Thune is the new Majority Leader, and I’m fine with it
The new Senate Majority Leader is John Thune of South Dakota. The conservative wing of the party is very upset. I consider myself a conservative, and I’m not upset at all. Please bear with me while I explain.
Republicans have a majority in the new Senate, which is great. But it’s not a huge majority, which is typical of GOP Senate majorities of the last eighty years or so. And – as is also typical – that majority contains quite a few members who are not conservative, and some who are really not conservative such as Collins and Murkowski. And although Alaska certainly could and might someday elect a more conservative senator than Murkowski, for the moment she’s a senator. Collins, on the other hand, is different. Once she retires I doubt she’ll be replaced by a Republican at all. They’re not the only ones, either, although they may be the most visible and extreme. And the election of Thune isn’t some sort of secret betrayal; it’s a logical outcome of the makeup of the current Senate.
Thune is kind of middle-of-the-road as current GOP senators go. But he’s someone who’s been around long enough to know who’s who and how to pressure them, and he’s been the GOP whip since 2019.
A Senate Leader needs to be willing to push for the president’s agenda. But how is that accomplished, and what are the impediments to success? One of the most important requirements for the job – and one a lot of people ignore when they only look at where the leader falls on the political spectrum – is how well the person knows his or her fellow GOP members of the Senate.
I’m going to post a discussion of this issue by four savvy guys who’ve worked in politics for many years, are conservative, and also very knowledgeable IMHO. The podcast they have is called Ruthless, and I highly recommend it (they’re funny and entertaining, too). I discovered Ruthless during this election cycle, and they provided the best coverage of anyone I’ve seen.
Here is what they said on this issue before Thune was elected. I’ve cued it up just for that part, which is a bit less than seven minutes. I consider it an extremely insightful discussion on the question of who to elect as Majority Leader and why, and I strongly urge you to listen to it. If you have time I think you might enjoy the whole thing, but if not, then these seven minutes are well worth it (and if you speed it up it goes even more quickly):
So that’s why I look at Thune’s election quite calmly. He might just have been the best one for this particular job.
Thanks for posting this. I really don’t follow politics all that closely, and had no idea the pros and cons of the various candidates. Nice to have a breakdown from a source I trust.
(NOTE: was going to put this in the Open Thread, but here is a better spot for it.)
OK — Sen. John Thune will replace Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as Republican Senate Majority Leader. Trump and humble me didn’t have a lot we could do are say about this one.
Going with one ‘Flow’ I was liking Rick Scott, but one ‘Flow’ I missed was which leader could gather the most support in the Senate. Certainly not Rick Scott at 13 in first round—that apparently eliminated him.
MAGA REP supporters don’t seem to be the best at deciding who is best for a position, e.g., Jeff Sessions, and the House Leadership.
As McConnell showed in Trump’s first term—the ability to get Supreme Court candidates thru radical opposition is of MAJOR importance, IMHO. Am not sure how many Republican Leaders could’ve gotten Three SC candidates thru that mess we witnessed in Trump’s first term. Sen. John Thune could have the same opportunity in Trump’s second term, and I now ‘Think‘ he is probably the best Leader to get 2-3 SC candidates thru this time.
In the new shift by Republican party – McConnell was no longer a good fit. I know nothing about Sen. John Thune other than he is not a Trump puppet, and that he was able to gather enough GOP support to win the Senate Leadership position.
With Trump’s Mandate, he will still be able to apply a lot of pressure on Thune when needed…
Tulsi Gabbard has been named as DNI. Marco Rubio named as Secretary of State.
My guess at Ric Grenell was wrong. Do still wonder where he’ll be deployed though.
It isn’t John Cornyn, and that makes this a win.
Matt Gaetz named as Attorney General, and shit just got real.
sdferr
Holy sh*t! Is he qualified? He’s from my state—but AG?
Still gun shy from the Jeff Sessions disaster. However, do know Matt Gaetz ain’t gonna step down when DEMs call for him to…
Will need to digest this one…have been patiently waiting for the AG pick, and this one catches me off guard…
The other factor now, even though Trump can’t run for re-election, is that he’s not “if we can just get through four years he’ll be gone” anymore. He at least appears to have significant support among elected Republicans, worked to get Republicans elected in various places (he didn’t need to do rallies in Montana or Texas for himself), and from his staffing picks starting with Vance has been elevating what looks to be a new generation of Republican talent. I’m fairly certain that staring down the barrel of the 2026 elections is also going to motivate a lot of Republican politicians to do less obstructing since they can’t hide behind the Democrat’s skirts this time around.
