Matt Yglesias ruminates on the meaning of yesterday's vote to (finally) confirm a Secretary of Health and Human Services:
It seems to me that if you can only get 65 votes for what should be an uncontroversial HHS appointment, then the odds of a broad bipartisan coalition for big picture health care reform are not so good.
....The prevailing spirit within the GOP is clearly that Obama is a very bad president and so they should vote “no” on his initiatives. Which is fine. But it means that if Obama wants to deliver on his campaign pledges, he needs to use every legal means at his disposal to just pass things over the objections of the minority that opposes him.
I had sort of the same thought yesterday. I mean, I understand the political/fundraising motivations for voting no on Sebelius as a sop to the pro-life contingent in the GOP, but everyone knew there was no way it would ever make a difference. It's not as if Obama would have turned around and nominated a pro-lifer to HHS, after all. It's ridiculous. But nearly the entire Republican caucus voted against her anyway, which means that their desire to work with Obama even at the most basic level of allowing a president to choose his own cabinet is less important than their desire to prove their absolute fealty to the conservative base.
Not a good sign — although I suppose there's an alternate reading that's less dire: if you know that Sebelius is going to be confirmed anyway, voting no is something of a freebie. So maybe this doesn't really mean too much after all. On balance, though, I think I'm with Matt.