Mitch McConnell on the Kavanuagh Confirmation

Mitch McConnell on Good Democrat Smears

Mitch McConnell on Being Senate Majority Leader

On Applying the Nuclear Option and Comity

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution gives the United States Senate the prerogative to give "Advice and Consent" in confirming Executive Branch nominations, especially the judiciary. For most of the Republic, confirmations of Supreme Court justices were not voted on in a markedly partisan manner. 

The Senate, which liked to consider itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, usually operated in a manner which vetted high court nominees in a conscientiously deferential manner to the President.  For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been chief counsel of the ACLU and a noted feminist attorney, yet she garnered a 93-3 confirmation vote in 1993. 

Admittedly, this was not always the case. President George H.W. Bush's nominee of Clarence Thomas endured a contentious confirmation hearings  in 1991 which he likened to a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks".  

And  of course the vitriolic attacks on Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan's 1987 pick to fill a Supreme Court opening, resulted in the verb "to Bork" to be added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2002.  But the adamant opposition from the left stemmed, however peripherally, to nitpicking "flaws" in the nominees.

Much of the comity that the Senate enjoyed was due to Cloture Rule (Senate Rule XXII) which was instituted in 1917.  In order to end debate on a filibuster, three-fifths of Senators (today 60 votes) is required.  Applying that to judicial nominees, Presidents often picked less stridently partisan or controversial candidates, as some Senate Minority votes were needed in order to advance to the confirmation vote.  

Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) found this 3/5ths Cloture requirement to be inconvenient in his effort to aid President Barack Obama in packing the judiciary (particularly changing the balance in the 4th Circuit, a.k.a. "The Rocket Docket").  Thus, in 2013 Reid exercised "The Nuclear Option" which abrogated Senate Rule XXII for judicial confirmations save Supreme Court nominees. 

 Reid was warned on the Senate floor by then Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that you will regret using the nuclear option.   In the 115th Congress, when Senate Democrats became openly obstructionistic about any nominations made by President Donald Trump, Majority Leader McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to include Supreme Court nominees, which resulted in Neil Gorsuch being confirmed by a 54-45 vote.

After Justice Anthony Kennedy's announced retirement from the Nation's High Court, Democrats have campaigned for the Senate to delay confirmation hearings for the SCOTUS opening until after the 2018 midterm elections.  Their facile rationalization is that Republicans ought to follow the same standard used to deny Merritt Garland a confirmation hearing in 2016 because it was an election year.  Of course, this partisan plea ignores that it was a Presidential election year and had over 70 years of precedent.  In addition, Democrats are not in the majority and they set the agenda. Elections do have consequences.  

So does changing and exploiting rules.  Democrats might have some gravitas to their suggestion to stall SCOTUS confirmation hearing until after the midterms if they were not already slow walking nearly all Trump confirmations.   Senate rules allow for 30 hours of debate on each nominee.  Democrats have been routinely requiring the entire 30 hours of debate, which would mean that President Trump's picks could receive senatorial "advise and consent" in nine years. So the threat that Democrats will further slow walk Senate proceedings in retaliation or to forestall a SCOTUS confirmation vote is meaningless. 

The recalcitrant response of Democrats should be a cue to Majority Leader McConnell on how to react to the diminution of comity in the Senate.  If Democrats are going to slow walk everything in retaliation or retribution for the Senate leadership for exercising their "advice and consent" on Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner, then keep them in session.  McConnell already effectively cancelled the traditional long summer recess so they can meet their budgetary duties. So they get to spend the dog days of summer on Capital Hill and enjoy the swampy weather in the District of Calamity (sic).

But the lack of comity and the need for elected officials to do their job might mean spending more time on Capitol Hill.  Since Democrats seem to relish filibusters and slowing the process down, the Majority Leader should change how filibutsters are treated.  Instead of the failure of a cloture vote resulting in the legislation (or the nomination) being pulled, let the debate continue.  If legislators want to invoke "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and talk until they are hoarse and drop from exhaustion, that is their prerogative.  But just as the nuclear option changed things in unexpected ways, tinkering with the filibuster might have adverse effects on Senate minority rights in the future.

Moreover, so that the Senate is not simply the place where legislation goes to and dies, remain in session through October instead of taking the election break.  From an objective standpoint, they will be doing their jobs (instead of concentrating on getting re-elected).  Politically, this hurts Senate Democrats (as they have 25 of 33 seats up, including 10 in states where Mr. Trump won).  And it might make obstructionism less appealing and allow incumbents to give comity a chance.