Grenell given the job of working out a Russia-Ukraine deal, possibly?
@Karmi:As McConnell showed in Trump’s first term—the ability to get Supreme Court candidates thru radical opposition is of MAJOR importance, IMHO.
But he also tanked Trump’s appointees by having Murkowski open the Senate for a minute per day, every three days.
Supreme Court justices are important, but so is passing conservative legislation, fiscal discipline, and advancing the (same party) President’s agenda, and McConnell was unreliable on all of them in Trump’s term.
I don’t think it makes much sense to praise McConnell for the few times he didn’t betray conservatives.
Niketas Choniates
Are you saying that “Trump’s appointees” and etcetera is more important than being able to get THREE Supreme Court candidates thru radical opposition?
Well, we’ll agree to disagree on that…
@Karmi:Are you saying that “Trump’s appointees” and etcetera is more important than being able to get THREE Supreme Court candidates thru radical opposition?
Supreme Court Justices are important for the long term. Getting qualified nominees through should be the absolute minimum expectation for any politician holding the title “Majority leader”, but I’m not going to thank McConnell for doing the minimum. The Republicans had a Senate majority, they could have confirmed ten if ten vacancies came up and the Dems could have done nothing but cry in their beer.
But Supreme Court Justices don’t cut one dime from the budget, and they don’t advance conservative goals through legislation and budgeting, they don’t execute government policy. One reason Trump got so little accomplished his first term was because he couldn’t get his appointees through or his priorities funded and a lot of that blame lies with one Mitch McConnell.
McConnell, in the minority, helped Chuck Schumer nuke a Republican filibuster on the debt ceiling. He tanked his own party whenever his cronies would benefit.
Niketas Choniates
Trump got in his own way more times than McConnell did – during those four years.
Valid points on your part, and McConnell has worn out his welcome.
Still, he is in the past now, and I’ll move on w/o bashing him…
Certain folks on the right refer to Thune as a “war pig”.
I suppose they have their reasons but there’s an issue that needs addressing by every administration; how far do you let things go elsewhere before they threaten the US?
And, addressing those potential threats early on doesn’t look like they’re a threat to us, so they’re unnecessary.
If the French had addressed Hitler’s militarization of the Rhineland in 36, the generals would have, post-war intel has said, crapcanned Hitler and his Nazi followers. Thus, no WW II. Possible. What would that have looked like fifty years later. “Imperialism!” “Victors’ vengeance!” “Sordid struggle for markets!” But no Thank God we avoided another world war. Because, how would you know?
Of course, the war might have been run more professionally. But no Holocaust, probably.
Point is, you don’t know what you avoided or prevented and getting to whatever it is early on may, from a cosmic viewpoint, have been a complete waste considering how things would have gone if you haven’t bothered.
And getting there when things are obvious, as, say, on December 8, 1941, might cost you a bundle.
So how do you tell a war pig from somebody trying to prevent the Big One?
As I said many years ago, an iron law of military counterfactuals is that whatever wasn’t tried couldn’t possibly have failed had it been tried. Not for any reason, not in a million years. Thus, discussions are likely fruitless.
So, again, in the current world context, what’s a “war pig”?
Richard Aubrey
Sure sounds like a term that would’ve been used during the Vietnam era. 🙂
However, I have seen terms or suggestions that are at least close to “war pig” here on this blog.
“war pig” is apparently a MAGA term now – since Trump and other REPs seem to think that wars should be a ‘Thang of the past now. Heck, Trump has claimed he can end the Russian/Ukraine war…in…in…forget now, but end it in an incredibly short time.
If Thune is a “war pig” – then he has earned my support already…
Ending a war before it gets even bigger is a good idea. But if you have to do it by means of war….
Putin, and Russia as we have discussed earlier, are paranoid about invasion and no border is sufficient. It must always be one more country further out, however many that makes.
If, as Hanson refers to the Russian Way of War (accept horrendous losses from piling on everything) it looks like a win for the Russians, very likely, the next nearest neighbor is next.
So Russia will have to accept a loss, however that can be defined so that they quit.
