This could easily be: and it would fit pretty much everyone so far.John Ratcliffe is the least-qualified director of national intelligence in history—and a staunch partisan as well.
<Name of appointee> is the least-qualified <position appointee is to hold> in history—and a staunch partisan as well.
Except that Richard Grenell, the guy who was acting DNI before Ratcliffe was a worse. If Ratcliffe's appointment failed it would mean that the clock would be reset on Grenell's acting status. It's likely that there were enough Republican votes against Ratcliffe to sink the nomination based on his lack of qualifications but for the fact that leaving Grenell as DNI was a threat to the basic functions of the intelligence agencies.
One thing Trump has gotten wise to is appointment of a complete dipshit lackey into a position that could be elevated to an acting position, since his early attempts at circumventing the governing law (Administrative Vacancies Act, or whatever it's called) were thwarted by the courts. The Senate, on the other hand, has not caught on.
I can assure you that the Senate is 100% wise to Trump's abuse of the "acting" cabinet member positions, but the GOP Senate majority has decided that they'd rather not be bullied on Twitter. Congressional GOP's skimping of oversight duties will go down in history either as the most tremendous things friends have ever done for one another in the whole entire universe (all of it, folks), or treason.
One of the strangest developments of the previous decade or two is the idea that Congress works for the president. That's basically antithetical to the way separation of powers is supposed to work. Even the president's cheerleaders in Congress are supposed to feign giving him the business now and then just to make sure they can get what they want when they want it. I think the Iraq War broke the system in ways we're still only beginning to appreciate.
We haven’t yet assigned Mr. Koolaid to head up construction of the border wall, so I think we can still somehow sink lower