John Brennan on Enabling Trump

McConnell: McCain Won't Scuttle Trump Tax Reform

Mitch McConnell Verbally Battles Bannon Fodder

At the Value Voters Summit, ex Trump Administration strategist Stephen Bannon declared war against the Republican Establishment who will not support President Trump's agenda.  Bannon specifically targeted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). According to Bannon, he will not raise funds for any candidates who would vote for McConnell as the GOP Leader in the 116th Congress. 

After a working lunch between President Trump and the Senate Majority Leader, the two Republican leaders had a Rose Garden press conference which sought to mollify Bannon's calls for internecine revolt. President Trump claimed to understand why Bannon was agitated but suggested that not everyone in the Senate should be thrown out, as some members are good for the Trump agenda.

Majority Leader McConnell battled the Bannon fodder by suggesting that the way to win in Washington is to choose the right candidates, rather than achieve legislative accomplishments for a President in the same party.  McConnell called to mind the Tea Party boomlet in 2010, in which insurgents like Sharron Angle (R-NV) and Christine O'Donnell (R-DE), who upset GOP establishment candidates but who lost in the end.  Of course, these Tea Party insurgents did not get strong assistance from the national Republican Party and faced hostility from prospective colleagues like Senator John McCain.

On Celebrity Candidates and Whether Stephen King is It for Maine’s Governor

Recently, former Governor John Baldacci (D-ME) has revived an effort to draft home state author extraordinaire Stephen King to run for the top post in Maine.  Aside from King’s celebrity status, the best-selling author has running grudge with the incumbent Governor Paul LePage concerning a quip that the writer left the state to avoid income taxes.  Even though King issued a Shermanesque denial of candidacy in March 2017, Democrat partisans still are seeking to draft him for Governor in 2018..

There have been some successes in celebrities turned into politicians. Obviously, President Donald Trump (R-NY) gained fame by parlaying his realty mogul status into a starring role in The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice before successfully running for the White House in 2016.  

President Ronald Reagan (R-CA) was a “B” movie star in the 1950s and corporate spokesman in the 1960s and was elected President for two terms in 1980. 

While both Reagan and Trump got a leg up from their celebrity status both in name recognition and fundraising potential, they were outsider candidates who rallied on reformist political platforms. Reagan espoused a Western brand of conservatism, which sought to cut the size and scope of government and live up to constitutional principles.  Trump identifies more with nationalist populism and an impetus to “drain the swamp” between the beltways to “Make America Great Again”.  Reagan was more committed to a conservative philosophy than Trump seems to adhere to a strict ideology, but both challenged their party to go in different directions.  

There have been some other recent cases of celebrity candidates.  Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was a contributor on Saturday Night Live along with having a minor movie and radio career until he won an extremel close three way Senate race in 2008.  Despite his self publicity, it is dubious if Al Franken is a Giant of the Senate (2017), even tongue in cheek.



Minnesota has a knack for electing celebrity politicians as Gov. Jesse Ventura (Reform-MN) was a professional wrestler before winning a three way election in 1998.  But Ventura was an outsider candidate who had several years experience being mayor of a Minneapolis suburb. 

In the recall special election to replace Governor Gray Davis (D-CA), Arnold Schwartznegger (R-CA) won the Governorship of California in 2003 against 134 other candidates. So clearly celebrity status helped in that special election, but star status did not boost all celebrities as Gary Coleman's and porn star Mary Carey's campaigns were for naught.   Schwartznegger served two terms as the "Gubernator".

Music sensation Kid Rock seems to be seriously flirting with running for Senate in Michigan in 2018.  Partisans are taking a Kid Rock candidacy so seriously that the Rev. Al Sharpton sought to have Kid Rock’s concerts inaugurating Little Caesar’s Arena to be cancelled as Sharpton's group vituperatively charged that the singer was dog whistle white supremicist. 

Although they have name advantage, celebrity candidates do not always pan out well. Consider the case of Ashley Judd, who took a leap into partisan politics skewering Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) over abortion during the 2012 Presidential campaign. Judd seriously flirted with running for Senate against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in 2014. But Judd opted against the run after the Democrat establishment made it clear to her that  combination of being inexperienced as well as being too liberal and anti-coal doomed her candidacy.

There have been some sports stars who have parlayed their celebrity status into electoral success, such as Congressman Jack Kemp (R-NY 31st, 38th, 39th), Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK 4th) and Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY).  But all of the aforementioned officials got their start in the House.  

