McConnell is destructive to democracy

[Cortez88]

He’s craven cynical and completely immune to charges of hypocrisy. He’s been terrible for our country.

Mitch McConnell Just Blocked A Bipartisan Bill To Protect Robert Mueller

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtm...mueller-bill-russia?__twitter_impression=true

 

[sglowrider]

He epitomises the evil, cynical politician. It's always a 'game' to him.

 

[UncleMark]

He’s craven cynical and completely immune to charges of hypocrisy. He’s been terrible for our country.

Mitch McConnell Just Blocked A Bipartisan Bill To Protect Robert Mueller

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtm...mueller-bill-russia?__twitter_impression=true

So Flake finally found his spine...

He's also talking out his azz:

Flake is the swing vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee and, with Democrats, can vote down judicial nominations. McConnell could still bring these nominations forward to the Senate floor against the will of the committee, but Flake said he doubts this would happen because it would alienate GOP senators.

“I’d be surprised, because there’s such a slim margin on the floor. Some members are sticklers for precedent and you don’t want to get in the habit of basically nullifying a committee’s actions,” said Flake.
​

Yeah, like all those traditionalist Republicans were up in arms over changing the filibuster...

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Yeah, like all those traditionalist Republicans were up in arms over changing the filibuster...

Were the Democrats "up in arms over changing the filibuster" for judicial nominations first? At some point more people will realize that our politicians play a whole lot of politics.

 

[UncleMark]

Were the Democrats "up in arms over changing the filibuster" for judicial nominations first? At some point more people will realize that our politicians play a whole lot of politics.

Yabbut

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Yabbut

Once again, that's a silly "yabbut." You made a specific statement about Republican politicians doing exactly what Democratic politicians did - change the filibuster rules about Judicial nominations. Making that kind of statement without acknowledging that the other side did the same thing is just omitting factual information in an effort to make your preferred side look more virtuous on this matter than the other. That's silly, and so is the "yabbut."

 

[iu_a_att]

Were the Democrats "up in arms over changing the filibuster" for judicial nominations first? At some point more people will realize that our politicians play a whole lot of politics.

Show me the one where the Dem leader refused to go public on a threat of Russian interference in our election. McConnell simply said f**k you to anything other than taking power. McConnell has totally rolled over on holding Trump accountable for anything. McConnell is blocking a bipartisan bill to protect Mueller.

 

[UncleMark]

Once again, that's a silly "yabbut." You made a specific statement about Republican politicians doing exactly what Democratic politicians did - change the filibuster rules about Judicial nominations. Making that kind of statement without acknowledging that the other side did the same thing is just omitting factual information in an effort to make your preferred side look more virtuous on this matter than the other. That's silly, and so is the "yabbut."

Flake stated the GOP Senators were sticklers for precedent. That's what I was ridiculing.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Show me the one where the Dem leader refused to go public on a threat of Russian interference in our election. McConnell simply said f**k you to anything other than taking power. McConnell has totally rolled over on holding Trump accountable for anything. McConnell is blocking a bipartisan bill to protect Mueller.

I wasn't talking about that, was I?

 

[Cortez88]

Were the Democrats "up in arms over changing the filibuster" for judicial nominations first? At some point more people will realize that our politicians play a whole lot of politics.

Aside from maybe Gingrich, I challenge you to name another politician that has cared so little about this country and so much about party power.

We all know why Reid lifted the filibuster for lower court appointees. Now, we can debate whether it was strategically wise. However, I believe McConnell would have blown it up the day he got control anyway. He has tread roughshod on all norms, institutions and decorum. He cares only about power.

 

[iu_a_att]

I wasn't talking about that, was I?

I guess if you ignore all the stuff that only one side does then your point that both sides do it holds up.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Flake stated the GOP Senators were sticklers for precedent. That's what I was ridiculing.

They're all sticklers for precedent, until they're not.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Aside from maybe Gingrich, I challenge you to name another politician that has cared so little about this country and so much about party power.

We all know why Reid lifted the filibuster for lower court appointees. Now, we can debate whether it was strategically wise. However, I believe McConnell would have blown it up the day he got control anyway. He has tread roughshod on all norms, institutions and decorum. He cares only about power.

McConnell didn't exercise the "nuclear option" during the GWB years though he could have. Reid did during the Obama era.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I guess if you ignore all the stuff that only one side does then your point that both sides do it holds up.

This is a useless board most of the time these days. I'm going to watch basketball.

 

[Cortez88]

McConnell didn't exercise the "nuclear option" during the GWB years though he could have. Reid did during the Obama era.

