McConnell says let’s make a deal
Are you angry about McConnell’s decision not to block the debt ceiling raise vote? A lot of people are. Here’s the latest on it:
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has informed President Joe Biden that he, along with other Republican senators, will not vote to raise the debt ceiling in December should Democrats face “another avoidable crisis.”
“Last night, Republicans filled the leadership vacuum that has troubled the Senate since January,” McConnell said in a letter to Biden, referencing a vote by the Senate Thursday night, supported by 11 Republicans, to increase to the federal debt ceiling. “I write to inform you that I will not provide such assistance again if your all-Democrat government drifts into another avoidable crisis.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had “three months’ notice to handle one of his most basic governing duties,” McConnell wrote.
“Amazingly, even this proved to be asking too much,” McConnell wrote.
McConnell also targeted Schumer for his “rant” following the vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Those who take the “it’s the Uniparty, and McConnell is one of the worst offenders” position will probably find this move of McConnell’s less than persuasive. My observation, though, is that sometimes McConnell seems like a caver, and sometimes he seems like a wily coyote, and I often have trouble telling the difference except quite a bit ex post facto.
So, will McConnell block this move in December or not? He says he will, but I have no idea whether that will happen.
Republicans say the move helps take pressure off of Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) to change the legislative filibuster and pokes a hole in Democrats’ argument that they don’t have enough time to raise the debt ceiling on their own.
McConnell’s letter is a warning to Democrats, but also gives an early signal to his own members that he won’t give Democrats the same offramp in December. The decision by McConnell this week to open the door to a short-term debt extension earned him an unusually intense level of criticism from the Senate GOP caucus,
Schumer’s angry speech after the GOP had cooperated with the Democrats didn’t appear to sit well with Joe Manchin:
The move angered several GOP senators as well as Manchin. Manchin and GOP Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and GOP Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) were among the senators who spoke to Schumer after the speech, with Thune telling reporters that “I let him have it.”
McConnell appeared to reference Manchin, who could be seen briefly with his hands over his face during Schumer’s speech…
McConnell warned that Schumer’s “childish behavior” had “alienated” GOP senators who helped advance the short-term debt increase and “poisoned the well even further.” They are likely the same GOP senators Schumer would need to lean on to raise the debt ceiling outside of reconciliation later this year.
Some would say this is all failure theater on the part of the GOP. I think the jury is most definitely out on that. But I do think it’s theater, of a carefully orchestrated variety. Comedy, tragedy, or farce, or some elements of all three? Each person is playing a role.
But I have never seen both parties as the same. Yes, they’re both very flawed. Yes, money is a big part of what they’re interested in, and yes, a lot of their behavior is theatrics and posing and tactics. That’s politics and it always will be. But the Democrats are now dedicated to bringing leftist destruction to this country, and the Republicans are not. In fact, I see most of the GOP as wanting to keep that from happening, although some are more sincerely dedicated to that than others.
It is easy to underestimate McConnell. I think of him as the veteran slugger waiting on his pitch, fouling off as many as needed.
I see opinions of McConnell break along these lines:
Supporters of the Republican party should love him. No question he is one of the most effective Senators in history at promoting, protecting and advancing his party.
Folks like me, who think Senators (and Congressmen and Presidents and Judges and all Federal employees) ought to put their oath to uphold the Constitution first and foremost in all their decisions and actions, find him pusillanimous, craven, greedy, short-sighted and slimy.
We have a representative democracy. Those we elect should represent the electorate within the stricture of the U.S. Constitution. Not their parties. Not their donors. Not lobbyists. Not talking heads. Not think tanks.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I strongly disagree.
I’m a “folks like you.” I believe that “Senators (and Congressmen and Presidents and Judges and all Federal employees) ought to put their oath to uphold the Constitution first and foremost in all their decisions and actions.” I believe that very very strongly.
But although I have some affinities with Dr. Seuss’s Horton the Elephant (“but it should be, it should be, it should be like that”), I am a realist. It’s not like that and it never will be. Was there a golden time when it was that way? I think there was a time when it was a lot more that way than now. But the conditions in which that sort of thing flourished and was rewarded by political office are no longer present. They may never be present again. We should work to make them more likely, but till then, we need to be realists.
McConnell isn’t just “advancing his party.” He’s advancing at least some conservative goals (blocking the Merrick Garland nomination in particular, but many other actions of his as well). He’s trying to do both, and the reality is that if the GOP isn’t advanced the Democrats advance. So advancing the GOP is part of the game right now. I don’t find him craven; he’s shown a lot of courage at times. Slimy and greedy, probably, but that’s par for the course.
The upside is this mollifies Sinema and especially Manchin but the downside is it gives the Democrats weeks to pester and harass Sinema and Manchin until they cave on the spending stuff which they obviously will to some degree.
The Republicans had the ultimate pressure point where the Democrats were trying to do a bunch of big things at once with a deadline and tight majorities and infighting and now they have given Democrats time to get things in order and they will like they always do.
I thinking keeping Garland off the Supreme Court was a major accomplishment. Had that slime ball been there, the slimy court would have washed into the Potomac.
Griffin,
I don’t think the Dems can get things in order. Too many are up for re-election in moderate states. Pelosi can’t control Schiff, Swalwell, or the Squad. Most people are sick of them.
expat,
But they all love spending money so they they will fall in line.
Hope I’m wrong but I doubt it.
Will the fall out be bad for the Democrats in the next election? Maybe, but they play the long game always.
There was electoral fallout after Obamacare but it is still there and the Democrats are back in power and that will happen here also.
I would love to be proven wrong but there is ZERO chance McConnell won’t bail the Dems out on the debt limit in December if necessary. His pronouncement otherwise is about stoking Democratic division until then.
McConnell’s decision tree goes:
1. What’s good for big corporations?
2. What’s good for the GOP?
3. What’s good for McConnell?
4. What’s good for the American people?
The Garland thing was kabuki theater. Everyone expected Hillary to win, which means stopping Garland was just for show. It was basically to please the Federalist Society and burnish McConnell’s own stature.
Mike
I see the validity of neo’s POV regarding McConnell but I find myself more aligned with Rufus’ POV.
Things like the following is why; “The Senate voted Wednesday to confirm Merrick Garland as attorney general, handing the reins of the Justice Department to a longtime federal judge who has pledged to depoliticize the agency.
He was confirmed by a vote of 70-30. Among the Republicans who voted in favor were Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, John Cornyn of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
I’m not suggesting that McConnell never votes in support of the Constitution but it appears to me that more often than not he doesn’t… In Garland’s case, can McConnell have been so blind as to accept Garland’s pledge to depoliticize the DOJ? I think him far too politically canny for that to have been the case. McConnell knows full well whereof Garland’s ideological leanings lie, which is why he refused to allow Garland to be considered for the S.C.
In which case, what might have been his motivation for voting for the despicable Garland? A simple one I think, Garland as AG wouldn’t pose a threat to the GOP. That he would be a threat to constitutional justice was clearly not much of a concern.
neo,
I think I held a similar opinion as you in the past. I’m sure of the opinion I held, and it correlates with what you wrote, but I’m not egotistical enough to assume I fully know or understand your complete perspective. Your reasoning may actually be very different than mine. Here’s where I am:
This sh*t really matters. I think it’s a game to Mitch and Chuck. But it’s not a game. My job was completely destroyed by policies made during this pandemic and, at an age where I expected to be coasting about 5 more years into retirement I find myself applying for hundreds of jobs. Thanks to the ACA, another brilliant power grab by Congress, I’m still responsible for medical insurance for two of my kids because they’re not yet 26 years old. Prior to the job I lost in the pandemic I had a very healthy business as a consultant, but because of IRS changes Congress implemented during Obama’s tenure I lost 40% of my revenue and had to fold my business.