Being in the media also has launched some political careers, such as Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ 5th) and Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC).  Radio hosts tend to form a bond with their listeners but those on television tend to have more exposure.  The challenge for celebrity candidates is to connect with voters by compelling keeping on message and guarding against exploitable unscripted moments.  Thus it is easy for Ashley Judd to appear in anti-pro-life ads against Santorum but how does she react when her life is an open book and there is not someone off-stage feeding her lines.  Or in King’s case, he is adept at taking pot shots against his bete-noire LePage but how does he sound on the stump if that is his predominant schtick? King is a good public speaker with a friendly audience but he might sound prickly with unfriendly audiences.

It is uncertain if the 69 year old King will back away from his Shermanesque refusal to run. However, Democrats are concerned about the 2018 cycle. In the Senate, Democrats have 24 of 33 seats up in 2018 with 10 vulnerable incumbents.  In the states, Republican have 34 of 50 governors’ mansions.  

It seems that Democrats see an opportunity to gain another statehouse against a weak incumbent Governor. Gov. LePage has a 47% favorable to 48% unfavorable rating so party insiders might think they could pick up a win with King.  And having a high profile governor, even of a small state, would be useful as the national Democrat leadership fights it out as to who will lead them in the 2020 election.  Along with being cajoled from Maine Democrat movers and shakers to run, King might also be swayed by that old typing exercise: “Now is the time for all good men to come to aid of their party.” 

Patrick Leahy on the Proposed Gorsuch Filibuster

Even though Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has reiterated his intent to invoke a filibuster on the cloture vote for President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, not all of his colleagues are on board.  Veteran Senator Patrick Leahy, who offered vigorous invigilation during Gorsuch's Senate Judiciary Committee appearance, indicated that he is not inclined to filibuster the nominee.

Schumer's intransigence is no surprise, as he requires President Trump to abandon his Republican colleagues to gain his support. But perhaps Leahy recognizes that Senate Democrats lack the ability to ultimately block Gorsuch's eventual ascent to the High Court.  Or maybe the long time member of the world's oldest deliberative body frets that blocking the cloture vote would inspire Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to "go nuclear" and extend the Reid Rule's application to Advice and Consent for Supreme Court nominees.  

Primary Concerns for Senate Democrats Supporting Gorsuch Cloture Vote

Now that they are relegated to minority political status in the District of Calamity, the progressive wing of the Democrat party feel free to impose purity tests and try to effectively take over the party.

One of the litmus tests for a Senate Democrat to show their loyalty towards liberalism is to oppose President Trump's choice for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.  

Senate Democrats may stew over a "stolen" SCOTUS pick, because the Senate Majority in the 114th Congress refused to hold hearings and scuttled former President Obama's lame duck Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland. This Senate Advice and Consent through inaction followed a 70 year precedent of not confirming SCOTUS picks in the last year of an Administration so as to let voters decide.

However some Democrats are so obstreperous that they will not meet with Judge Gorsuch, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).  Those who consented to meet Judge Gorsuch have been charmed by him and his impeccable legal credentials.

Liberal advocacy groups like Credo Action felt emboldened by Schumer's antipathy approach thus they warned wavering Senate Democrats that if they so much even consented to a Cloture vote for Judge Gorsuch that they will face primary opposition in the 2018 cycle.

So Democrats opposed Republicans effectively filibustering Garland through a no vote yet they want to do the same thing to Judge Gorsuch.  As Chris Plante is wont to say, if it wasn't for double standards, liberals would not have any at all.  Ironically, filibustering will be futile thanks to the legacy of  former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who invoked the nuclear option in 2013.  Now all the current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) needs to do is expand the rule change in medias res to include Supreme Court nominations. 

From an objective standpoint, Democrats threatening to primary vulnerable Senate Democrats to just allow a vote for a Supreme Court Associate Justice seems counter-intuitive.  The Scalia replacement would not drastically change the balance of the court, so why come out with guns blazing against your own for a goal which is note a game changer.  

Although Democrats only need to garner three net seats to regain control of the Senate, they face a tough election cycle in 2018 with 23 of 33 seats up.  Incumbents have a much easier time fund raising and winning general elections, so why take out your own (even if they stray from the party line on some issues)?  Furthermore, ten of the Senate races are Democrats in states that voted strongly for President Trump.  Threatening to primary Democrat incumbents pushes them further to the left, which was not were the vox populi seems to be in those states.

If opposition from the left seems too strident, some incumbents like Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)  might conclude that the grass is greener on the other side of the aisle. Even if they do not politically defect, they may be emboldened to vote their conscience to keep their integrity or burnish their independence from a progressive purge to keep their seat.