I wonder why Reid did that? Oh yeah -

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

 

[UncleMark]

McConnell didn't exercise the "nuclear option" during the GWB years though he could have.

McConnell didn't have to. The Dems didn't block every single GWB nominee.

Reid did during the Obama era.

Reid finally had to, since the Pubs did block every single nominee.

 

[meridian]

Were the Democrats "up in arms over changing the filibuster" for judicial nominations first? At some point more people will realize that our politicians play a whole lot of politics.

yes.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I wonder why Reid did that? Oh yeah -

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Games isn't on yet despite Michigan being up big on Villanova. That might be the stupidest thing in politics that the Democrats have been stuck on for the entire Obama administration. McConnell said what has been the primary objective of the politicians of the opposite party since just about the beginning of this country. In fact, it has been said many, many times in so many words. Have you not watched political conventions or political events during your life?

 

[wiede]

Games isn't on yet despite Michigan being up big on Villanova. That might be the stupidest thing in politics that the Democrats have been stuck on for the entire Obama administration. McConnell said what has been the primary objective of the politicians of the opposite party since just about the beginning of this country. In fact, it has been said many, many times in so many words. Have you not watched political conventions or political events during your life?

That’s true.

But, McConnell then blocked every single Obama judicial nominee.

That was completely unprecedented. And why Reid did what he did. He really didn’t have much of an option otherwise, unless he was content to just not get a single nominee on the bench.

Let’s make sure we look at things in context.

And, I agree with the OP. McConnell doesn’t give a chit except for straining every ounce out of every piece of power that he has. He doesn’t give a damn about bipartisanship. Never has.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

McConnell didn't have to. The Dems didn't block every single GWB nominee.

Reid finally had to, since the Pubs did block every single nominee.

Nonsense. During the GWB years, the Democrats finally agreed to allow some, but not all, nominees have votes. McConnell didn't have to do that. In fact, it's long been my position that the President, no matter the party, should have his nominees voted up or down by majority vote. McConnell actually decided precedent was too important to throw away at that time. Reid changed the rule because Republicans were blocking too many nominees (see, I'm happy to admit the faults of the Republicans too) and I was actually fine with the change, because, as I said, the nominees should get up or down votes no matter the party of the President. Once that happened, it was inevitable that the filibuster would go away for SCOTUS nominees. This is tit for tat politics at it's best - or worst.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That was completely unprecedented.

As were the filibusters of judicial nominees during the GWB years. Everything in context.

 

[wiede]

As were the filibusters of judicial nominees during the GWB years. Everything in context.

I agree on the up or down vote standard. Filibustering a few is fine. Filibustering all is insanity.

If I had to rank the folks that broke bipartanship, I’d rank them like this:

1) Gingrich- the first to openly say the hell with the other side- and be rewarded by it
2) McConnell- not allowing the Garland hearing was contrary to the actual constitution. There few things more clear in the constitution than the right for a sitting president to appoint a SC nominee.
3) Reid- getting rid of the filibuster on any level is bad

Trump deserves his own ranking. It’s his absolute mission to divide. That’s what he thrives on. He’s not happy unless he’s fighting with someone- doesn’t matter what it’s about.

And we’ve gone downhill ever since the Clinton era.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I agree on the up or down vote standard. Filibustering a few is fine. Filibustering all is insanity.

If I had to rank the folks that broke bipartanship, I’d rank them like this:

1) Gingrich- the first to openly say the hell with the other side- and be rewarded by it
2) McConnell- not allowing the Garland hearing was contrary to the actual constitution. There few things more clear in the constitution than the right for a sitting president to appoint a SC nominee.
3) Reid- getting rid of the filibuster on any level is bad

Trump deserves his own ranking. It’s his absolute mission to divide. That’s what he thrives on. He’s not happy unless he’s fighting with someone- doesn’t matter what it’s about.

And we’ve gone downhill ever since the Clinton era.

I’d say we’ve been going downhill since Reagan era, but we’ve had other downhill periods before too.

 

[T.M.P.]

Were the Democrats "up in arms over changing the filibuster" for judicial nominations first? At some point more people will realize that our politicians play a whole lot of politics.

Probably why they're called politicians. I've always found it odd that people complain about them doing what they do. They're playing politics. They're being political. It's like complaining a basketball player plays basketball.

 

[T.M.P.]

I’d say we’ve been going downhill since Reagan era, but we’ve had other downhill periods before too.

I firmly believe that the grand ole perfect past some people hold on to is a fantasy utopia that never existed.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I firmly believe that the grand ole perfect past some people hold on to is a fantasy utopia that never existed.

Politics has never been perfect.