Because Congress cannot budget correctly they steal from my granddaughters in order to cover for their incompetence. They also devalue every hard earned dollar my wife and I scrimped and sacrificed for during our marriage. My wife and I were the ants in the “ant and the grasshopper” story. We always sacrificed, went without to provide for our kids and save for the future. We paid for private schools because the government was destroying the public schools. We paid taxes to support people hindered or destroyed by failed, government policies. The year before the IRS rule that destroyed my business we paid over six figures in income taxes. The next year I was unemployed (I didn’t file for unemployment) and we had to pillage our hard earned savings as I scrambled to find new work and adjust to Congress’ interference with the tax law an my ability to freely contract with my former clients. They took a huge amount of money from us in taxes that we were unable to save for a rainy day, then the next year they forced a rainstorm on us that destroyed my company.
And this happens to millions of Americans all day, every day. Look at California’s Assembly Bill 5! “Oh, sorry, we felt like making a new rule and it destroys everything you spent decades building.” Look at their COVID policies! “Oh, sorry, we said you could serve customers if you spent thousands of dollars constructing outdoor seating, but we’ve changed our minds.” Now they’re taxing Bitcoin?! It doesn’t even exist. It’s electrons on a hard drive. If I bought some 5 years ago when there was no tax now Uncle Sam gets a cut if I sell them?! And on, and on, and on…. Idiotic licensing laws; hairdressers, barbers, cosmeticians, massage therapists…
They are way, way beyond the strictures the Constitution puts on their office. They fail to do the work the Constitution demands they do; make a federal budget and raise taxes to fund it, and they do all kinds of work the Constitution restricts them from doing. And why? To win a game? To “promote” their party?
George Washington was correct. Political parties lead to evil and corruption. These bastards are destroying our country right before our eyes. They are happy to abrogate their duties and put it on my grandchildren to deal with their profligate spending as they (McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi…) get rich.
I believe I understand your viewpoint. Politics ain’t beanbag. Yes, the system is bastardized nearly beyond recognition, but at least McConnell wins some battles within the long range war against the system.
I used to believe that too, but now I believe McConnell is glad to go along with the destruction of America as long as life is good for him and his politician/lobbyist wife. And life is very, very good for Mitch and Elaine. Once again my wife and I are forced to make major adjustments to try to figure out the new rules he and his peers have legislated. He doesn’t have to budget, but I have to adjust my budget to my loss of income from his failed management and the devaluation of my savings due to the Fed running the printing press to account for the huge budget shortfalls he is responsible for.
expat,
What is the Court doing for any of us, anyway? It’s been a continual slide towards progressivism since the Wilson administration. Occasionally the slide slows, but it never reverses. Emanations and penumbras are everywhere.
Well said, MBunge, except point 4 on your list is actually point 400 on Mitch’s decision tree.
The real question should be, what did Mitch get in return for helping Schumer ? Seems like he got squat. The whole idea of a 50-50 split should be that when compromise is forced on you, that you extract concessions for your side.
The fact that we have to go back 5 years to a real McConnell accomplishment – blocking Garland – should be all you need to know about how useless he really is.
Here’s the oath Mitch has taken, again and again. It’s his ONLY job duty.
Read that. Then read Article I, Section III of the Constitution. Then read Article X and get back to me on Mitch and how he’s doing.
deadrody:
It’s not at all clear what McConnell got or didn’t get. Some of the results have yet to play out.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Remove the conservatives from the Court and you’ll see exactly what they’ve been stopping by their presence. Like McConnell, they’re been far less than perfect – and until recently, they were not in the majority and therefore were unable to stop anything. But if they weren’t there our leftward “progress” would be at the speed of light. They constitute one of the few brakes on it, and they have applied the brakes at times (for example, on gun control).
Rufus T. Firefly:
I simply don’t agree. I’m sorry that you’ve had all this turmoil recently, but I just don’t think it was in McConnell’s power to stop much of it, and I think he did try to stop quite a bit of it – including Obamacare. The GOP tried very hard to stop it. As for repealing it, the problem was that once Obamacare was put in place the former system was torn down, and the GOP was in some disarray about how to build it back up again – plus their efforts were stopped by John McCain in a very public act of defiance.
We’re all frustrated, but I don’t think McConnell is as cynically mendacious as you do. I see plenty of evidence against that, including his stand against the Garland nomination. He didn’t have to do that. It showed courage, actually.
I hesitate to say, in consideration of the very understandable frustration (and much more) expressed by commenters above, that I agree with Neo on this one. I think this is a short-term tactical move. Democrats have it within their power, unfortunately, to raise the debt limit by any amount they choose, by going through the “reconciliation” process. It’s clunky, will take them some time, and will expose them to having to take votes on a lot of amendments they’d rather not go on record about with the elections coming next year. If, in December, McConnell caves in and does this again, as he says he won’t, then I’ll be as angry as some of you are now.
As it is, Pelosi says she’ll have a budget bill by Halloween, a suitable date for the horror show it will be. But I’m not sure she’ll have even that, and Democrats will have to begin (probably before that bill is ready) the process on the debt limit, without any clear idea of how much they should approve, since their blowout spending bill won’t be done.
Geoffrey Britain:
I see it very differently. I have always seen opposition to a president’s nominees as an iffy thing, to be applied sparingly, for very practical reasons. For example, in the case of the Garland AG nomination, if they’d opposed it who would Biden have nominated instead? A moderate? Dream on. Garland (at the time, not now) seemed like the most moderate AG candidate they were going to get from Biden. They would have had to have opposed nominee after nominee after nominee – virtually the whole cabinet, over and over. Then the Democrats, the left, and the MSM would have painted them as denying Biden the very basics of government: his own cabinet. How awful of them! I think the backlash against the GOP would be considerable in that scenario. I think that is the reason these nominations are usually approved, unless the nominee is enormously and egregiously corrupt or something really out of the ordinary.
Every one of Biden’s nominees will be awful, and there is almost an inexhaustible supply of them.
McConnell kept Garland off SCOTUS. Instead we have Gorsuch.
McConnell got three conservatives on SCOTUS in four years.
McConnell moved the Federal courts well to the right in four years.
Compared to Chuck Schumer, McConnell is St. Francis of Assisi.
Thanks Mitch.
MBunge:
Stopping Garland got McConnell a ton of criticism, actually, and did little to nothing to win over his critics such as you. And if he’d thought Hillary was going to win – and I don’t read his mind so I don’t know – then stopping Garland was very dumb unless you think he’s a closet leftist. Garland was widely reported to be somewhat moderate – even by the right. Now we know he was not, but at the time he was thought to be moderate compared to the other possibilities for Democrats to nominate. Had Hillary won, everyone left and right thought someone much more radical would be nominated.
I see no reason to doubt that McConnell stopped Garland on the chance that Trump might win and the Court might become more conservative. McConnell has actually been pretty consistent on that score.
Griffin:
So I take it you believe, based on your statement at 5:20 PM, that there was no significant fraud in the 2020 election? I take it you believe that the Democrats won fair and square?
Not sure this is the best moment for a purity test….
Jus’ sayin’….
File under: Never McConnellers!(?)
“and the GOP was in some disarray about how to build it back up again“
Neo, be serious. Republicans spent YEARS voting to repeal Obamacare. The had YEARS to prepare for its repeal. That they were caught so flat footed when the opportunity finally arrived can only be explained one way: They were never serious about it in the first place.
