Republicans playing hardball?
Well, one can hope.
It’s a fairly small and circumscribed game of hardball, but I applaud it:
Ms. Lynch’s vote to become attorney general is on hold for precisely one reason: Democrats won’t play ball on a bill to combat human sex trafficking. This is legislation, note, that is as bipartisan as it comes. It was jointly authored by Republican John Cornyn and Democrat Amy Klobuchar, and co-sponsored by much of the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell followed regular order, and Democrats gave unanimous consent to move the bill.
Yet suddenly faced with the real prospect of doing something productive””after six, long years of hiding from votes””the Senate Democratic caucus wigged out. (Debate? Vote? How does one do those things?) Desperate to revert to comfortable dysfunction, Democrats suddenly “discovered” language in the bill that upholds a prohibition against the federal funding of abortions.
Yes, it is language that has been in law for 37 years and yes, it was in the bill all along, and yes, Democrats had voted for it unanimously in committee, and yes they had voted for it unanimously last year in an appropriations bill. But Minority Leader Harry Reid needed a reason to balk, and the abortion language had the side benefit of allowing Democrats to revive the Republican “war on women.” They filibustered.
At which point, something new happened. Mr. McConnell made clear that so long as he didn’t get his trafficking bill, Democrats didn’t get Ms. Lynch. He would devote the rest of this week to the Cornyn-Klobuchar legislation, next week would be about the budget, the week after that would be Easter recess, and so on. Let’s hope Ms. Lynch enjoys Sudoku. No give, no get.
I think the reason McConnell is doing this for this particular bill is that, as Strassel writes, it’s “as bipartisan as it comes.” Or at least it was, previously.
It would be nice if Republicans could publicize this Democratic intransigence really, really loudly. But how do they go over the heads of the MSM to do it?
“Mr. McConnell made clear that so long as he didn’t get his trafficking bill, Democrats didn’t get Ms. Lynch.”
Though I wish I could, I can’t applaud it. The negatives far outweigh the positives. McConnell’s ‘hardball’ is a very bad trade. Implicit is that McConnell still seeks to restore the Senate’s former collegiality and civility. Which indicates that he is in denial as to the actual nature of the democrats.
Its obvious that regardless of how civil and respectful of Senate rules the republicans are, the democrats will throw it all in the trash at the first opportunity.
McConnell is offering demonstrable proof that he won’t go to a simple majority vote to forward legislation to Obama. Which means that Obama will be rarely vetoing legislation because the Senate will only be forwarding legislation of which Obama and the democrats approve. In effect, Reid still has a veto on Senate legislation. So much for offering alternatives (that LIVs can see) to the democrat’s ‘solutions’.
McCain for once is right, not one Republican should vote for the execrable Lynch and without their votes she can’t be confirmed. So if he were a man of principle, McConnell would have nothing to trade.
Then there’s the trafficking bill itself, which is, as you say a bipartisan bill, that Obama cannot veto without taking a hard political hit.
This is literally a perfect example of McConnell playing checkers, while Obama and Reid are playing chess.
Geoffrey Britain:
So you think that Republicans should use the nuclear option (or whatever it’s called) merely to put bills on Obama’s desk that he will veto, and that are unlikely to be overridden because the Republicans usually can’t wring enough votes from Democrats?
I am not at all sure that’s a good idea, although sometimes I think it is.
Another thing, though–in order for McConnell to have nothing to trade because all Republicans say no to confirming Lynch, he would have to convince or pressure all Republicans into not confirming Lynch. I’m not sure that’s possible, although I suppose he might be able to mount a big enough threat.
And what happens if Lynch is withdrawn? Democrats get to call the Republicans racist (which I realize they do anyway), and more importantly, Obama nominates another person just as bad or worse. And it goes on and on and on, because Obama will never nominate anyone any better, unfortunately, and there’s an endless supply of candidates who are right on board with his agenda.
So, what would be gained? At least the way it’s going now the Republicans might get something out of it.
