Mitch McConnell

[ggait]

I think the McConnell principle is very clear and has long since been established.

If you have the votes, you use them.

Literally everything that he has done in recent years has been passed using this principle. Trump tax cuts. Kavanaugh, Garland, ACB. Using this principle, he came very close to repealing Ocare.

That is the only rule. No other Senate traditions or precedents apply to things the GOP wants to pass. Traditions and precedents are only used to sucker Democrats into not using their votes when they have them. Is there any example of Mitch actually refraining from doing something that he had 51 votes for?

These days, it is rare for one party to have even simple majority control of House, Senate and WH. Let alone 60 votes in the Senate. Since Mitch would never let "only" 51 votes get in his way, the Dems would be beyond dumb if they don't use their 51 votes for whatever they can get 51 votes for, for as long as they can muster those votes.

Voters (on both sides) don't actually care about bi-partisanship. The problem is gridlock. Voters could not care less about whether Ds and Rs get along with each other. What they hate is that Congress never does anything. And the filibuster makes gridlock easier.

[Brooklyn]

the McConnell principle

No Supreme Court appointment in the final year (for a Dem). But ok for a Republican.

That's "principle" and ethics for a repukeblican.

[cradleandshoot]

I think the McConnell principle is very clear and has long since been established.

If you have the votes, you use them.

Literally everything that he has done in recent years has been passed using this principle. Trump tax cuts. Kavanaugh, Garland, ACB. Using this principle, he came very close to repealing Ocare.

That is the only rule. No other Senate traditions or precedents apply to things the GOP wants to pass. Traditions and precedents are only used to sucker Democrats into not using their votes when they have them. Is there any example of Mitch actually refraining from doing something that he had 51 votes for?

These days, it is rare for one party to have even simple majority control of House, Senate and WH. Let alone 60 votes in the Senate. Since Mitch would never let "only" 51 votes get in his way, the Dems would be beyond dumb if they don't use their 51 votes for whatever they can get 51 votes for, for as long as they can muster those votes.

Voters (on both sides) don't actually care about bi-partisanship. The problem is gridlock. Voters could not care less about whether Ds and Rs get along with each other. What they hate is that Congress never does anything. And the filibuster makes gridlock easier.

A lot of people, including myself think the country is better off the less Congress does. The less they accomplish the less chances they can eff things up even worse. I guess I'm just a cynical pessimist as old age closes in. Isn't Congress always more concerned about SAYING they want to fix things than actually fixing things? Hence the approach to running for re-election. Elect me so I can fix things in Washington. Sure you will.

[ggait]

A lot of people, including myself think the country is better off the less Congress does.

Except that McConnell and the existing Senate rules apply the 60 vote filibuster requirement quite selectively.

Pass Obamacare -- requires 60 votes. But repeal Obamacare -- only requires 51 votes (remember McCain's thumbs down).

Trump tax cuts -- 51 votes.

Kavanaugh and ACB confirmations -- 51 votes. Block Garland -- 51 votes. Trump federal judge confirmations -- 51 votes.

Raise minimum wage -- 60 votes.

The Senate (by its structure) is already the most anti-Democratic part of our system -- WY and ND each get two votes, CA and NY each get two votes. So adding a 60 vote super-majority vote in the Senate is just forking stupid. And totally not required by the Constitution.

Long past time to put the racist filibuster out to pasture. If you can actually get 51 Senate votes plus House majority plus President, that's more than enough (for red or blue or purple issues).

#democracy

#electionshaveconsequences

[njbill]

If you really want to give Mitch the heebie-jeebies, whisper “41” in his ear. His “scorched earth” remarks tell me he is really worried the Dems are going to make some changes to the filibuster (not do away with it entirely) that will make it very difficult for Mitch to block legislation. We shall see.

[cradleandshoot]

If you really want to give Mitch the heebie-jeebies, whisper “41” in his ear. His “scorched earth” remarks tell me he is really worried the Dems are going to make some changes to the filibuster (not do away with it entirely) that will make it very difficult for Mitch to block legislation. We shall see.

The Dems won the election and elections have consequences. They should do what they believe their mandate tells them to do. I doubt that whatever they decide to do they don't give a rats rear end about what Mitch thinks about it. I'm guessing making Mitch squirm would be very pleasurable to most democrats.

[Brooklyn]

Biiitch McConnell busy at work promoting his destructive and anti-America agenda:

[Brooklyn]

https://yt3.ggpht.com/eIUJKQ4MUvH9QMOO9 ... -nd-v1-rwa