It would seem prudent for progressives to not play hardball on this Supreme Court nomination but fight like hell if a senior liberal Associate Justice (like 83 year old Ruth Ginsburg or 78 year old Stephen Breyer) or majority maker 80 year old Anthony Kennedy decided to retire.  But it seems that progressives do not want to leave any powder in reserve for such a contingency.  

Even though objections to the Scalia replacement were packaged as being objections to Garland's no vote or automatically opposing President Trump's pick, it seems that progressives are concerned that reversing Roe v. Wade and throwing the adjudication of abortion back to the states is at stake. 

Senate Majority Leader Minimizes Democrat Delays on Trump Nominees

When the Supreme Court Acts Like Politicians

The Supreme Court will start consideration of cases in its new term on the first Monday in October.  A Federalist Society panel previewing the Supreme Court's new term expected that SCOTUS will have a diminished case-load during the 2016-2017 term as it awaits confirmation of  Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement. It  is assumed that the Supreme Court is avoiding some controversial cases to avoid having a 4-4 tie, which does not establish precedent and upholds the Appeals Court ruling.

There are several schools of thought concerning the vacancy on the Supreme Court.  If Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wins the election but if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, there is good reason to believe that Obama designee Merrick Garland will be confirmed during the Lame Duck session.  Although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claims that Lame Duck sessions are not appropriate for SCOTUS confirmations, the thinking from the GOP may well be to go with the Devil they know rather than one which they don't know.

Some Democrats believe if they win both the White House and the Senate, then Hillary would want to install her own (presumably more progressive pick).  But some optimistic institutionalists hold fast to the notion that Mrs. Clinton would abide by the process and still push forward her predecessor's choice.  Either way, in such a scenario, it would be expected that there would be a lengthy evaluation and vetting process to achieve Senatorial Advice and Consent, thus keeping the evenly divided court well into the term.

Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy

A more philosophical question is what should be the role of the Supreme Court.  A common rallying cry in Presidential elections is control of the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia's passing in February levels an ideologically fractured SCOTUS (four liberals, three conservatives and Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy), but with indications that progressives are itching to be more activist. 

Chelsea Clinton has mentioned on the hustings that openings the Supreme Court will allow her mother to fundamentally redefine the parameters of the Second Amendment.  

Most likely there would be no outright repeal of this fundamental freedom given by God, but it would take a narrow reading of the organic law and assert that this right is limited to organized militias. This would effectively make it a dead letter, like the Tenth Amendment.

So instead of being final arbiters of cases, the Supreme Court would act like a super-legislature, only they are unelected (thus unaccountable) and there is virtually no way to upend their ukases.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) while campaigning for President proposed having retention elections for the judiciary, as they do in Iowa.  That sounds more appealing on the campaign trail then it would be applicable in the Federal City. However, it does voice the frustration of many Americans who feel cut out of the governing process.  California twice approved referendums defining marriage (which was primarily a state issue), yet in Obergefell, the Supreme Court overturned the will of voters under a Right of Dignity interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and then expanded this right of same-sex marriage to all 50 states.

Two longer shot prospects not considered by judicial watchers are the possibility that Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) might win and actually live by his promise to nominate conservative judicial candidates.  

The other way to remedy judicial tyranny would be limitations on Article III power.  While Congress can theoretically reign in lower courts, it is unlikely to do so. This would leave such reformation to application of an Article V Convention of States.  While the Article V safety valve for a Convention of States has been in place for 227 years, it has never been successfully invoked yet. But as more and more power is taken away from states yet they are saddled with the brunt of implementing dictates from the District of Calamity (sic), this may become a more feasible possibility. 

Mitch McConnell on SCOTUS Lame Duck Confirmations

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has taken a firm stance against holding confirmation hearings and votes on a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court during President Obama's last year in office. 

While President Obama has the right to put forth a name for the Supreme Court nomination process, the Constitution provides that the Senate shall give Advice and Consent to approve a Supreme Court candidate.  The Senate's deliberation process can involve doing nothing.

Taiwanese animators did not understanding this Constitutional nuance as they depicted the SCOTUS replacement situation.

But it should be noted that since the Senate will not hold hearings, there is no reason that a candidate would be "Borked".  Besides, Borking is a Democrat trick.

Ted Cruz: McConnell Most Effective Democrat Leader

On The Cruz Effect and the Capitol Hill Cocktail Party

Former Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was recently interviewed on Sirius-XM radio by Pete Dominick in which he disparaged "The Cruz Effect".  Coburn chaffed at lawmakers being put in a position to make desperate stands about legislative items which he believes have no chance of overcoming a veto. This was not the first time in which Coburn raised this reluctance to futilely fight. Coburn said similar things to Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe in 2013.