As Rufus said, it’s just a game to them. And it’s not even a game they want to win.
Mike
MBunge:
Yes, as you know I followed it closely for all those years, and wrote about it as well.
Replacing Obamacare once the previous system had been destroyed was very difficult. The public demanded certain mutually exclusive things. Many solutions were suggested and ultimately critiqued and rejected. I wrote about them, pro and con. It was a very difficult task as far as I’m concerned. Extremely. So the disarray was real and I don’t think it was solvable. Nevertheless they had something on the table and supposedly had the votes, but McCain surprised them and sabotaged it, quite flamboyantly as I recall.
And I’ve long wondered if his brain tumor entered into it, because by that time he was already terminal and that was publicly known.
neo,
Wait a minute, what? I had to go back and read my comment because I said nothing of the sort.
My point to expat was the Democrats look past the next election and play the long game. Obamacare cost the Democrats control of Congress but here we are and they are back in control, albeit tenuously. Was there fraud? Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are in control right now. That is reality.
“I see no reason to doubt that McConnell stopped Garland on the chance that Trump might win and the Court might become more conservative.”
Jiminy Christmas. THEN WHY DID MCCONNELL VOTE TO CONFIRM GARLAND AS ATTORNEY GENERAL?
I’ll try to put it more calmly.
Mitch McConnell is not a conservative, Neo. He doesn’t believe the things you believe. He doesn’t believe in limited or smaller government. He doesn’t believe in defending the border or pretty much anything that isn’t 100% endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce.
And those judges? McConnell doesn’t care about judges who defend the Constitution. He cares about judges who defend corporations. How many times have McConnell judges disappointed conservatives? How many times have they EVER ruled against entrenched business interests?
Mike
I think McCain’s vote to save Obamacare was purely vindictive, because he despised Trump.
MBunge:
I never claimed that McConnell is a conservative, and I don’t believe he is. But he’s a lot more conservative than Democrats are – a lot – and he often does things to further conservative causes.
I already explained why he and others voted to confirm Garland as AG. I would have done so, as well.
Politics is a nasty game. McConnell plays it. He’s no saint.
And he didn’t choose the justices he confirmed, so I have no idea what you’re getting at there. Presidents choose justices. McConnell helped confirm the justices that GOP presidents nominated.
Your beef is against politics and politicians. There’s plenty to be angry at there. But it’s not going to change. I’d love for better people to be in there, but at the moment this is the way it is, and I don’t utterly reject McConnell the way you do, and I have good reasons for holding the opinion I hold.
Griffin:
It seems to me that you were saying that the GOP didn’t do enough to stop the Democrats from winning the election, and that this will happen again. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at.
Amen, MBunge. Amen.
I’m not saying that McConnell is not an effective lead, Republican Senator. I said the exact opposite. If your interests are the advancement of the Republican party you ought to like Mitch. He’s good for the party.
What I am saying is Mitch McConnell is the type of person who can swear an oath to his Countrymen and God to do something that he knows he has no intention of doing and will gladly go against that oath if it is in his, and his Party’s interests. I think we used to call such people, “Liars.”
In 1971 Ted Kennedy undertook “the cause of his life,” Universal Health Care for the American people. In 1993 Bill Clinton appointed his wife Hillary to do put forth a plan to do the same. The ACA was passed in 2010. There are 39 years between 1971 and 2010. Mitch McConnell was elected to the Senate in 1984. There are 26 years between 1984 and 2010.
The Republicans had 39 years to implement different legislation to mend problems with health care and remove the need for universal coverage. Mitch McConnell had 26 years to do that. And he had 2 years in Trump’s first term to do something.
When ever the Dems were in control Mitch would push bill after bill to “fix” healthcare or “repeal” the ACA. When Mitch was in control…
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me for 26 years…
neo,
My 5:20 comment was an addition to my 5:15 comment.
I think the fact that the left has such complete control of the bureaucracy frees them up to go for all of this stuff with the knowledge it may cost them an election or two but their deep state buddies will limit the damage and when they get back in power the march can continue anew.
Republicans on the other hand have nothing without the presidency or Congress and arguably they don’t have much even when they do as the Trump years showed.
Bad times.
neo,
He’s nowhere near as Conservative as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton.
Not to bring up a controversial name, but Ann Coulter has written essays with a lot of data showing every time the Republican party truly stands for Conservative principles, like closing the borders, they win*. Trump said he was going to build a 2,000 mile wall on our Southern border and was elected. He didn’t build it and was not re-elected. Mitch McConnell is very clever and he knows what wins and loses. Conservative issues win at the ballot box. Mitch does not fight for Conservative issues. Mitch fights for the Swamp.
*Defense of marriage and better policing propelled Bush I and Bush II into office, but both failed to seal the deal. Reagan was going to eliminate the department of education and that helped him get elected. Never happened. I guess Mitch was distracted.
… and I’m not suggesting Mitch had any influence in Reagan’s first term, only that Mitch has seen Conservative issues win at the ballot box, but, somehow, always doesn’t find the time to fight to secure those issues. If he was a pure, political animal he’d work to enact those causes to promote the party. It’s an amazing coincidence how much more animated he is about such issues when the Dems are in power, and he has no ability to enact legislation.
If I was cynical I might assume he takes advantage of popular, Conservative causes to agitate the base and raise funds for the Party while working behind the scenes to ensure the Swamp thrives and expands.
Elaine Chao’s (Mrs. McConnell) net worth is estimated at $24 – $30 million. Imagine how much more she could have earned if she wasn’t so busy helping her perseverant husband in his single-minded efforts to secure our borders and repeal Obamacare?
We are so lucky to have selfless folks like the McConnells working for us in Washington!
I wonder what General Michael Flynn’s retirement portfolio looks like?
What MBunge and Rufus said.
It’s past time for making allowances for these political scum.
I always make the point with Chinese friends who rhapsodise about the late Zhou Enlai being a gentle cultivated philosophical soul that taken alone without any surrounding context, he’d be a blood-soaked despotic murderer. But stick him next to his boss Mao Zedong and it’s like an eye dropper of blood next to an ocean of the stuff. All he ever was was Less Bad. And (here’s the real point) Tyranised Peoples will always clutch at straws and invent excuses for some of their tormentors.
neo,
True, Biden would never nominate a moderate.
Tragically, the RINOs would never stand firm, in rejecting nominee after nominee. Even though in their short sightedness, they are enabling the construction of their own scaffolds.
The American people are being slowly marched toward the gallows and if the left does manage to steal the next two elections, their only hope for regaining their liberties will reside in those unwilling to live upon their knees, unwilling to lick the hands of those who would be their masters. The only remaining alternatives will then be either a military coup or civil war.
Two thoughts –
First, no one thought that Trump was going to win it in 2016 until about 9:00 pm on election night. I seriously doubt that McConnell believed that Trump was going to win either. I think the best explanation for blocking Garland in 2016 is that McConnell did it to protect the Republican Senate majority. Recall that Republicans had just flipped 9 Democrat held seats in the previous election on the promise of blocking Obama’s judicial nominees. Allowing the Scalia seat to go to a progressive a few months before the new Republican Senate majority went before the voters for the first time would have been a disaster and may have jeopardized that majority. I suspect McConnell was planning to either confirm Garland in the lame duck or confirm whoever Hillary nominated on the grounds that the people had spoken.
I also suspect that Trump winning and allowing McConnell to confirm a non-leftist to the seat was just gravy to him.
