Just a few months into Donald Trump’s presidency, the Republican made some highly controversial choices as he filled his cabinet. Among his problematic selections was Alexander Acosta, who was tapped to lead the Department of Labor despite some rather serious questions — which were widely known at the time — about a deal he struck with Jeffrey Epstein.
Two years later, Acosta resigned under a cloud of scandal, raising questions about what the senators who confirmed him in the first place were thinking.
Among those who put Acosta in the White House cabinet, in addition to Senate Republicans, was conservative Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who sided with the then-GOP majority. All of this came to mind yesterday, reading this report in Roll Call:
Sen. Joe Manchin III said Thursday he would oppose Julie Su’s nomination to be Labor secretary, weakening her chances of confirmation. Amid opposition from Republicans and without the Manchin’s vote, Su must shore up the support of the remaining 50 Democrats and independents who caucus with them, including Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., who have not said how they will vote.
Manchin issued a statement complaining about Su’s “progressive background.”
Keep in mind, Manchin voted two years ago to confirm Su as deputy secretary of Labor, and by all accounts, she performed well in the job. What’s more, the accomplished attorney has also served as the acting secretary of Labor for the last four months, without incident.
But the West Virginian — who was comfortable looking past Acosta’s background during the Trump era — isn’t convinced that Su has the experience necessary to, as he put it, “collaboratively lead both labor and industry to forge compromises.”
To the extent that such details matter, Su also spent two years serving as California’s Labor secretary, and as The Los Angeles Times report in April, “Typically, an official embraced by organized labor would face chillier relationships with employers. But business leaders in California said Su was accessible and receptive.”
The same report added, “[A] number of employer groups, particularly those based in California, have been active supporters” of Su, despite her progressive efforts on behalf of workers.
Or put another way, it’s almost as if Manchin had to overlook reality altogether before concluding that he’d oppose her nomination, despite having backed Trump’s far more controversial choice for the same position six years ago.
Look, I’m mindful of the circumstances. Manchin’s term is nearly up, and he’s running in an increasingly red state. It’s to his benefit to be seen in conflict with the Biden White House.
But that doesn’t make any of this right.
Indeed, this week’s example isn’t even the first. When Trump nominated Kevin Hassett to lead the White House Council of Economic Advisers, he had a rather problematic background. Manchin voted for him anyway. But when Biden tapped Jared Bernstein for the same position, Manchin balked, despite Bernstein’s superior qualifications.
The conservative Democrat’s opposition to Biden’s nominees would be easier to take if he hadn’t supported worse Trump nominees for the same positions.
As for Su, her nomination is clearly in trouble, despite her preparation for the job, the fact that she’s already doing the job well, and the ostensible Senate Democratic majority. But as NBC News reported this week, Su “could just keep running the department anyway. Federal law places no limits on how long Su can serve as acting labor secretary without being confirmed.”
