Posted on 12/22/2018 1:50:48 PM PST by CptnObvious
The problem is that McConnell failed to cultivate a stronger GOP over the last decade because of his own feeble character. It is not so much a matter of Senators reacting to individual constituencies, it is that a feckless GOP leadership bred a weak-minded party that has no experience with nor tolerance for hard-ball politics.
Just compare the behaviors of Pelosi and Schumer in the two weeks prior to Democrats retaking the House with Mcconnell in the same period to see what I mean. They spent a decade honing their party discipline while McConnell, Corker, and the rest created one internal conflict after another, losing crucial seats along the way.
-PJ
It depends on whether the Senator believes he was elected to pursue whatever his constituency wants at the time, or whether he was elected by them to use his judgement.
I prefer the latter, as the former would just vote by whatever the polls showed that day.
You really can't blame the number of Senate seats gained or lost on McConnell. There were a few candidates Trump wanted to run, who chose not to. Do you blame Trump?
Is it really fair to write that McConnell has a feeble character? Is it feeble or is he looking out for the interests of the republican party by making sure Wall Street interests, big donors and the Chamber of Commerce interests come first? After all that's where much of the money comes from and don't you look after the interests of your customers first?
The republican party has a civil war going on in the background and we don't know how it is going to end. But it seems to me, Trump is a one of a kind. There really is no one to take his place and so he is it. He has to prevail and he is doing his best to effect change but can he do it in even two terms in this vast government. Probably not and then we are back to the same old type of swampy leader.
Mitch, the Bloshekrats have already voted for a wall, this is, only, to deny Trump a victory, so, nuke it.
I believe it is neither. I believe that Senators believe they were elected to do their party's bidding, since it's the parties that funded their elections. I would believe the latter, too, in a pre-seventeenth amendment era when Senators were beholden to their state legislatures, but the obligations that go with taking party campaign funds is too great to buck.
the members vote for their own leadership. They don't have to vote for McConnell but they do. I realize someone has to run and challenge, but no one does which means the Senators are satisfied with the leadership.
I think they vote for McConnell out of fear of losing their committee assignments and campaign funding if they oppose him and he still wins. Nobody wants to be the one who was left behind if he wins. In other words, if you try to take out the king, you better not miss. Since within the GOP everybody has been raised to suspect the votes of the others, nobody wants to take the chance that their colleagues will cave at the last minute, since somebody always does.
You really can't blame the number of Senate seats gained or lost on McConnell. There were a few candidates Trump wanted to run, who chose not to. Do you blame Trump?
I still blame McConnell. We're not talking about just this last cycle. If you look at recent history, Democrats always back the candidates their states put up, but not McConnell. For good or bad, look how McConnell treated:
Is it really fair to write that McConnell has a feeble character? Is it feeble or is he looking out for the interests of the republican party by making sure Wall Street interests, big donors and the Chamber of Commerce interests come first? After all that's where much of the money comes from and don't you look after the interests of your customers first?
It's ironic that you claim that a Senator's "customers" are his large elite donors when you opened this debate by claiming that Senators should "use his judgement" over doing "whatever his constituency wants at the time," now that you say his "constituents" are "Wall Street interests, big donors and the Chamber of Commerce" instead ofthe citizens of his own state. However...
I recall one of the first things McConnell said when he took over as Majority Leader in 2015 was that he will never shut down the federal governemnt. He showed his "tell" to Democrats that he put the sanctity of Senate traditions first, which means he gave Democrats the shiv they needed to knife him in the back any time they want. I will leave you with this old post of mine from 2009 showing how Democrat leadership continuously rolled McConnell in deal-making:
...McConnell got Reid to agree to hold a high-profile debt-limit vote next month -- just before the president's State of the Union address...Specter suggests Reid reneged on word.
Newly-turned Democrat Arlen Specter today hinted that that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reneged on his word to allow Specter to keep his seniority on committees on which he sits. "Sen. Reid assured me that I would keep my committee assignments, and that I would have the same seniority as if I had been elected as a Democrat in 1980," Specter said in a written statement today.Reid Bows to Far Left as Rs Rank Judges Issue #1.