Second, McConnell is very good at getting the best outcome that is realistically achievable. I think that chafes a lot of folks who don’t like to hear that what they want is not realistically achievable. On the debt ceiling, I strongly suspect that the alternative to granting a short term extension was to see Manchin and Sinema buy in to a limited nuking of the filibuster for debt ceiling increases in order to avoid default. As between that option and granting a short term increase, the short term increase was the least bad option.
Bauxite:
I personally knew quite a few people who thought Trump would win. I wasn’t one of them, but they were pretty adamant.
And then there’s our very own Cornhead, who predicted not only the Trump win but named every swing state Trump would win.
Whether or not McConnell knew Trump would win or even predicted he would win (I doubt he did), he certainly knew he might win and therefore he certainly knew that Hillary might lose and that Trump could wind up getting to name that justice.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote.
Was McConnell upset, or pleased Trump lost last year?
Bonchie at Red State is in the Clever Mitch corner.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/10/06/cocaine-mitch-backs-chuck-schumer-into-a-corner-and-mazie-hirono-freaks-n452818?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=-1
Not totally sure I agree, but he’s been a pretty canny observer of the Swamp.
However, as Kate said, if he caves on his threat not to do it again, then what next?
The debt ceiling is a joke, by the way. It is supposed to force them to limit the spending, but they always raise it — every single time — so why bother having one in the first place?
@ Griffin > “The upside is this mollifies Sinema and especially Manchin but the downside is it gives the Democrats weeks to pester and harass Sinema and Manchin until they cave on the spending stuff which they obviously will to some degree.”
They did the harassment already; I don’t think she is in a mood to cave.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/10/09/kyrsten-sinema-sets-the-build-back-better-agenda-on-fire-and-infuriates-the-left-n454195?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=719
Those two people seem to be familiar with a lot of matters.
There are rumors that Pelosi and Schumer are going to introduce legislation to make ALL semi automatic firearms Class Three weapons, requiring a $200.00 Federal tax stamp.
They are after the ARs, primarily, but making life miserable for all gun owners is just hot fudge topping to them.
AesopFan @ 2:14am,
Fascinating. “Mitch is forcing Schumer in a corner!” “Will the Dems blow up the fillibuster?!” “Will the Dems be able to react within the new, three month extension?” It’s like watching the WWE. It’s all so exciting and thrilling!
Except this is our f*cking lives! It’s our f*cking money! It’s our f*cking country!
What if you have a job working for the federal government and you don’t know if you can buy Christmas presents for your kids this year because you don’t know if the bastards will be paying you in December, or if there will be a shutdown then?
What if you’re on a fixed income and don’t know if you can take a trip to visit your grandchildren for Thanksgiving because you don’t know how much inflation there will be due to the size of their overspending?
What if you own a company that bids on infrastructure projects to the government and don’t know if you should try to find different, long term contracts now because you’re not sure what government work will be available because they failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion?
What if you already had COVID and recovered and are afraid to get vaccinated because you have a heart condition but you work for the federal government and don’t know if Biden will actually change OSHA regulations, or not? Do you look for a new job now? Do you wait? What if you can’t find a new job?
What if you’re a DACA kid who is deciding whether to take out student loans to attend University and pursue a career in the U.S.?
What if you have student loans that are on hold because of Congress’ COVID legislation and your car needs repairs in order to get you to your job? Do you assume there will be more extensions and buy a new car? Get your current car repaired? What month will your student loan payments resume? Same question for unemployed people who can’t pay rent. Will Congress end COVID restrictions this month? Next month? Next year? When will you be evicted?
I’m so happy Mitch and Chuck are in the spotlight and getting interviewed and are enjoying being at the center of attention but some of us out here have to actually live our lives based on what they do and what they fail to do. When they fail to do their jobs as dictated by the Constitution, that thing they take an oath to defend, they wreak tremendous havoc on we, their lowly subjects.
Regarding my whining at 5:56pm, it’s small potatoes to folks who actually lost their lives in the past year due to politicians’ egos and putting “winning” above serving their constituents.
Biden and Kamala creating confusion over Project Warp Speed and the vaccines developed under Trump and Pence’s leadership. Politicians and their minions in the press spreading confusion about treatment options and hospital capacities in order to create fear. Lying about treatment results. Lying about actual cause of deaths. Our politicians’ absurd, mask theater, spreading more fear, confusion and misinformation.
These people would honestly let people die from a lack of viable treatment than lose political power. You know it’s true. You saw it happen in the past 20 months. Is Mitch McConnell fighting to get all CDC data released and made public? Is he refusing to follow ridiculous, unnecessary, unwarranted rules and regulations in the Capital building (like wearing paper masks when vaccinated)? Is he doing anything to find out if Fauci or anyone else violated U.S. law by funding gain of function research at the Wuhan lab? Is he doing anything to find out if the WHO violated its charter with the U.S., or there was mismanagement of Congressional funds given to the WHO?
No. But be sure to send your checks to the GOP to help him “battle” Chuck Schumer and “stand his ground” against “Democrat spending.”
Not entirely persuaded that it’s McConnell’s fault that the Democrats stole an election and are aiming to destroy the country as we know it—because they “have a MANDATE!”.
He’s walking on thin ice here.
He doesn’t have a lot of options.
He doesn’t have a heckuva lot of room to maneuver.
He’s doing the best he can with what he’s got.
Think judo.
Think sumo wrestling between a giant and a weight-challenged, if nimble, opponent.
It’s a game of chicken with the Democrats being so uber-confident that they are shouting, “MAKE OUR DAY, Mitch.”
(Besides, do the Democrats care if the country falls apart? After all, it’s what they’re aiming for…and it would seem to give them a considerable advantage…that is, unless they sorely—dearly?—want the country to fall apart in the way they’ve so meticulously planned; IOW, no other way will do for these perfectionists….)
The question right now is whether McConnell’s recent tactical/pragmatic “move” has given Schumer and his fellow saboteurs enough rope with which to hang themselves.
BTW, regarding Schumer’s extraordinarily disgusting speech—when was the last time Manchin felt compelled to walk out on anyone?—it occurred to me that he would have given the SAME vitriolic speech if had McConnell not made his decision to compromise—i.e., to temporarily enable the debt ceiling to be raised.
(IOW, “One speech fits all” for Schumer.)
The question then is whether the fact that McConnell compromised on this issue and was (is being) SKEWERED in spite of it will raise any eyebrows to those paying attention.
Of course, the corrupt media will spin it far differently (in fact, diametrically opposed to the truth); but some are bound to take notice. But WHO? And will THEY follow through? Or simply ignore it all?…
We’ll see what happens in two and a half or so months. Likely, alas, that NOTHING will change and that the Democrats and their saliva-dripping media hounds will be even more apoplectic. Even more insane.
And so “Little Big Horn” for Schumer? For McConnell? For the nation?
NB. I could be entirely wrong about all of this.
Mitch McConnell on Donald Trump: “Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty,” McConnell said.
Mitch McConnell on Joe Biden: “I consider him a personal friend. I was the only Republican who went to his son Beau’s funeral, so that would be an easy choice. I think Biden is a first-rate person,”
So glad the Turtle is on our side.
If we add a bit of context to that seemingly damning riposte, we get this:
” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Thursday that he likes President Biden personally, but he vowed to fight a political agenda he said is ‘going in exactly the wrong direction.’
“…McConnell disclosed recently that the two have barely spoken since Biden was sworn in on Jan. 20, though Biden called the GOP leader this week to talk about his infrastructure package.
