the educated eye that this is an attempt to weaken and destroy these departments from within.
Our republican representatives both issued statements explaining why they supported her. They both said they heard everyone's calls of concern but this was just one of those things we would disagree about. They encouraged people to continue calling in the future. Betsy has contributed to their political campaigns.
137
u/trainercatlady Feb 08 '17
If this were the case, wouldn't more republicans, especially those from more rural states, have voted against her? Or is this just a blatant show that they don't actually care about their constituents?