• Home>
• Issues

Last week, Majority Leader Reid and Secretary of State Kerry complained about the Senate’s processing of ambassadorial nominations. Their complaint assumes there should be no consequences for Majority Leader Reid breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules on the processing of nominations. The consequences of that act were predictable. Senator Obama predicted the consequences himself when a rules change was contemplated in 2005, saying: “if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.”

For example, Secretary Kerry complained about several specific ambassadorial posts that were unfilled. The most recent holders of many of those posts were confirmed under the old practice in the Senate, before Majority Leader Reid changed the rules.

• Albania: Henry Ensher, confirmed by voice vote May 26, 2011

• Algeria: Alexander Arvizu, confirmed by voice vote September 29, 2010

• Cameroon: Robert Jackson, confirmed by voice vote August 5, 2010

• Kuwait: Matthew Tueller, confirmed by voice vote June 30, 2011

• Moldova: William Moser, confirmed by voice vote August 2, 2011

• Qatar: Susan Ziadeh, confirmed by voice vote June 30, 2011

Each was confirmed by voice vote within two to three months of the nomination being received in the Senate.

Secretary Kerry has also complained about the pace of confirming political appointees in the State Department. Again, the explanation for this can be traced directly back to Majority Leader Reid breaking the rules to upset the traditional processing of such nominations. For example, Secretary Kerry grumbled about two specific assistant secretary positions in the department being vacant for too long: Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance; and International Organizations. The previous holders of these positions were confirmed by voice vote less than a month after their nominations were received in the Senate.

If the rules of the Senate were the same as when Secretary of State Kerry was Senator Kerry, then these nominations would have been confirmed by now. If the secretary has a complaint about nominees not getting votes, he should direct his remarks to the majority leader, who schedules the votes.

Political Nominees

As if to pile absurdity upon absurdity, Majority Leader Reid recently claimed President Obama’s ambassadorial picks “are not political nominees. ... When these ambassadors are chosen, they are not chosen based on their political party. They are chosen on merit.”

But the American Foreign Service Association has found that more than 40 percent of President Obama’s ambassadorial nominations in his second-term have been political, rather than career, appointments. By comparison, political appointments comprised 30 percent of President George W. Bush’s ambassador nominations.

Regarding the merit of the nominees, the most glaring example is George Tsunis, President Obama’s selection to be ambassador to Norway. Tsunis bundled almost a million dollars for the Obama campaign. He displayed his lack of qualifications when he spoke confidently in his confirmation hearing about the president of Norway – Norway is a constitutional monarchy with a prime minster. He also talked about how the Progress Party was denounced by the government for some of its positions, when it is in fact part of the governing coalition.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama decried the practice of rewarding political favorites with administration jobs: “this is the kind of politics that will end when I am president.” As if predicting that his own rhetoric would never match reality, he went on to say: “I know that in every campaign, politicians make promises about cleaning up Washington. And most times, you end up disappointed when it doesn’t happen.”