 

[Cortez88]

Politics has never been perfect.

While this is a true statement, it also seems like the epitome of the both sides argument. The original post is about one politician in particular. McConnell is far from being like all politicians. He plays politics and does so very well I might add. However it’s his cold blooded preference for power over doing the right thing that makes him so offensive.

The main reason I made the OP was that McConnell wrote this incredibly disingenuous op ed ONE DAY before blocking the Mueller protection legislation:

Sen. Mitch McConnell: Will Dems work with us, or simply put partisan politics ahead of the country?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen...ly-put-partisan-politics-ahead-of-the-country

 

[CO. Hoosier]

He’s craven cynical and completely immune to charges of hypocrisy. He’s been terrible for our country.

Mitch McConnell Just Blocked A Bipartisan Bill To Protect Robert Mueller

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtm...mueller-bill-russia?__twitter_impression=true

McConnell did the right thing. Everybody agreed special prosecutor legislative protections was a bad idea the last time we enacted it as we reacted to Watergate. We wisely allowed that law to sunset. History is repeating itself. The clamor now for special counsel legislative protection is solely and exclusively a reaction to Trump. Trump’s conflict with Mueller doesn’t make a bad idea good.

That being said, I hate the politicization of the DOJ in general. ALL administrations of the last 50 years have done that to varying degrees. Politicization became noticeably worse in the 21st century. I'd support an effort to change the DOJ to an independent entity, but there is no way that will ever happen.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I agree on the up or down vote standard. Filibustering a few is fine. Filibustering all is insanity.

If I had to rank the folks that broke bipartanship, I’d rank them like this:

1) Gingrich- the first to openly say the hell with the other side- and be rewarded by it
2) McConnell- not allowing the Garland hearing was contrary to the actual constitution. There few things more clear in the constitution than the right for a sitting president to appoint a SC nominee.
3) Reid- getting rid of the filibuster on any level is bad

Trump deserves his own ranking. It’s his absolute mission to divide. That’s what he thrives on. He’s not happy unless he’s fighting with someone- doesn’t matter what it’s about.

And we’ve gone downhill ever since the Clinton era.

I'd describe the problem as a substantial increase in an unwillingness to make compromises on important policy issues. That could be the same as an increase in partisanship. I see it as an increase of a failure to make deals. Even partisans make deals. We are the blame for that. No politician will attract votes by promising to make reasonable compromises. Instead they make promises to "FIGHT for you."

I disagree with your take on Gingrich. While he was part of the problem with the governmental shutdown, he also took the lead on negotiating very important and substantial policy changes with Clinton, including welfare reform, a balanced budget, and criminal justice. I think your Trump reaction is only based upon his tweets and comments. The substance of Trump is that he made a compromise offer on immigration reform like none before him. Both the conservative Freedom Caucus and the Democrats are responsible for that failure. He also made huge compromises on the budget, but all that did was increase the deficit.

The refusal to compromise in congress has been lurking for decades. It hasn't reached significance until recently. While McConnell has gotten a lot of flack for his "one term" remark, his actions have been just the opposite. Some of McConnell's deals led Cruz to call McConnell a liar on the floor of the senate. I don't think the unwillingness to compromise resided in the Oval Office until President Pen and Phone took over. He saw politics as combat and always a winning or losing proposition. That was new.

Part of the problem with congress is the growth of "specialty" caucuses. I'm talking about such things as the Freedom, Black, and Women's caucuses. If I had my way, these caucuses would be outlawed as against the public interest. They only serve to divide congress and put road blocks in the path of legislation. Now that Pelosi has played the "women card" in her fight to be speaker, things will get real interesting. We will have the women's caucus fight the New Democrats and dividing the Dems. Pass the popcorn.

 

[Cortez88]

I'd describe the problem as a substantial increase in an unwillingness to make compromises on important policy issues. That could be the same as an increase in partisanship. I see it as an increase of a failure to make deals. Even partisans make deals. We are the blame for that. No politician will attract votes by promising to make reasonable compromises. Instead they make promises to "FIGHT for you."

I disagree with your take on Gingrich. While he was part of the problem with the governmental shutdown, he also took the lead on negotiating very important and substantial policy changes with Clinton, including welfare reform, a balanced budget, and criminal justice. I think your Trump reaction is only based upon his tweets and comments. The substance of Trump is that he made a compromise offer on immigration reform like none before him. Both the conservative Freedom Caucus and the Democrats are responsible for that failure. He also made huge compromises on the budget, but all that did was increase the deficit.