And they undoubtedly have the Rasmussen survey results in the back of their minds as they consider their reaction to Majority Leader Reid’s broken promise to confirm three appeals court nominees before the Memorial Day recess, as well as Reid’s sure-to-be-broken earlier promises to meet the historical average (17) for appeals court confirmations in a president’s final two years. With just a couple of months left in the confirmation window, Reid is less than halfway to meeting that average.[snip]
“A good GOP Senate source reports today that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell addressed the entire Republican Conference … about the judge-fight issue. McConnell is said to have been very insistent that he would not let Majority Leader Reid's broken promise go unpunished … He would not tell the Conference exactly what action he was planning, but he did say it would be very firm, and that all concerned would know it when we see it.” – Quin Hillyer (5/21/08)
[snip]
While Sen. Lott overcame numerous obstacles to get Paez and Berzon confirmed, Sen. Reid has looked for excuses to renege on his pledge.
[snip]
GOP senators are understandably angry that Sen. Reid broke the golden rule of senatorial honor by reneging on his commitment.
[snip]
Democrats Target Coburn’s Holds
To ease passage of the public lands measure, Reid promised Coburn the chance to offer a limited number of amendments.Reid: No Vote On Lifting Drug Import Ban Before Health-Care BillBut after the majority leader objected to a Coburn proposal that would have eased restrictions on firearms in national parks, the package stalled for months, prompting Coburn to charge that Reid reneged on their agreement.
Coburn eventually got to offer four amendments — all of which were defeated — but not the guns measure.
Republicans accused U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of reneging Tuesday on a pledge to allow a Senate vote on a measure lifting an import ban on pharmaceutical drugs before lawmakers take up health-care legislation.The development, supported by major drug makers, comes as the Senate is moving to craft the politically delicate compromises needed for the broader health care overhaul bill.
In a letter to a bipartisan group of senators that have been pushing for the import ban to be scrapped, Reid said there wouldn't be time in the busy legislative calendar for full consideration of legislation lifting the long-standing prohibition now.
"He did commit to us and obviously that commitment is not going to be kept," Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., said Tuesday evening.
-PJ
My apologies. I realized I mis-attributed this section to you, when it was actually a post to me by another FReeper.
Please disregard this section of my previous post as being directed to you.
It depends on whether the Senator believes he was elected to pursue whatever his constituency wants at the time, or whether he was elected by them to use his judgement. I prefer the latter...It's ironic that you claim that a Senator's "customers" are his large elite donors when you opened this debate by claiming that Senators should "use his judgement" over doing "whatever his constituency wants at the time," now that you say his "constituents" are "Wall Street interests, big donors and the Chamber of Commerce" instead ofthe citizens of his own state.
It weaves in nicely with my overall post, but it should not have been directed solely to you.
I'm sorry.
-PJ
As far as the members voting for McConnell and are satisfied with him, I am persuaded by your argument. I think you hit it right on target and is an argument I have heard before and forgot. I tend to cut McConnell some slack because leadership is never easy and I sympathize with the task he faces everyday. The dynamics you describe for a leadership contest is completely accurate, so I am with you on that, as well as, how McConnell has treated and dealt with candidates in the past. Again, thanks for reminding me of McConnell's shabby treatment of candidates and you are correct, the democrats never apologize for any of theirs and they just mow on ahead regardless of flaws. An excellent and compelling argument.
The next section about the senators do the bidding of the big donors, Wall Street and C of C is my way of saying they are doing the bidding of the party interest.
As for the odious Reid, democrats and republicans are different. Democrats seek wins any way they can which means lies, deceptions and any other deceit is fine. Republicans are the good government folks. There is honor in doing it the right way and it is important to be nice and polite while doing it. They are correct if the other side observes the same rules, but they don't. So you have the outrage from Sasse and others when Trump tweets a rude tweet. Republicans need to be tougher and less naïve and I wonder if it will ever happen.
Last, thanks for engaging me and reminding me of McConnell's history and changing my mind on his leadership.
Nuclear option would be a dud here - too many Flakes in the Senate...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.