That’s going to be complicated.
I’ve seen Ruthless on Megyn Kelly’s podcast several times and I too like them. I think they were amused (understatement) at what Megyn had to say about Jeffrey Toobin’s criticism of Clarence Thomas. Starts at about the 1:00 mark and only lasts a few seconds but they’re glorious seconds. https://youtu.be/DHFNbIOcFSY
I have little confidence that Thune will push to reduce the size of the government or the budget, let alone that he’ll work to eliminate entire departments. I really hope to be proven wrong.
Russia is not Iraq or Afghanistan or even Nazi Germany, in that we can’t go to war with Russia and expect our civilians at home to sleep snug in their beds. Russia can bring the war to us at home. And no one can come up with a way for us to be at war with Russia, but with Russia not at war with us.
Recognizing this reality is not being pro-Russia. There are very serious risks to escalation that must be considered very carefully. I am not convinced that the venal trough-feeders running our foreign policy over the last four years have thought through those risks.
While Russia certainly is a danger to Ukraine–though apparently they need North Korea’s help–it is ridiculous to think that they meaningfully threaten any nation in the European Union, with four times Russia’s GDP, 50% more population, and nuclear weapons. It’s not 1950 any more. EU military spending was $240 billion in 2022, compared to Russia’s $82 billion. The European Union is more than able to handle any potential threat from Russia. They’re big boys now, more people than we have and the same size economy, just as technologically advanced as we are, with nuclear weapons of their own–and they don’t have to cross an ocean. If they take Russia seriously, they are strong enough to take care of themselves. If they don’t take Russia seriously enough to take care of themselves, we cannot do it for them.
They can and should take care of themselves, and there’s nothing wrong with our helping if they are actually attacked, but neither we, the EU, nor any other nation can take on the responsibility of policing the world, and a nuclear war makes everybody lose everything.
Ukraine’s in a bad spot, not their fault, and I’d be sad to see their 30 years of independence end–if I could wave a magic wand to prevent it I would–but real war between the US and Russia would put them, and everyone else, in a much worse place than they are now. The problem outlined in Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue has not been solved. Some countries are assholes and beat the crap out of smaller countries because they can. We have no cure for this in Ukraine’s case, except to run the risk of an even bigger war that could get all of us killed, even those who took no part in it.
This is a reality that may have to kill a bunch of us to be recognized, but it is real and it will assert itself no matter how loudly one accuses those who mention it of being pro-Putin.
That’s about as pro-Russia as it gets. Sounds like Putin or one of his scribes wrote that for you, Niketas Choniates…Jeez!?!
So, America rolls over, and lets Russia have its way with anyone…including England & Israel. Baloney…
It is time to teach Russia a lesson about their historical Modus Operandi of invading and conquering their neighbors.
Colonel-General Ivashov (RUS Retd): ‘On the Eve of War?’ – Appeal of the All-Russian Officers Assembly to the President and Citizens of the Russian Federation. (Make of it what you will…)
New York Post ran similar: “Former top Russian general warns Putin against ‘criminal’ Ukraine invasion”.
Russia and Putin screwed up, and America’s pro-Russia advocates want to let them off the hook…Ditto on the Jeez!?!
Mikhail Khodaryonok: Are dreams of Russia’s expansion possible?
I have news for you, Niketas Choniates – even rolling over doesn’t work against Russia—as history proves. Sucking up to them won’t work either…
At this point in time – Ukraine has weakened Russia to a great extent. Ukraine has never asked for American boots on the ground, but have asked for air support and permission to hit Russian military target deeper into Russia.
Enough, there is no talking with pro-Russia Americans. They’ll wait, roll over some more, and wait again until America is forced to put boots on the ground in Europe…again, but this time against Russia…
Karmi, Ukraine started down this path when they overthrew Yanukovych in 2014, who had been overwhelmingly elected by eastern Ukraine. They had an offramp by agreeing to the compromise worked out by Germany and France that would have created a unity government and early elections that would have given Ukrainians the opportunity to legally remove Yanukovych.
But they rejected that.
Ukraine is losing the war. It’s been reported that 20% of Ukraine’s soldiers have gone AWOL. Russia’s grinding attrition war continues to take ground at an increasing rate.