“…’I don’t think the American people gave them a mandate to drive our country all the way to the political left … I’m going to fight them every step of the way,’ McConnell said.
” ‘…I think that package that they’re putting together now as much as we would like to address infrastructure is not going to get support from our side because I think … the last thing the economy needs right now is a big whooping tax increase on all the productive sections of our economy,’ he said.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/546020-mcconnell-biden-is-first-rate-person-leading-left-wing-administration
Here’s some more context: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/24/mitch-mcconnell-up-to-his-dirty-tricks-again-now-targeting-hershel-walker-to-block-potential-georgia-senate-race/#more-214431
Raise ye’…
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/24/mcconnell-plots-return-to-majority-amid-trumps-influence-513970
P.S. Your link was from July 24, 2021.
P.P.S. Whatever happened to “That was then; this is now”?
P.P.P.S. Remind me why we have to be doing this?? (Yes, I know there is a problem…I know there are issues…I know…but still…)
“McConnell Says GOP Won’t Again Aid Dems in Raising Debt Limit”
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/debt/2021/10/08/id/1039781/
Should one believe him?
Maybe yes, maybe no.
I’d like to think so, but that’s just me…
Once again: he’s not perfect.
Once again: “the perfect is the enemy of the good”.
As long as I’m dealing out cliches…”What exactly is the—here and now—alternative?”
And yes, the contretemps between Trump and McConnell is—what’s the term—“unfortunate”?
Extremely unfortunate?
Potentially tragic for the country?
But Trump shoots from the hip. That’s who he is. Some people “get it” and move on (e.g., Cruz, and more power to him).
Some can’t (e.g., McCain, Bush, Romney et al.)—and one can understand them TOTALLY! Trump’s remarks about McCain were as horrid as they were superfluous (not that McCain’s such an angel by any means, but still)…
HOWEVER, the current battle with the Left is for the soul of the nation.
Skip “the soul”. Make that “for the nation” period.
BTW, regarding McConnell’s friendship with Biden, we have no idea where that might stand right now given “Biden”‘s destructive policies, his pursuit of crisis creation, and his non-stop prevarication. Meghan McCain is someone else who considered Biden a friend…. However,
“She Doesn’t Know Who He is Anymore”
https://www.waynedupree.com/2021/08/meghan-mccain-biden-speech/
Neo – You’re right and I suppose it was an overstatement to say that no one thought Trump would win, although we seem to agree that McConnell doesn’t appear to have been one of those who thought Trump would win.
That point is also the key rebuttal to the progressive argument that McConnell “stole” a Supreme Court seat. McConnell almost certainly wasn’t holding the Scalia seat open for a Republican president to fill because it was far from certain that a Republican would win in 2016. For most of the summer and fall, right up until about about 9:00 pm on election day, it appeared almost certain that Hillary would be the next president. I really think that McConnell meant what he said in that he was using the election to resolve an impasse between the President and the Senate. And in a democracy, what’s wrong with that? Most of my progressive friends, though, can’t grasp that presidents aren’t entitled to whatever nominee they choose just because the opening occurred on their term and they claim that the nominee is in the mainstream (go ask Bork, Estrada, and any number of others about that). I think history has something to do with that too. No 20th century Democratic president made a Supreme Court nomination while Republicans controlled the Senate. (The last to do it before Obama was Cleveland and that was well before our current ideological divisions had any meaning.) On the other hand, Democrats regularly rejected Republican nominees and forced Republican presidents to nominate Souters, Stevens, and the like throughout the 20th century.
Anyway, digression over, I despised McConnell for quite a while until I realized that he always brings about the most conservative realistically achievable outcome. As a tactician, he’s playing a much higher-level game compared to his contemporaries such as Schumer, Frist, and even Reid and Lott. I really don’t care whether he’s a true conservative in his heart-of-hearts, I’m just happy that he’s on our side.
O/T…but still in the ballpark (I hope)…
Dershowitz steps us and skewers Garland:
“AG Garland ‘Over the Line'”
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/attorney-general-merrick-garland-school-boards-fbi/2021/10/09/id/1039807/
Anyway, digression over, I despised McConnell for quite a while until I realized that he always brings about the most conservative realistically achievable outcome.
He doesn’t, and you stole that line from a witless article published in National Review a dozen years ago.
“BTW, regarding McConnell’s friendship with Biden, we have no idea where that might stand right now given “Biden”‘s destructive policies, his pursuit of crisis creation, and his non-stop prevarication.” If Mitch McConnell is surprised by any of Biden’s actions as President then that shows monumental lack of judgement. And it just might be that. It’s very possible that these folks really are as dumb as Meghan McCain. But I doubt it.
The debt ceiling increase will be approved, it always is and there is no political will to stop it. The politicians, Schumer and McConnell, leverage it for some other political purpose or objective. I am not wise enough to know or predict what McConnell is up to and after, but Schumer’s reaction tells me it is something important, and undesirable, at least to the Democrats.
Dershowitz skewers and Kimball eviscerates:
https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/09/garland-just-tipped-over-the-dominos/
Conclusion:
No, you can’t “make a deal” with these “rough beasts”, these moral monsters.
Meanwhile—right on cue!—another crepuscular sloucher steadily creeping:
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-treasurys-yellen-confident-congress-will-pass-global-minimum-tax-2021-10-10/
Not sure how this budget stuff will all shake out for the American people, but I am 100% sure Schumer, Mitch and Elaine, and Pelosi’s net worth will all increase in the ensuing 12 months.
Trump was the best weapon for the American people and against the Swamp in four decades, since Reagan.
And McConnell was against him.
Art Deco, do you care to defend that, or are you going to stand on “no he doesn’t” with a fallacious appeal to authority?
Can you give examples of when McConnell failed to realize a a realistic, acheivable, conservative result?
McConnell is not a Conservative. He is not a Constitutionalist. He is CEO of Republican, Inc. If the Republicans come out tomorrow in favor of abortion on demand up until delivery Mitch will maneuver to get pro-choice judges appointed.
If your loyalty is to the Republican party you love Mitch.
If your loyalty is to the Constitution he’s Chuck Schumer with different color stripes.
Can you give examples of when McConnell failed to realize a a realistic, acheivable, conservative result?
He went out of his way to prevent closure of the Export-Import Bank, and did this at the behest of the Chamber-of-Commerce lobbyist. Also, see his public reaction to Obergefell.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I have no loyalty to the GOP. I have great loyalty to the Constitution. And I neither love McConnell nor do I just think he’s just Schumer with different stripes.
This is now the second time you’ve made that accusation.
Schumer is an utterly mendacious leftist ideologue. McConnell is not that. I’ve already described what I think he is (one hint on one point: he’s not a conservative, but he’s certainly much more to the right than Schumer).
Concise descriptions of McConnell: (1) vacuous careerist and (2) Chamber-of-Commerce fellator.
Still, you never know. Those fellators just might surprise you….
Art Deco:
Here is McConnell’s public statement on Obergefell:
That seems ok to me. Nor was there anything McConnell could have DONE at that point to change Obergefell.
Nor was there anything McConnell could have DONE at that point to change Obergefell.
The line item for the Supreme Court’s budget suddenly disappears.
Art Deco:
Oh, really? And you call that conservative? A “realistic, achievable, conservative result” that McConnell failed to achieve?
A legislator doesn’t like a SCOTUS decision, so he cuts funding for the Court? That’s more of a leftist tactic, don’t you think? I don’t like a ruling, so eff the Supreme Court?