The refusal to compromise in congress has been lurking for decades. It hasn't reached significance until recently. While McConnell has gotten a lot of flack for his "one term" remark, his actions have been just the opposite. Some of McConnell's deals led Cruz to call McConnell a liar on the floor of the senate. I don't think the unwillingness to compromise resided in the Oval Office until President Pen and Phone took over. He saw politics as combat and always a winning or losing proposition. That was new.

Part of the problem with congress is the growth of "specialty" caucuses. I'm talking about such things as the Freedom, Black, and Women's caucuses. If I had my way, these caucuses would be outlawed as against the public interest. They only serve to divide congress and put road blocks in the path of legislation. Now that Pelosi has played the "women card" in her fight to be speaker, things will get real interesting. We will have the women's caucus fight the New Democrats and dividing the Dems. Pass the popcorn.

On Gingrich, I urge you to read this long piece. He admits to being a bomb thrower and does so gleefully. The article also makes it clear that Newt didn’t think this strategy through very well.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/

 

[wiede]

McConnell did the right thing. Everybody agreed special prosecutor legislative protections was a bad idea the last time we enacted it as we reacted to Watergate. We wisely allowed that law to sunset. History is repeating itself. The clamor now for special counsel legislative protection is solely and exclusively a reaction to Trump. Trump’s conflict with Mueller doesn’t make a bad idea good.

That being said, I hate the politicization of the DOJ in general. ALL administrations of the last 50 years have done that to varying degrees. Politicization became noticeably worse in the 21st century. I'd support an effort to change the DOJ to an independent entity, but there is no way that will ever happen.

Why not protect it, with limits? We’ve been there done that, so why couldn’t we just improve what we did?

We’re a short step or two away from a constitutional crisis. It’s time to put up, or shut up.

And, I agree in theory on the DOJ. But that’ll never happen. By definition, the DOJ is responsible for carrying out the priorities of every administration that presides over it. And those differences will always be inherently political.

We’ve never had a president that places personal loyalty to him over doing what’s right for the country. That’s why it seems so bad right now. All the invisible boundaries allowing the DOJ to operate largely independently have been assaulted by Trump. Think about this- he’s literally fired two people, because of “the Russia thing” (Comey) & because one failed to protect him from the Mueller investigation (Sessions). And he was quite open about both. Comey didn’t go along with Trump’s “loyalty pledge”, and Sessions had to recuse himself because of ethics. Something that Trump really doesn’t care about.

All of that makes it even more imperative that the special counsel have protection right now. If you want to draftbit differently, fine. That’s a great idea. But something has to be done.

Trump also placed a completely illegal AG within office after Sessions was forced to resign, and the only historical corollary was a very short (less than a week I believe) out of succession appt.- in 1866.

And this same acting AG was openly hostile to the Mueller probe, and even disavows the legal concepts of Marbury V Madison (essentiaooy tbe foundation of our legal system) & supports the doctrine of nullification (states being able to override federal mandates). In other words, not only is he hopelessly compromised with respect to overseeing the Mueller investigation (he should’ve immediately recused himself), he’s also unqualified in general. That’s because his legal views are batchit crazy (I think that’s the legal term :

Oh, and the FBI is still investigating a company that he had a vital role in for fraud- and he’s a material witness. And he’s technically over the FBI- while they’re investigating him!

In short, this guy has no business being anywhere close the role he’s in. His only qualifications are an intense opposition to the Mueller probe, and loyalty to Trump.

If not legislation protecting the special counsel, what else can be done? If Trump is allowed to carry out a slow motion Saturday night massacre, what stops every president from that point forward of doing the same (or worse)? Again, It’s clear that Whitaker was placed on his position solely to protect Trump- news reports showed that even before he received an ethical opinion on whether he should recuse, he stated that he wouldn’t recuse.

And to tie this back to the original post, McConnel is the one explicitly blocking even bringing the issue to the floor. THAT is partisanship at its absolute worst, and why he’s one of the worst. He’d rather keep power than allow everyone to find out what exactly happened in the 2016 presidential election. Even if it means destroying norms and precedent that has kept the government in balance.

Yeah, politics is a rough and tumble sport. There’s no doubt. And there are some dirty players. But sports have rules. And Trump is completing violating them. This is literally about protecting the integrity of our government. And all McConnel can do is do everything in his power to allow him to do it.

If you made it this far, thank you. I know it was long.

But the question is, if not legaislation protecting the special counsel, what else should/could be done? The answer shouldn’t be nothing, given what’s going on and what’s at stake here. What’s the harm in bringing the measure to the floor, and debating it?

 

[twenty02]

Aside from maybe Gingrich, I challenge you to name another politician that has cared so little about this country and so much about party power.