The ‘nuclear option’ is the way to go. There is nothing to gain by allowing dirty harry to control the agenda of the senate. There is much to gain by sending bills that would have the support of a majority of voters that bho would veto. Eric, and others, talk about the narrative… make the narrative bho’s intransigence.
Contrary to my real thoughts and actions, I will always be a racist, sexist, and homophobic troglodyte according to the zombies of the left, simply because I am white, male, and heterosexual. Water off a duck’s back imo. Until the right shrugs off this silly fear it can not combat the msm propaganda war.
“So you think that Republicans should use the nuclear option (or whatever it’s called)
merelyto put bills on Obama’s desk that he will veto, and that are unlikely to be overridden because the Republicans usually can’t wring enough votes from Democrats?”Yes but with several caveats. The bills sent should be selective, they should be bills like the trafficking bill, where a veto by Obama will be difficult to impossible to spin. As I explained on another thread, the bills should not be a hodgepodge of issues but instead very specific. Let Obama explain why he refuses to sign a bill that solely funds the military, one that only funds social security, another just cancer research, etc.
The negative effect of such a campaign for Obama and the democrats will initially be negligible but over time, cumulatively, the charge of an obstructionist Obama and democrats vetoing bills that ‘everyone’ wants will be politically devastating, most of all to congressional democrats up for reelection in 2016. Such a campaign will also trash the party’s image with LIVs.
Secondly, an important side benefit of sending bills that Obama will veto is to be able to bring an override vote to the floor so as to expose those democrats and RINOs who were ‘for it before they were against it’. Exposing those who first vote for a bill and then vote against an override isn’t a strategic bug but a strategic feature.
I’m not looking for McConnell to convince or pressure all Republicans into not confirming Lynch, I’m looking to expose those who do vote for Lynch.
As things stand, I expect Lynch to be confirmed, I just want it to hurt those who support Obama and anyone who votes for Lynch IS supporting Obama on his choice for an AG. How are we going to oust the RINOs in future elections, if their chicanery isn’t on the record?
Indeed, if Lynch is rejected, Obama will nominate another person just as bad or worse. So what? Let them cry racism and in doing so, provide McConnell with the opportunity to respond, “It’s not the color of Lynch’s skin, it’s the color of her racism toward whites, matched only by the President’s.” The GOP has to stop being the MSMs punching bag, they have to fight back with blunt honesty.
No offense but you’re kidding yourself that there is any possibility that “the way it’s going now the Republicans might get something out of it”.
Geoffrey Britain,
No, not kidding myself. That was a weak “might” rather than a strong one.
As far as the rest goes, if the Republicans have enough votes to override, than they have enough votes to put a bill on Obama’s desk without the nuclear option. It takes 2/3 to override but only 60 to force cloture.
That’s why I’m not at all sure using the nuclear option is a good idea—it would only be necessary pretty much when there are NOT enough votes to override the veto. Most voters are not paying attention to all this stuff, but using the nuclear option can and will come back to bite Republicans if and when they lose the Senate (which could happen in 2016). Of course, I believe the Democrats would not hesitate to use it if and when they gain power, which is what makes me think Republicans should use it now. I am torn about this issue; have not resolved it, and your arguments don’t convince me one way or the other, because as I said it would only be necessary when they don’t have the votes to override anyway.
The nuclear option works much better if and when the party using it also has the presidency. It’s a tool to get past the minority blocking things. But if the majority is of a different party than the president, and the president is determined to veto, the nuclear option is much less effective because it can’t get past him without the 2/3.
The Democrats, of course, are turning this into a race issue. Dick Durbin yesterday said Republicans were asking Lynch to “sit in the back of the bus”.
Please watch how this was covered on last night’s NBC News, superficially, as expected, but what really caught my eye was at the 1:04 point when Harry Reid nudges the fellow sitting next to him right at the moment when Durbin makes that statement. All clearly orchestrated.
neo,
“As far as the rest goes, if the Republicans have enough votes to override, than they have enough votes to put a bill on Obama’s desk without the nuclear option. It takes 2/3 to override but only 60 to force cloture.