Ukraine needs to mobilize 500,000 soldiers, but instead have chosen to only mobilize 160,000 which will not give them the ability to stop Russian advances, let alone retake territory.
If Zelensky were to allow elections, he likely wouldn’t win re-election.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/08/europe/ukraine-military-morale-desertion-intl-cmd/index.html
@ Neo > “He might just have been the best one for this particular job.”
Well, as someone once said, “You go to Congress with the Senate Leader you have, not the one you wish you had.”
I listened to the entire podcast, which was excellent — although I don’t like videos, because I can’t look back and “underline” remarks. Their analysis of Thune seems to have a lot of experience behind it, and they are probably correct. As one of them said, “Somebody has to get Susan Collins on-board.”
Which is sad, but true.
As a counter point, though, Not The Bee looks back at Thune’s record, and is not sanguine, due to his extensive anti-Trump remarks.
https://notthebee.com/article/john-thune-of-south-dakota-is-the-new-senate-majority-leader-lets-take-a-look-at-his-greatest-hits
And one of the Tweeters linked by Not The Bee also makes sense:
“Dear Senate, We did not elect you on November 5th just so you can go behind our backs and vote John Thune in behind closed doors. We won’t forget this.”
Although some voters may have elected their Senators for something close to that reason.
Mark Steyn’s tuppence:
“If your object is to prevent America going off the cliff, McConnell, Thune and Cornyn have nothing to contribute. That this is the subject of conversation a week after the most spectacular political comeback in American history is very dispiriting.”
https://www.steynonline.com/14757/looking-for-an-argument
(h/t Paul Nachman)
Metaphor country:
There is a line; It includes a certain amount of Uke territory. A certain amount of Uke natural resources. A certain number of handy transportation hubs. A certain number of cities with repairable infrastructure. A certain set of handy borders with other nations.
If Putin does not achieve that line, he “loses”. Russia “loses”. If Putin exceeds that line, he and Russia win. The definition of that line is entirely, completely, and without any outside help, up to Putin. Other people’s geopolitical savvy is irrelevant.
How sharp is Putin? He, despite a career in intelligence, had no idea how creaky his military was. Immense stocks of fuel sold by his generals. Military supplies full of sand or putty. Training nearly non-existent. Vehicles without the slightest maintenance.
This was supposed to take two weeks, remember?
Hanson’s “russian way of war” included, in WW II, incomprehensible amounts of outside resources. Even that sunk on the way is an incomprehensible amount. At one point, the Russians provided a kind of thank-you memorial to Studebaker for their sturdy trucks which made their supply convoys more effective. Two hundred thousand Studebaker trucks shipped.
Russia isn’t getting that kind of help.
But, presuming Putin thinks he won. Then what? Sweden next? Pshaw (and other disgusting glottal and nasal sounds). The west has all these resources….. Yes, the west does. And, despite that, Putin won, right? His lesson is…. Not my lesson. Not your lesson. Putin’s lesson. We don’t get to tell Putin what he learned.
One may sacrifice pawns as not worth fighting for. One, and then another, and another. Not worth the fighting. But at checkmate time, you either surrender or kick over the board.
We don’t get to tell Putin what he learned.
Richard Aubrey
Ukraine, Finland and Sweden have sure shown him what he should have ‘learned’ and/or known before reinvading Ukraine. As you mentioned earlier Putin “had no idea how creaky his military was” and now the entire world knows, Thanks to Ukraine for helping to expose it. Example: Putin calls up dozens of T-55 tanks used as props in Russian films.
Unless Trump lets Putin ‘Off-the-Hook’ by allowing him to have Ukraine – then Putin has already lost his war with Ukraine. He has helped to unit Europe in ways not seen since WW II – Ditto for NATO. He has exposed his “creaky” military to the world – along with Russia’s inability to conduct modern warfare armored movements, communications, unable to control the air, etc. – and has had to resort to using WW I & II tactics.
Have seen some on the right suggesting that America should allow Putin to save face – IMHO, there is no chance of that ever happening—unless Trump caves to Putin’s demands.
I could see allowing Russia to keep some Ukrainian land, maybe like a choice of Crimea or that troublesome eastern Ukraine area…up to Ukraine tho. Then allowing Ukraine into NATO & the EU immediately—i.e., not waiting the “20 years” that Trump is now proposing.
Some great points ‘n info in you comment…