And how would McConnell have accomplished this aim? Does he rewrite the bill himself? Do you think the other GOP senators would have agreed? And what of the House? You think this was conservative, realistic, and achievable?
In addition, you never stated what was so wrong with McConnell’s actual public statement on Obergefell.
Garland, continued.
Indeed, the story gets “better and better”…
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/merrick-garlands-problems-his-son-law-just-got-worse
Key graf:
“Merrick Garland shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near questions about what’s happening in America’s public schools. His conflict of interest is overwhelming, given that his daughter’s financial well-being is dependent on peddling the same racist material America’s parents, both Black and White, rightly find deeply offensive. Add in the racist partisan attacks and Garland can only be seen as further politicizing an office that exists to serve all Americans, not just Democrats.”
File under: “Panorama”! “Diversity”! “Unity”! “Demonization”!! (Well, you get the idea…)
“The authors of our Constitution purposefully built checks and balances into the foundation of our democracy, and the power of the purse is a critical part of those checks and balances.”
And if things weren’t “interesting” (make that “rotten”) enough…
Here’s a series of interview segments with John Ratcliffe on China, Trump, “Biden”, Mark Milley, and the Durham investigation….
https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1447215721851899908
“Let’s make a deal”….
With this?
The Washington Post, serving its master well as it keeps that endless supply of anti-Trump propaganda fresh and steaming, embarrasses itself.
(But that’s not really possible, since it’s like saying “Pravda embarrasses itself”. No, the WAPO, like Pravda, do/did what has/had to be done.)
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/newspaper-calls-russia-probe-well-founded-suggests-dems
File under: Post-Pravda.
neo,
Where we likely differ is I believe Mitch McConnell is a political animal and his bread is buttered by promoting the GOP. I don’t think he is an idealogue. If the GOP changes it’s platform significantly tomorrow, Mitch would just keep jockeying to help the GOP (and Mitch) (and Elaine). There are options the GOP could adopt that would force Senators like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton to walk away from the party.
Politicians like Mitch McConnell are the reason we are where we are today. The guy has had his entire career to do something about healthcare.
… and he did nothing because he doesn’t care if 20+% of the U.S. economy is Federalized. He cares about fund raising for the GOP and GOP candidates and pleasing lobbyists who court the GOP.
He is the definition of a swamp creature. He’s our swamp creature, but he’s a swamp creature nonetheless. His allegiance is to the swamp.
Z Man Quote of the Day for all you Closet Z Man Fans:
“For as long as I have been alive, politics in America has been the Democrats blaming their loses on not going far enough while Republicans blaming their loses on going too far. The reality is always the opposite.”
Rufus T. Firefly:
I certainly think McConnell is a political creature rather than some sort of idealist who is only dedicated to principle. But I don’t think he has totally fungible principles, either. He has some principles, and they are to the right (although not really conservative), but he is very tactical and willing to jettison them if it’s not working out. Are principles his sole motive? Absolutely not, but they’re not nothing, either. And of course he cares about furthering the party. He the head of the party in the Senate, This is what gives him power and influence. His wife has enough money that if he never made a penny they’d still be rich, but I assume that money motivates him as well.
@Neo:
“He the head of the party in the Senate, This is what gives him power and influence. His wife has enough money that if he never made a penny they’d still be rich, but I assume that money motivates him as well.”
There’s also a significant ‘Riding the Tiger’ element. He + Wife might feel much safer being in the game. You let go of levers and walk away and anything might happen.
A snippet from Kurosawa to set the tone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwP_kXyd-Rw
For the rest, If he goes too far off reservation, there’s likely enough dirt stashed away in the right places to make all that money cold comfort. And if there isn’t (just trying to humor you… of course there is) well there’s nothing like a Coffee with the FBI ™ to fix that.
And the last word?….(Actually, probably not….):
“Sorry, But McConnell Actually Did The Right Thing”
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2021/10/10/sorry-but-mcconnell-actually-did-the-right-thing-n2597204
The author claims that with this gambit, McConnell’s major achievement was to prevent the Democrats from manipulating this engineered crisis to shred the Filibuster…
OMMV of course….
“Let’s make a deal!”
O/T
Uh, oh… Clintons (again).
Oh, and China, whaddayaknow!!
(And, um, espionage and stealing military secrets…the whole 11 yards….)
https://spectator.org/california-takeout-when-china-enjoyed-free-rein-in-the-clinton-90s/
Key graf;
“…fishing rods…”
Conclusion: Hillary Clinton knew whereof she spoke (and then some) when tossing that “collusion” hat into the ring….
“Let’s make a deal”
(Not even O/T)
The Southwest Airlines “affair….
Discuss!
I’ll kick off the “conversation”:
https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/status/1447326494133571596
https://twitter.com/JeffUSA111/status/1447356919274950656
https://twitter.com/BravoKiloActual/status/1447376246246023168
Just another day in the “Biden” BS is US administration….
Fishing rods, indeed.
Keen students of history, the Chinese:
https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-uranium-from-the-united-states/
Clintons obviously No Goodos and were happy to see the W-88 and all the MIRV goodies fly out the window.
For extra credit does anyone seriously *honestly now* seriously think that with the hindsight of all these years that things would have been much different had Bush Senior won in 92?
Riddled with corruption yes. But when you get down to it, USGov is fundamentally unserious. Just love the bit about Norinco being one floor above the CIA’s Skunkworks liaison office. You just can’t make this $%*& up!
The Open Society and its Enemies… It is to laugh. Like flies to #@$%.
But I don’t think he has totally fungible principles, either. He has some principles, and they are to the right
He doesn’t have principles, he has a hustle. We’re the marks.
Over the period running from 1967 to 1977, McConnell proved unable or unwilling to build a law practice in Louisville. Politics is his business. He’s been in elective office since 1977 and was on and off on political staffs during the 10 years previous.
He started out as an aide to Marlow Cook. One of the curios of Kentucky politics in during the era running from 1946 to 1975 was that it was more often than not represented by Rockefeller Republicans in the Senate. Those three men – John Sherman Cooper, Thruston Morton, and Marlow Cook – may have been the only Rockefeller Republicans ever elected from a Southern constituency. Morton was the only one of the three who returned to Louisville after leaving Congress. Cooper and Cook set up shop as lawyer-lobbyists in DC. (Cook resurfaced in 2004 and 2008 to endorse John Kerry and then BO).
His wife is a swamp creature who has spent her life in Frisco, New York, and DC and has no connection to Kentucky other than being married to someone who once lived there. Even though her family is in the shipping business, she was given one discretionary appointment after another over a period of 30 years at agencies whose book of business included regulating different aspects of that sector. She has no children and did not marry until she was 40 years old.
Their assets are largely derived from her share of the family business. However, he had a seven digit net worth before her father’s exercise in estate planning, which is inneresting for a man from a common-and-garden bourgeois family who had spent 36 of the previous 40 years on government salaries. (Harry Reid had an oddly ample net worth as well for a man whose private sector career consisted of nine years practicing law in a 3d tier city).
Sundance has an argument as to what McConnell’s business model actually is and how accomplishing what he wants to accomplish is best served by having a caucus of 45 to 49 Senators in the context of the filibuster. Per Sundance, it’s all about the Do-Re-Mi to be had from selling the votes of the mercs in his caucus; he’s not interested in policy. Note his cupidity. He’s 79 years old and has held the floor leader’s position for > 14 years. There have been in the last four generations five others who have led one of the caucuses in Congress for a longer period of time; four of those five were Democrats and the fifth spent 80% of his time as the minority leader facing off against Sam Rayburn.