That’s why I’m not at all sure using the nuclear option is a good idea–it would only be necessary pretty much when there are NOT enough votes to override the veto.”
It appears I haven’t explained my position clearly enough. It’s a given that they don’t have enough votes to override. I’m not suggesting that the Republicans invoke the nuclear option to get bills to Obama for their own sake (since anything truly worthwhile he’ll veto). I’m suggesting that the Republicans invoke the nuclear option so that they can bring as much legislation as possible to the floor for an override vote. That can be used to the GOP’s advantage because if Obama vetoes enough popular legislation it will negatively impact the dems chances in 2016.
It’s a win-win for the republicans for if the dems vote against popular and/or obviously necessary legislation, they become vulnerable to the charge of obstructionism. On the other hand, if they first vote for it and then vote against the override, they have to explain why “they were for it before they were against it”.
Right now its obvious that the GOP is sending bills to Obama that he’ll agree to and that prevents them from credibly portraying themselves as any different from the dems. So why should LIVs vote for republicans in 2016?
“Most voters are not paying attention to all this stuff, but using the nuclear option can and will come back to bite Republicans if and when they lose the Senate (which could happen in 2016).”
LIVs will start paying attention when enough popular and/or obviously necessary legislation is vetoed by Obama and blocked by the dems in an override vote. That’s why I suggest a cumulative campaign of popular and singular legislation whose necessity is obvious.
It’s going to bite the republicans on the butt anyway, as you have repeatedly admitted. The dems will invoke it again at their first opportunity.
The paradigm has changed, collegiality and Senate decorum are gone and as long as leftist ideologues place ideology above loyalty to America it will not return. There’s no going back and the republicans have to stop fighting by the ‘Marquis of Queensbury’ rules.
If they don’t, its an implicit admission of collaboration, rather than opposition to the Left’s Marxist-Progressivism.
Geoffrey Britain:
I wish you were right about what will make the LIVs pay attention. Unfortunately, I strongly feel that you are wrong about how noteworthy something has to be to get attention.
To be blunt: I know very few people except for those who are already political junkies who pay a particle of attention to what Obama will be vetoing. He could veto 3,000 bills in a row and they would not pay attention to a single one (unless it happens to be some pet bill of theirs, although that’s unlikely because LIVs don’t tend to follow most bills; or unless the bill was something that would have cut off a benefit they feel is very important to them, in which case they would applaud Obama’s veto). I don’t know what circles you run in, but I know very very few people who follow anything but the major outlines of the news, and they certainly don’t follow vetoes ordinarily. They know about Obamacare because it was hyped to the skies and also impacted their lives. Other than that? Very little.
That’s why I think it is foolish to do away with the filibuster/cloture 60-vote rule in order to get the attention of LIVs with a lot of Obama vetoes. Do me a favor and ask 50 people you know who are LIVs if they’ve heard what happened with Keystone lately. I believe you will get at least 49 “Huh??” responses. Nor will the MSM start running big headlines: “Obama vetoes 24th bill!”
That’s my prediction, anyway.
If you do not shoot back you will die. Its not a complicated affair. Surrender is not the path to victory. Sorry neonocon, but you are soft. There is a time of compromise, and there is an a time to enage with taking no prisoners.
Parker:
You’re absolutely right. The Republicans are going to continue being punching bags until they start playing hardball the way the Democrats do. The problem isn’t that you need to convince Neo, but that we need to convince the cheese-eating surrender monkeys in Congress.
I don’t know. Someone who does know, with “boots on the ground” (ie, working to prevent “human trafficking” using the internet in the field), convinced me that most of what passes for “human trafficking” isn’t.
Why does such a non-problem deeply stir people? Remnants of other moral panics, like the Mann Act (to attack “white slavery”) that gave us the FBI.
Oh, goody – did we really need that long descent away from states rights and responsibilities? Edward Snowden ought to be more informed that he already is.