Those few deluded soulswho are hoping for a return to honesty, integrityand responsibility in government got a taste of "hope" and "change"this Saturday, with the confirmation hearings for incoming laborsecretary Hilda Solis. The Los Angeles Times reports thatSolis, a woman who could be called one of the "most liberal" members ofBarack Obama's cabinet without a lapse in objectivity, ducked and weavedaround Republican questions about her support for unions, only sayingthat she "couldn't speak for the Obama administration." Oh no, ofcourse not, and I am sure Alger Hiss could not speak for his employers either!

Among one of the more priceless gems in Solis's confirmation washer thoroughly disingenuous refusal to express her approval of theEmployee Free Choice Act, a bill that she co-sponsored. Again, thesame refrain came back to hit Republicans who were under the impressionthat a voting record might express an opinion: "I can't speak for theObama administration." Of course, given the demoralized state of theRepublican opposition, it's no wonder that they let this bit ofscandalous doubletalk get by with only a few timid remarks aboutupsetting the balance between management and worker. A more appropriateresponse would have been the words of Cleopatra from Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra: "You lie up to the hearing of the Gods!"

What possible reason, other than her pro-union credentials, couldObama have for picking Solis as his labor secretary? Indeed, why doesone get picked for any secretarial position, if not because of one'sexperience in the field, whether it be defending Marc Rich or landing under sniper fire in Bosnia?Moreover, why would a Democratic President with tenuous ties to theworking class pick someone who was an unabashed union supporter to behis secretary of labor? Perhaps it was her charming personality - atleast, if one considers an incapacity for honest discussion to becharming.

The truth, as I have stated in a previous article, is that Obama should have left Solis here in California. It is incontestable that the woman is pro-union, but that is not the problem - the problem is that nominating someone who stands only slightly to the right of Arthur Scargill to ensure good behavior on the part of unions is an inexcusable instance of nominating the fox to run the hen house. Whatis even more bewildering is that several Republican legislatorsincluding, paradoxically enough, Orrin Hatch, have announced theirintention to support Solis as the nominee. One expects this sort ofthing from fellow travelers, but not from Republican legislators with a record of being at least somewhat principled.

And surely, even if one does agree with Solis's politics, itmust be a little disconcerting that someone like her has been placed inthe Obama cabinet, given Obama's promises to keep his administrationtransparent and lobbyist-free. Solis is arguably a lobbyistand her disingenuous refusal to answer the tough questions shows her tobe no friend of transparency. Republicans seem anxious to back down onthis confirmation. They should not be so easily bullied. If Robert Borkcan be made to answer for extremism, then so must Hilda Solis -otherwise, it will become clear that the only extremism which ispolitically objectionable is extremism in the defense of liberty.