Senator Coburn was a 20 year veteran of the Senate and had developed a reputation for being "Dr. No" for his conservative intransigence.  Yet before retiring to tend to his Colon Cancer after the 2014 election cycle, Senator Coburn exhibited an animus against Tea Party types, with Huffington Post headlines bragging of a Coburn Smack Down of the Tea Party. Coburn was quick to condem Senator Cruz's shut down tactic on Obamacare. Some Tea Party constituents wondered if he was a Charlatan, Traitor or Patriot for his go along to get along Senatorial approach  gun control.

Although he is no longer in the Senate, Senator Coburn is pushing a Cocktail Party approach to things. In Oklahoma, it is not hard to sound conservative and promise to repeal Obamacare, protect the second amendment or now even to defund Planned Parenthood.  But where the rubber meets the road in legislating in the District of Calamity, intentions and ardor matter.

When speaking to Scarborough about Obamacare in 2013, Senator Coburn rightly points out that Republicans did not have 67 votes to overcome an expected Presidential veto from Barack Obama. Right. So when has either party had vetoproof supermajorities in the Senate? Not in nearly half a century.  In the 89th Congress (1965-67), Democrats held 68 seats in the Senate and 295 House seats. During the New Deal, Democrats had veto proof majorities in the 74th and 75th Congresses (1935-39).  During Reconstruction after the Civil War, there were veto proof majorities for Republicans in the 39th, 40th, 41st and 43rd Congresses.

So having an assured veto proof majority is a rarity in American polity. Nowadays, the benchmark seems to be reaching Cloture (now set at 60 votes in the Senate).  After the election of Barack Obama and the eventual seating of Senator Al Franken (D-MN), Democrats had Cloture proof majority until Senator Scott Brown, the elected replacement for Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was seated (replacing interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA)).

So it is fanciful for a Republican to think that their measures will have veto-proof (or Cloture proof) majorities by party votes alone through regular legislative procedures. But does that mean not doing anything because you are unsure if it will be enacted?

The reason why the comments of a former Republican Senator matter is that it epitomizes the conflict on Capitol Hill for the next Speaker and is a reason why outsider Republican Presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) are leading in the polls.

What has been called the Surrender Caucus is only happy to fight for bills which they are certain will be enacted.  Sure, you can campaign conservatively for the "rubes" back home, but politicians who are comfortably ensconced in the District of Calamity Cocktail Party won't spend any political capital for causes in which victory is uncertain.  Hence they surrender without a real fight.

For example, with the recent effort to defund Planned Parenthood, there were attempts to attach a rider onto a Continuing Resolution to divert funding for womens' health from the embattled abortionists to community health centers. The Byrd Rule for budget bills only required 51 votes for passage (avoiding a Cloture Vote). But President Obama promised to veto the CR and Republican Leadership feared that it might be blamed for a government shut down.  So they surrendered without a fight and Senate Majority "Leader" Mitch McConnell jammed down a clean CR through December 11th. This was not a one-off but was indicative of a pattern, which Tea Party renegades like Cruz have exposed for the shame that it is.

It might have been messy, but having must pass legislation like the Highway Bill, a Continuing Resolution or a real Congressional Budget with liberally unappealing riders might have forced the hand of President Obama to shut the government down.  If the Republicans had a better communication strategy, they might not automatically be blamed for shutting the government down when it was an Executive Branch veto which did the dirty deed.  As the branches sought to craft a resolution, concessions might be extracted.  So in the case of Obamacare (a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act), a nigglesome provision like the employer mandate could be up for grabs, which eventually would kill the clunky and unpopular system.  But that involves some guts to take a political risk and then be ready to fight hard in the media and on Capitol Hill.But it's so much easier to, echoing Mr. Coburn: "Dingity, we tried but we just didn't have the votes to do it. Too bad (but we'll still rail against it for the next election).

The House Republican Caucus is set to nominate another candidate for Speaker.  Despite the entreaties of Speaker John Boehner that he is retiring after the crowing achievement of his Congressional career of having Pope Francis speak before a Joint Session of Congress, the reality is that he was set to resign because he would lose a Vacate the Chair vote.  Boehner could not win the necessary votes in the GOP Caucus because the Freedom Caucus both wants a leader who will fight but will also vote on their legislation rather than dictate what will be voted on (and will will or will pointedly lose and be a campaign issue).