We all know why Reid lifted the filibuster for lower court appointees. Now, we can debate whether it was strategically wise. However, I believe McConnell would have blown it up the day he got control anyway. He has tread roughshod on all norms, institutions and decorum. He cares only about power.

Easy.... Harry Reid. To think he behaved any differently than McConnell is being naive. Reid was as partisan hackish as they come.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

McConnell is like Brian Cardinal was at Purdue, someone one loves if they are on their team but hates on another team. Democrats haven't had anyone close in being able to run roughshod over the Senate like McConnell, so we hate him. Of course, part of that is due to the old Will Rogers saying about the Democratic Party not being organized.

 

[Cortez88]

Easy.... Harry Reid. To think he behaved any differently than McConnell is being naive. Reid was as partisan hackish as they come.

I must naive then. Yes, I realize that any person in that role will be partisan, and likely hyper partisan. Reid was a partisan hack. McConnell is a different animal though. He’s too competent in his objective to be simply a partisan hack. He is working solely to concentrate power in a party. Not to govern. Not to in any way better out country. Just to be in and hold onto power. At all costs.

 

[twenty02]

I must naive then. Yes, I realize that any person in that role will be partisan, and likely hyper partisan. Reid was a partisan hack. McConnell is a different animal though. He’s too competent in his objective to be simply a partisan hack. He is working solely to concentrate power in a party. Not to govern. Not to in any way better out country. Just to be in and hold onto power. At all costs.

I'll say that McConnell has been getting pressure from Trump since day 1 to completely abolish the filibuster....and has not given into that. As he knows that one day tables will be flipped. (With a Dem House, that's irrelevant for now, anyway).

I don't have any affection for the guy at all...but I don't really see him as someone much outside the norm of behavior of past Senate majority leaders.

 

[UncleMark]

I don't have any affection for the guy at all...but I don't really see him as someone much outside the norm of behavior of past Senate majority leaders.

I'm sorry, but the Merrick Garland nomination puts him in a whole different category than anyone who has ever held the position.

 

[twenty02]

My larger issue is the total dysfunction of Congress due to the overwhelming power of leadership in both houses.

Too many bills that would easily pass with super majority support if ever brought to a vote die at the hands of a majority leader/speaker.

This Mueller bill would easily get 60 votes. The criminal justice reform bill...that Trump came out for.... would get 70+....but is being stymied by one Senator (Tom Cotton, at the behest of McConnell). It's dysfunctional.

There is a big push in the House to change the rules to remove some power from the Speaker's hand. Something needs done.

 

[Cortez88]

My larger issue is the total dysfunction of Congress due to the overwhelming power of leadership in both houses.

Too many bills that would easily pass with super majority support if ever brought to a vote die at the hands of a majority leader/speaker.

This Mueller bill would easily get 60 votes. The criminal justice reform bill...that Trump came out for.... would get 70+....but is being stymied by one Senator (Tom Cotton, at the behest of McConnell). It's dysfunctional.

There is a big push in the House to change the rules to remove some power from the Speaker's hand. Something needs done.

Completely agree on all this. Cotton’s ability to block the very popular criminal justice reform bill is a prime example. Take it to the floor and vote. Mueller bill. Take it to the floor and vote. Allowing McConnell or the House Speaker to control all debate and votes is not very democratic IMO.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

My larger issue is the total dysfunction of Congress due to the overwhelming power of leadership in both houses.

Too many bills that would easily pass with super majority support if ever brought to a vote die at the hands of a majority leader/speaker.

This Mueller bill would easily get 60 votes. The criminal justice reform bill...that Trump came out for.... would get 70+....but is being stymied by one Senator (Tom Cotton, at the behest of McConnell). It's dysfunctional.

There is a big push in the House to change the rules to remove some power from the Speaker's hand. Something needs done.

I read a book on the House Committee on the Conduct of the War that was very interesting. At the time of the Civil War, there was no concept of seniority in the House. Most of the rules we have now did not exist, the House was far less top down.

My biggest hope if the Democrats do not elect to have their own Hastert Rule. I find the concept abhorrent to proper governance.

 

[iu_a_att]

I read a book on the House Committee on the Conduct of the War that was very interesting. At the time of the Civil War, there was no concept of seniority in the House. Most of the rules we have now did not exist, the House was far less top down.

My biggest hope if the Democrats do not elect to have their own Hastert Rule. I find the concept abhorrent to proper governance.

I disagree. Acting as a cohesive block is the Democrats' best chance to positively influence policy given Trump and Trumpism are driving the Presidency and the Senate. In any case, there are no Republicans who are going to behave in a bipartisan manner in the house.