A 45-Year Liberal Circus: Smearing Conservative Nominees

---

We’re transforming your reading experience by removing all ads and focusing on high-quality, in-depth geopolitical analysis. Enjoy a cleaner, more enjoyable news experience, free from distractions. Help us continue to provide exceptional content by donating today. Your support ensures we remain independent and reader-funded. Visit linktapgo.com/thedumshow to contribute. Thank you for making The DUM News better than ever! – Matt

---

---

WASHINGTON, D.C. – From the moment Ronald Reagan began reshaping the judiciary and key cabinet positions in the 1980s, the liberal left embarked on an unrelenting campaign to block, smear, and destroy conservative nominees. These attacks, rooted in character assassination and ideological warfare, have persisted for decades, revealing a pattern of obstruction designed to undermine any nominee who challenges the left’s agenda. This coordinated strategy—relying on distortion, media manipulation, and outright lies—has defined the modern confirmation process.

Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Reynaldo Guerra Garza in 1982 was historic. Garza was the first Latino appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an achievement that should have been celebrated across the political spectrum. Instead, his nomination was met with dismissal by liberal critics, who chose to minimize his qualifications and significance. This deliberate silencing foreshadowed the overt and aggressive tactics that would later dominate judicial and cabinet confirmation battles.

The gloves came off in 1987 with the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Bork, a brilliant legal scholar and staunch originalist, posed a direct threat to liberal judicial activism. Ted Kennedy’s infamous floor speech marked the beginning of a smear campaign that redefined confirmation battles. Kennedy’s words painted a fabricated and grotesque picture of “Robert Bork’s America,” where civil rights would vanish, censorship would reign, and women would be forced into back-alley abortions. These baseless accusations were amplified by the media and liberal advocacy groups, creating a public outcry rooted in fear rather than fact. Ultimately, Bork’s nomination was defeated, and his name became synonymous with unjust character assassination. The left’s success in defeating Bork marked a turning point, solidifying their strategy of using personal destruction to achieve political victories.

Just two years later, George H.W. Bush’s nomination of John Tower for Secretary of Defense became another battlefield. Tower, a former senator and an expert in defense policy, was targeted with allegations of alcoholism and personal misconduct. The left’s campaign against Tower relied on unproven claims, yet these were enough to derail his confirmation. Tower became one of the rare cabinet nominees to be rejected by the Senate, setting a dangerous precedent for weaponizing personal attacks to block qualified candidates. This was no longer about policy differences; it was about destroying the individual.

When George W. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001, the left showed just how far they were willing to go. Estrada, a Honduran immigrant with an impeccable legal record, faced a brutal confirmation process. Internal Democratic memos revealed the left’s true motives: they feared Estrada’s conservative views and ethnicity would make him an attractive Supreme Court nominee in the future. The left weaponized filibusters to block his confirmation for over two years, citing no substantive concerns about his qualifications. Ultimately, Estrada withdrew his nomination, a casualty of the left’s determination to prevent any conservative they perceived as “dangerous” from advancing.

Clarence Thomas’s confirmation battle in 1991 epitomized the left’s willingness to destroy a nominee’s reputation. Thomas, a black conservative, was nominated by George H.W. Bush to the Supreme Court. The left viewed Thomas as an existential threat to their narrative and quickly turned to unsubstantiated allegations of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. The hearings, chaired by Joe Biden, devolved into a circus, with the media amplifying every salacious detail and casting Thomas as a villain. Despite the lack of evidence, the spectacle dragged on, tarnishing Thomas’s reputation. He famously called the ordeal a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves.” Though Thomas was ultimately confirmed, the process revealed the extent to which the left would go to destroy a nominee who dared to challenge their ideological dominance.

The Trump era brought these tactics to new heights. Jeff Sessions, a staunch conservative nominated as Attorney General in 2017, faced relentless attacks. Allegations of racism, rooted in decades-old claims that had been thoroughly debunked, were dredged up and weaponized to tarnish Sessions’s reputation. Despite his history of working across racial lines and prosecuting Klan members, the left’s narrative prevailed in framing him as a symbol of white supremacy.

Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first nominee for Secretary of State, faced a similar gauntlet. Critics focused on his career at ExxonMobil, portraying him as a corporate puppet unfit for diplomacy. Meanwhile, Betsy DeVos, nominated as Secretary of Education, became a lightning rod for liberal outrage. DeVos’s support for school choice and charter schools made her a target for teachers’ unions and their allies in Congress. The left’s attacks on DeVos were intensely personal, questioning her wealth, her intentions, and her qualifications. Protestors and liberal senators alike turned her confirmation process into a battleground, forcing Vice President Mike Pence to cast a tie-breaking vote—a historic first for a cabinet nominee.

Supreme Court nominations under Trump became the pinnacle of liberal obstructionism. Brett Kavanaugh’s 2018 confirmation hearings were a disgraceful spectacle. Unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault from decades earlier dominated the hearings, with the left using Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony as a weapon to derail the nomination. The media amplified the narrative of guilt by accusation, and liberal senators used the hearings to grandstand rather than evaluate Kavanaugh’s qualifications. Protestors flooded the Capitol, disrupting the process at every turn. Despite the lack of evidence supporting the allegations, the damage to Kavanaugh’s reputation was severe. He was ultimately confirmed, but the ordeal highlighted the depths to which the left would sink to obstruct a conservative nominee.

Amy Coney Barrett’s 2020 confirmation followed the same pattern. A devout Catholic and mother of seven, Barrett’s faith and personal life became the focus of attacks. Liberal senators questioned whether her religion would interfere with her judicial independence, a line of questioning that would have been deemed unacceptable for any nominee on the left. Barrett’s confirmation was swift, but not without attempts to delegitimize her credentials and cast her as a radical.

Today, the same tactics are being used against Donald Trump’s new slate of nominees. Pete Hegseth, nominated for Secretary of Defense, has been targeted for his strong conservative views and advocacy for military reform. Critics have seized on his past public statements and exaggerated controversies to paint him as unfit for leadership. Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, faces relentless attacks on her record as Florida’s Attorney General, where she aggressively pursued corruption cases. Bondi’s opponents have sought to frame her as overly partisan, ignoring her accomplishments in public service. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services, is being vilified for his dissenting views on public health policies, with the left labeling him a “conspiracy theorist” to undermine his credibility.

The playbook has not changed. The names and faces of the nominees may differ, but the strategy remains the same: destroy their reputation, derail their nomination, and obstruct any conservative agenda. These nominees do not answer to Congress; they answer to the American people. The left’s efforts to block these nominees are nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to power and delay the inevitable.

The American people gave Donald Trump a mandate to lead. His nominees reflect the will of the voters and the priorities they chose. The left’s obstruction is not about oversight—it is about fear. Fear of losing power, fear of accountability, and fear of the American people finally seeing through their games. True oversight is coming, and the era of unchecked partisan sabotage is drawing to a close. These nominees do not answer to Congress; they answer to the people.