After the talking heads shows this weekend, there is speculation that House Ways and Means Chairman Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI 1st) is reconsidering running for Speaker but he does not want  any strings attached to achieve the big chair.  Ryan's record on immigration issues does not jibe with conservatives and not allowing stands for legislation not certain to pass goes against the grain of the Freedom Caucus.

In the larger Presidential Primary picture, many insiders wonder why political novices like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina lead in the polls.  Perhaps they are not seem corrupted by the system and are talking a good game about fighting the power.

Senator Coburn's cautionary comments about legislating are true enough, but they reveal that establishment Republicans don't really want to fight. Some Tea Party elected officials have not sold out to the Establishment. This explains why Leaders are anxious to primary rebellious Tea Party types and bad mouth others.  Since Republicans have not had a Veto Proof majority since 1875, is it their role to be Democrat lite, only proposing what can get passed and signed by a Democrat President?  What about the years when there were Republican Majorities in both Chambers of Congress and Republican President?  It does not seem like things were much different then.

Pundits have noted that Congress has a similar favorability rating to the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea with communist dictator Kim-Il-ung. This might explain why disaffected voters might welcome a congressional Cruz missile in the form of fighting for principles and causes.  This will be put to the test during the Republican primaries.  But political junkies might get early indications how this "fight to fight" will succeed  in the Speaker's Race.

On Congressional Kabuki Show of Show Votes, Spending Sprees and Shutdowns

Last week, Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) engineered passage of a Continuing Resolution to keep the government funded for the first two months of FY2016.  To prevent the possibility of a shutdown due to riders which might derail cloture, McConnell borrowed a trick from his predecessor Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and he "filled the tree" by precluding any such amendments to be considered thus a clean CR.  This allowed the must pass legislation to easily achieve a 77-19 majority.

Republican Presidential hopeful Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was truly displeased with not being able to effectively attach a Defund Planned Parenthood Amendment on an otherwise clean CR.  Cruz took to the Senate floor for an hour to educate the public about show votes, spending sprees and shutdown threats.

In today's Washington, there are three kinds of votes. There are, number one, show votes.. Votes that are brought up largely to placate the voters where the outcome is fore –ordained,, where most Republicans will vote one way, Democrats will vote the other, Republicans will lose, and the conservatives who elected Republican majorities in both houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose. We had a vote like that in recent weeks on Planned Parenthood. Leadership told us: ‘You should be thrilled. We voted on it. What else do you want?’ We voted on it in a context where it would never happen. And indeed it didn't.

 The second kind of vote are votes that simply grow government, that dramatically expand spending, expand corporate welfare, and those votes, Mr. President, those votes pass. Because you get a bipartisan coalition of Republican leadership and Democrats, both of whom are convinced that career politicians will get reelected if they keep growing and growing government, and in particular, handing out corporate welfare to giant corporations. Oh, boy, if you’ve got the lobbyists on K street pushing for something, you can get 60, 70, 80 votes in this chamber because Republican leadership loves it, and Democrats are always willing to grow government.  

And then there's a third kind of vote. Votes on must-pass legislation. In an era when one side, the Democratic Party, is adamantly committed to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of Americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real consequence in this chamber. They typically fall into one of three categories – either continuing resolution, or an omnibus appropriation bill, or a debt ceiling increase. Each of those three are deemed must-pass votes, and if you actually want to change law, those are the only hopes of doing so. But I mentioned before you have got one side that has preemptively surrendered. Republican leadership has said: ‘We will never, ever, ever shut down the government.’ And suddenly, President Obama understands the easy key to winning every battle. He simply has to utter the word ‘shutdown,’ and Republican leadership runs to the hills.

 Even after this stirring speech which stuck it to the Cocktail Party in the District of Calamity (sic), people not Between the Beltways still have difficulty fathoming this truth.

As  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is rising in the polls, out come the attack dogs.  One of the charges is that Senator Rubio missed a crucial vote on Cloture, which could have defunded Planned Parenthood.  While Senator Rubio will not get a gold star for his attendance record while in the United States Senate, a clean C.R. precluded serious consideration of defunding Planned Parenthood. The trick was to get  a Defund Planned Parenthood Amendment attached to must pass legislation.

The highway bill in July was one such vehicle.  It would have forced President Obama to stop funding all federal highways to save funding for Planned Parenthood.  But Leader McConnell would never allow the power of the purse to force the hand of this President, so he arranged for a stand alone Defund Planned Parenthood bill, which inevitably could not gain enough votes for cloture, but establishment politicians could claim "We tried but the votes weren't there.".  Hence a show vote.