It’s been noted that you generally get your politics and your religion from your father and your manners from your mother. Cannot help but notice that this man who has spent his life in politics appears to have had no influence on his daughters, at least one of whom behaves in ways that suggests she’s viscerally hostile to him.
Odd, when someone criticizes the motives of the oh so wise, students of history, the focus is shifted to Israel. Citing that defender of the west, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, no less. Doing whatever it takes for XI.
Odd, when someone criticizes the motives of the oh so wise, students of history, the focus is shifted to Israel. Citing that defender of the west, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, no less. Doing whatever it takes for XI.
Zaphod’s posts are made up of material recycled from the Unz comboxes.
@neo:McCain surprised them and sabotaged it
They LET him do it. Just like what’s going on now with Sinema and Manchin. They have made the rules that allow “mavericks” to shut down something supposedly the entire majority wants. If the majority really wanted it, they would change the rules, and we KNOW that because they DO that whenever they wish do.
Doesn’t matter which majority.
Both majorities have bases that want very different things. Both bases apply purity tests. The designated “mavericks” are how both parties can avoid responding to the constituents who do the most to get them elected and continue to do their real work, which is transferring tax money to their patrons and clients.
The Senate parliamentarian is the same theater. She says what the rules are, but the Senate can change them any time with a simple majority, and does whenever it wants.
Frederick,
…”their real work, which is transferring tax money to their patrons and clients.”
Yup.
Frederick:
I see. So you’re in favor of ending the filibuster/cloture rules. Which means tyranny of the majority will prevail – a simple majority could make such sweeping changes that republican government as we know it could end.
Nice to know.
Oh, and Sinema and Manchin are currently blocking the will of 48 senators, which when last I checked was not a majority. Your math may differ.
Also, there was no majority for the bill without McCain. At the time (July 2017), the GOP had 52 senators to the Democrats’ 48. To get a majority, the GOP could only afford to lose 2 senators (Pence could break the tie if they lost two, but if they lost 3 it was curtains). It was known that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski would be voting against the bill. Based on things McCain had previously said, it was assumed he’d vote for it, and there would be a tie which Pence would break. With a dramatic gesture, McCain instead voted “no.” No majority for the bill.
neo,
With all due respect (and I do have immense respect for your intelligence), what is McConnell doing to eliminate the factors the Democrats are using to push this abomination of an “infrastructure” bill?
See my comment at 7:48pm. Healthcare is a major issue for all Americans and there were real problems with our system, pre-passage of the ACA. Congress had decades of warning (50 years! I think FDR even spoke of health care being a human right in the ’40s) that this was a major issue and the Dems would use Americans’ upsetment with the status quo to push for socialized medicine.
Obama’s administration spoke of America’s collapsing infrastructure. As did Trump. Yes, it looks like Mitch and a few others are putting forth a massive struggle to prevent the Dem’s current “infrastructure” bill, but, with over 12 years of notice why is it still an issue the Dems can use? What did Mitch or the Republicans do to address the issue, or educate Americans on why it may not be an issue?
How many decades did the Democrats talk about voting rights, etc? It’s not incredible an event finally came along (the COVID pandemic) that allowed them to push mail-in voting through. It took them decades to do it. Eventually some crisis will appear. This is why I always use the adjective “feckless” to describe the Republican Party. The Democrat Party is not super smart, or super tactical. They tip their hand w-a-y in advance. Look at homosexual marriage.
Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was released 15 years ago. And Mitch is surprised the Dems are pushing a bill with tons of mandated environmental regulation in 2021?!
I won’t pretend to know Mitch’s mind, but it looks a lot like theater to me. That’s why I used the WWE as an example. Everyone involved knows the outcome of every match before it begins, except the audience. And the combatants enter the ring and stage a great show to keep the audience buying tickets. Mitch knew the Dems would eventually pass something like the ACA, and he knows the ACA will inevitably lead to socialized medicine. Since 1984 Mitch did nothing to address issues that bothered folks about Health Care. This could have been done through regulation changes. Same with homosexual marriage. Same with infrastructure. Same with environmental issues. Same with policing and criminal justice.
But eliminating or fixing issues doesn’t lead to decades of donations to the GOP. After passage of the ACA the GOP continued to use it to fund raise. And then the American people called their bluff, gave them the Congress and elected DJT. Somehow Congress was suddenly too busy to fix or overturn the ACA.
The Romans’ term for this was, “pan et circensis.”
Rufus T. Firefly:
With the entire force of the MSM and social media and virtually all the cultural institutions behind them, the Democrats have a huge advantage in reaching the American people. I see Republicans talking about the issues all the time, and grassroots Republicans trying to organize, and the like. I’ve certainly been clear that they’re far from perfect, but I really am not sure what you think they can and should do – specifically – to cut through and reach more people. I recall during the years of trying to come up with a replacement for Obamacare, I covered all the efforts, which were many and quite tedious to report on. Most people didn’t pay a particle of attention and kept complaining that they were doing nothing.
Do you follow everything McConnell does or says? Even I don’t. Just to take one small recent example, see this.
Senate minority leaders don’t really have all that much power except to talk, to try to keep their coalition together, and to plan for getting more legislators from the party elected for the next session.
@neo:So you’re in favor of ending the filibuster/cloture rules. Which means tyranny of the majority will prevail
What I’m in favor of can’t be inferred from what I said, and this sort of rhetorical trope you’re using here is not typical of you. I am saying only what is true, that nothing stops the majority in the Senate from any tyranny 50+1 want badly enough. The Senate changes these minority-privileging rules whenever its majority wants to. You have been alive and commenting on politics when they have. The Senate rules are not determined by anyone outside the Senate, they’re not in the Constitution, and they can be changed by majority vote at any time, just for one vote.
The rules are allowed to frustrate the majority only when the majority doesn’t actually want to act.
Also, there was no majority for the bill without McCain.
You might look over your paragraph which follows and see what you’re having to do to land at this conclusion.
At the time (July 2017), the GOP had 52 senators to the Democrats’ 48.
Right here, we start with a GOP majority. That GOP majority, i. e. this set of 52 people plus Pence, never actually wanted to end Obamacare. If they did, they could change the Senate rules for this or any vote, as has been done before, because they had the numerical power to do it. They had successfully voted this way previously, when they knew Obama would simply veto it.
It was known that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski would be voting against the bill. Based on things McCain had previously said, it was assumed he’d vote for it, and there would be a tie which Pence would break.
Ok, here you acknowledge that 2 people already left that majority, but you put the blame only on McCain who was the third… but all three are equally culpable as the bill could have passed with any one of them….
With a dramatic gesture, McCain instead voted “no.” No majority for the bill.
Then why didn’t they vote again after seeing to it that one of these three people got whatever it was they were holding out for? Where was it written that they could only vote this one time? And why does only one of these three defectors get all the blame? Every Republican senator except Collins had either campaigned on repeal at their last election or voted for repeal or both. Two of these three “mavericks” were demonstratively reachable and on record.
That’s where the theater comes in. You even call it a “dramatic” gesture. These people know about drama. Some of them even act in TV shows.
The drama is to make it look they really really wanted to repeal but there’s just those darn mavericks and we can’t change it because we’re not Russia. Not all of us are falling for it any more.
The fact is that the Republican base wanted repeal, and the theater was to give that base an excuse to overlook what was going on. Only one of those Senators had to asnwer to Arizona.
The “Little Jerry” episode of Seinfeld puts this much more succinctly:
JERRY (turning to leave): Aren’t you going to take the check down?
MARCELINO: Sorry, no. It’s store policy.