Now if a Defund Planned Parenthood Amendment were attached to a budget bill, the Byrd Rule quashes cloture so it could pass on a majority vote in the Senate. But that would require Republican leadership to have a backbone.

Should the DC GOP Change Their Symbol from an Elephant to a Turtle?

After the Iran Nuclear Deal failed to break Cloture, Senator Mitch McConnell did media rounds proclaiming that opponents may have lost a short-term battle but we won the argument.




True, only 21% of Americans support President Obama's Executive Agreement capitulation to the nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it seems that it will go into effect anyways. The Corker/Cardin Bill turned Senate Treaty ratification on its head.  Instead of requiring 2/3rds of senators to approve (67 votes), it allowed the deal to go thru with the support of only 34 Senators.  Showing such special courage, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would not even let the Iran Nuke Deal go to a vote, but sought to let it come into effect anyways with 41 votes against Cloture (cutting off debate).  That way, waivering Democrat Senators could claim that they did not actually support the deal, when their sin of omission was to not act when they could to kill it.

The Republican Majority also showed a troubling lack of courage and conviction.  While Corker/Cardin may have been unwise (or even unconstitutional), the LAWs provisions were not even followed.  President Obama was bound by Corker/Cardin to give the Congress all information (including secret side agreements) pertaining to the Iran Nuke Deal within four days of concluding the agreement.  That July 21st deadline passed and we continue to hear more about withheld information and side treaties.  Yet the the United States Senate voted on the Iran Deal and the Senate Majority Leader has the temerity to say that "we" won.  At least the House was prodded into acknowledging that Corker/Cardin was not followed before voting against the Deal.

Majority "Leader" McConnell shows a troubling lack of leadership.  He argues that the Senate can not put together veto proof majorities, so he will not invest political capital in lots of legislation, be it the Iran Nuke Deal or Defunding Planned Parenthood.  In all likelihood neither vote would be blessed by President Obama, but it would mean taking a stand on vital issues.  Sometimes, public pressure can sway an obstinate politician.  Even if it is unsuccessful, it differentiates parties instead of having a District of Calamity Cocktail Party where party labels do not matter.

It is troubling that Senator McConnell thinks that "we won" for the Iran Nuke Deal, when this procedure allows the mullahs in Iran to get $150 Billion in frozen assets to fund their unrenounced terrorist ambitions. McConnell thinks this will be a great campaign issue. Really? Playing politics with American National Security?  Kind of sounds like what establishment Republicans did with Obamacare, promising repeal and staging show votes but never taking a hard stand.

Is this leadership which the Republican base really wants? Cocktail Party Quislings who say one thing on the hustings and act another way on Capitol Hill. Perhaps the Between the Beltways GOP should change their symbol from the Elephant who always remembers to the Turtle which recoils from any threat.

Profiles in Cowardice: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Planned Parenthood Funding

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)  gave a revealing interview to a Kentucky television station regarding his "leadership" style and priorities.

McConnell bragged how under his helm in the 114th Congress, the Republican leadership has brought order to disorder and been more productive.  There are 10 times the number of roll call votes than under the last term with ex Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Senate is on the road to passing a budget on time, which Democrat Senate had been unable to do five of six years under the Obama Administration. Furthermore, Senator McConnell bragged about allowing for bipartisan votes, and he specifically cited the Iran Nuke Vote.

Consequently, Leader McConnell will not fight to stop Planned Parenthood funding. The so called Leader lamented that the votes simply were not there to override a veto. Too bad, so sad.

Apparently, Mr. McConnell does not appreciate the overwhelming anger of the Republican base about a do-nothing Congress which stands for nothing.

Senator McConnell conveniently forgot about Senator Rand Paul's effort to attach a Planned Parenthood defunding amendment to the highway bill, which was virtually a must pass piece of legislation. The Republican Majority Leader followed his predecessor's practice of filling the amendment tree so that no amendments (other than what the Majority Leader preferred) could be attached.  

Instead, Senator McConnell promised a "stand alone" defund Planned Parenthood vote, which inevitably fell short of attaining cloture, meaning that the bill would never be finally voted upon, but phony conservatives could still say that they voted against Planned Parenthood to their gullible constituents while on the hustings or in town hall meetings.

For budget reconciliation votes, there is a special mechanism (the Byrd rule) which does not require a cloture vote to cut off debate.  So theoretically, a budget with a Planned Parenthood defunding rider could pass and land on  President Obama's desk, where it is likely that America's most pro-abortion Chief Executive would veto the budget.  Which would mean that Mr. Obama would be responsible for closing down the government to support Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts.

But the Republican establishment is scared of its own shadow much less the prospect of having a government shutdown blamed on them. So seemingly, the GOP Congresssional "leadership" (particularly in the Senate) will acquiesce to anything to avoid that outcome.

Senator McConnell's profile in cowardice in prematurely waving the white flag on the budget shows that he cares more about a hollow set of accomplishments instead of standing for life, law,  or principles.  Aside from more roll call votes, how can Senate leadership in the 114th Congress be distinguished from the Democrats.  President Obama gets everything he wants.  If there is legislation which rubs him the wrong way, the Republican establishment in the Senate caves when Mr. Obama "threatens" to take out his veto pen.  

At this point, Mr. Obama is a lame duck who should have waning influence even within his own party. Admittedly, Planned Parenthood funding might be a major fight, but it would be worth it to a principled party.  This is not a new law outlawing abortion, it is enforcing existing law on fetal pain partial birth abortion and outlawed abortion practices, which the Center for Medical Progress have show that Planned Parenthood is flagrantly flouting the rule of law. 

During the WYMT-TV  Issues and Answers interview,  Mr. McConnell seemed proud to endorse upcoming Iran Nuke Vote.  There are strong prospects for passage but it may not garner the 2/3rds vote for a veto proof majority.  Using McConnell's same logic, Republicans should fold up tent and give up because it will not be signed into law.  

Of course, the Corker/Cardin procedure ignores proper procedure that a binding international agreement (treaty) must have 2/3rds yea votes (instead of disapproval by 2/3rds). But even if the Iran Nuke vote fails to block enactment, a strong show of disapproval would give the next President indication of the unpopularity of the Executive Agreement.  Similarly, passing a budget with a Planned Parenthood defunding amendment might not stand in the short term, but it would lay down a marker for the future.  But that involves standing for principle and not feathering one's nest for the next time to try and hoodwink Republican primary voters.

As elites in the District of Calamity (sic) seem increasingly out of touch, it is worthy to point out some guide posts.  Senator Ted Cruz's July floor speech exposing the perfidy of Mitch McConnell regarding the Ex-Imp bank showed the duplicity of establishment Republicans to the base.  The current front-runners in the Republican Presidential race are all outsiders (Trump, Cardin, Fiorina and Cruz) running on a Washington Is Broken meme.  Avoiding hard votes, like Defunding Planned Parenthood may make big time contributors happy but it bodes poorly with the well-informed base who vote in primaries.  And in the end, when it comes to choosing between a progressive and a progressive lite, why not choose the real thing, because you know what you are getting and it won't be a lie.

Senator Ted Cruz on "The 11th Commandment"

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)  made a piercing floor speech denouncing the tactics of Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) of reneging on promises about floor votes over the Export-Import Bank.  Majority Leader  McConnell used the parliamentary tactic of "filling the amendment tree" to only add the Export Import Bank Amendment to the must pass Senate Highway Bill and a symbolic Repeal Obamacare vote (which was doomed to fail cloture), Senator Cruz lambasted protecting the vested interests of the Washington Cartel through legislative legerdemain which ousted Senate Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) made famous. 

Thereafter, it was unlikely that Senator Cruz was going to be invited to any future Cocktail Parties by the Washington establishment.  But Grand Old Party establishment grey beards like Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), denounced the lack of decorum, which opaquely criticized the Junior Senator from Texas. Of course these attacks were more restrained than earlier criticisms of young turk's aggressive  ways in Washington, which colleague Senator John McCain affectionately attributed as "wacko birds".

 Ronald Reagan had popularized the political "11th Commandment"  -- to not speak ill of your fellow Republican.  In fact, Senator Cruz has been conspicuous for not denouncing Donald Trump because Cruz does not want to attack fellow Republicans on the campaign trail. Charles Krauthammer considers Cruz's floor speeches to be an example of hypocrisy. 

The question is whether telling the truth is included in Reagan's 11th commandment is key to discerning party loyalty.

Senator Cruz has been positioning himself as an insider campaigning for the Oval Office as an outsider. Cruz has also bucked the Republican Senate Leadership's "go along to get along" modus operandi through the budgetary filibuster in September 2013 which caused the federal government to shut down for over a fortnight. 

Many have attributed the wave of support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump to dissatisfaction with Do Nothing Republicans who will not speak the truth. If the Trump boomlet ends, has Ted Cruz positioned himself to gain the support of those who want to Make DC listen again?

A broader question for the Grand Old Party faithful is whether the electorate should not register their protest for elected officials that campaign one way but govern in another that is almost indistinguishable from the Democrat opposition.