JERRY: But it’s your bodega.
MARCELINO: Even I am not above the policy.
It’s a contradiction in logic to say that the rules of the Senate allow a minority to prevail when those rules provide that they can be (and are) overridden by a 50+1 majority at any time.
neo,
One small, quick point; same sex marriage. This was certainly on some politicians’ radars in ’84, when McConnell came to the Senate. And the vast majority of Americans would have been against same sex marriage but for legal, contractual options for same sex couples at that point in time, even, up through the early 2000s.
A clever leader who cared about promoting or preserving an ideology would have wrote and or sponsored legislation that dealt with some of the legal issues to limit the opposition’s fodder. If, by the year 2000, it was federal law that all states had to permit consenting adults to designate and/or contract with any consenting adult, regardless of gender, for things like home ownership, health decisions when incapacitated… it would severely limit the Left’s argument and likely wouldn’t have made it to the Supreme Court, where a new emanation and penumbra was found.
There was also a clear majority of Americans (including the MSM) who wanted health care improved in ’84, and prior and since.
I know you know the word, but this is what “feckless” means. And I don’t think McConnell is feckless. I think the GOP is generally feckless. I think McConnell’s extremely clever. That’s what leads me to believe he does not care about fixing things that are useful, fundraising and electoral tools for the GOP and GOP candidates. Even when not addressing them will ultimately lead to losing the battle.
There are issues he could have fixed, or greatly mitigated, through pro-active leadership. But when those issues were useful for gin’ning up the base and increasing donations and getting folks to the polls he sat on his hands.
Sometimes his actions help me as a citizen. Sometimes his actions hurt me as a citizen. But 100% of the time his actions help the short-term goals of the Republican party.
neo writes:
But Senate majority leaders do. Odd how Mitch becomes less fiery on topics like immigration, border control, health care and socially Conservative topics whenever the GOP has the majority.
I don’t have anything to add, but if three more people comment this post will hit triple digits.
A post on Mitch McConnell. Quite a divisive figure. I think he’d be pleased.
I just had another insight on a perspective that may help some of you change your opinions…
If you are a Leftist, are you exceedingly glad, or mad at Obama, Pelosi and Reid for forcing through the ACA and costing the Dems the midterms?
If you are a Conservative are you exceedingly glad, or mad at McConnell for not undoing the ACA when we had Congress and the Presidency?
Reid and Pelosi are master politicians, but they also fight to the death for an ideology. I’d rather have a leader like that heading up my party than Mitch.
Number 9 – Number 9 …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNdcFPjGsm8
Couldn’t resist.
https://youtu.be/-WSHvbGM6oE
When a Senator claims he/she/IT(?) will be voting AGAINST something and then—LAST MINUTE—goes back on his/her/ITs(?) word…then it’s the fault of the Senate majority leader?
Interesting concept…
Silly me: it’s not even the fault of the Senate Majority Leader! It’s PRECISELY what the Senate Majority Leader wants….
(Even more interesting…)
Barry Meislin,
Look at how many false starts and mis-steps the Dems had with federalizing the medical industry. From FDR’s second bill of rights to Teddy Kennedy and his failed Presidential runs to the First Lady’s Healthcare Security Act of 1993 to the ACA.
They Never. Stopped. Trying.
They faced immense pushback, bad luck, unexpected events, but kept finding new, innovative ways to implement their goal.
The Republicans had 7 decades of notice and they could do nothing to eliminate or diminish the issue? McConnell loses one vote by one vote and it’s over?!
The Republicans do not fight for us. Has McConnell done anything in 37 years to risk personally getting re-elected? Democrats will gladly throw some office holders aside to reach their goals. Then see that the sacrificial lambs are re-elected, or appointed to some other, lucrative position.
McConnell’s 37 year history is precisely why Trump was elected. Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Christie, Walker… A broad selection of good, experienced Republican leaders. America said, “No more!” And flipped a big, middle finger to the GOP.
So if I’m understanding this correctly then I must conclude that McConnell ORDERED McCain to change his vote (regarding ACA)?
@Barry Meislin:So if I’m understanding this correctly then I must conclude that McConnell ORDERED McCain to change his vote (regarding ACA)?
You seem to be trying very hard to misstate rather than “understand”. It’s been stated very clearly by multiple people. Not one commenter said anything like this; you just invented it out of whole cloth.
What is REALLY being said is that the Republicans give the illusion of opposition to the Dems. They do the bare minimum to be credible with their base and get reelected. With ACA this was very notable. They had many, many votes to repeal when Obama was there to veto and there was no chance of it becoming real. When they had a Republican president who would let repeal stick, one vote and done, can’t do anything about those gosh darn mavericks.
It’s not just ACA by any means. For example, the Biden cabinet picks. Look how many Republicans go along with Biden’s picks who would not go along with Trump’s.
Merrick Garland, who’s now calling moms at school board meetings “terrorists” got confirmed 70-30. 20 R’s were perfectly good with that. They go along so that when the $1.5 T or $3.5 T or $5.0 T spending bill gets passed, their buddies get a share…
Sorry, I don’t understand.
Why, then, did McCain change his mind?
@Barry Meislin:Why, then did McCain change his mind?
You’d have to ask him, wouldn’t you? And you’d have to ask McConnell about what he offered the three holdouts (not just McCain) and why they refused, or if he didn’t offer anything why didn’t he?
The facts speak for themselves. He had no trouble getting the votes when Obama was there to veto repeal. His party had the majority. He had three holdouts, not just one, two of which had voted for it before. He could get 51-48 on tax cuts somehow.
Republicans in Congress moved with remarkable speed in their bid to enact the biggest tax overhaul since 1986, unveiling legislation to rewrite the tax code, marshaling support for their effort and devising a compromise between the House and Senate in under two months.
The success within reach would be a stark contrast with their attempt this year to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, a quest that was encumbered by internal divisions among Republicans and ultimately ended in humiliating failure.
“People wanted to get it done,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said of the tax rewrite. “That’s the single biggest difference.”
Yes, indeed it is.
Oh, I get it.
McConnell thought that repealing ACA was a done deal because McCain said he was going to vote to repeal.
Therefore, with the votes in hand, McConnell didn’t (for whatever reason, or maybe there were specific reasons…possibly(?), let’s go out on a limb here and say(?) connected to local Maine and Alaska politics?) pressure either Collins or Murkowski…because he didn’t have to—he had McCain’s word, you see).
And then McCain reneged.
And it’s McConnell’s fault.
Got it.
(Obviously because McConnell shoulda known that McCain was going to renege and/or McConnell shoulda prepared for that possibility…. On the other hand, how do you make Collins and/or Murkowski do things that they’re not going to do? Never mind. McConnell shoulda done it.)
Barry Meislin,
Frederick stated it better than I did, but I’ll try.
You are intentionally ignoring all that came before voter’s called the GOP’s bluff and gave them the Congress and White House to repeal the ACA. Obviously it’s not all on McConnell, but the GOP had 7 decades to reform healthcare through regulation and modifications to private providers; insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, provider networks…
Instead they chose to keep raising money on the fear the Dems were going to “socialize medicine.” McConnell did a good job of feigning anger when the ACA was finally pushed through and doing all he could to get it repealed when he was minority leader. And donations poured in.
How do you reconcile your theory that McConnell sincerely wanted to avoid something like the ACA with his actions before and after?
Back to my original point at the top of this post: If your number one concern is the Grand Ole Party you love Mitch McConnell. If your number one concern is adhering to the U.S. Constitution he is not your friend.