How much of our political divide is to blame Mitch McConnell? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

You weren't paying attention during the Bush administration.

Not as much no. But from what I’ve read it wasn’t nearly as bad. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not as much no. But from what I’ve read it wasn’t nearly as bad. 

Oh, it's definitely worse now -- like I said, both sides have continually escalated things since the 1980s.  But what McConnell did to Marrick Garland isn't substantively different from what a Democratic minority did to Miguel Estrada.  In both cases leadership used whatever procedural avenues they had at their disposal to block a nominee just because.

 

[timschochet]

Oh, it's definitely worse now -- like I said, both sides have continually escalated things since the 1980s.  But what McConnell did to Marrick Garland isn't substantively different from what a Democratic minority did to Miguel Estrada.  In both cases leadership used whatever procedural avenues they had at their disposal to block a nominee just because.

I think there’s a significant difference. It’s true that the Democrats used a filibuster to stop Estrada, but it wasn’t because he was a Republican; it’s because they considered him to be an extremist (like Bork). 

In the case of Garland, Garland’s philosophy or competence were never even considered. He was an appointment by a Democrat and that’s why he was blocked. And this is the new thing that nobody on either side has ever done before: declare war, not on extremism or lack of competence, but on the other political party. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think there’s a significant difference. It’s true that the Democrats used a filibuster to stop Estrada, but it wasn’t because he was a Republican; it’s because they considered him to be an extremist (like Bork). 

In the case of Garland, Garland’s philosophy or competence were never even considered. He was an appointment by a Democrat and that’s why he was blocked. And this is the new thing that nobody on either side has ever done before: declare war, not on extremism or lack of competence, but on the other political party. 

That's not a significant difference.  And Republicans huffed and puffed about how "Nobody has ever done that before" during the Estrada episode too.

 

[Sinn Fein]

That's not a significant difference.  And Republicans huffed and puffed about how "Nobody has ever done that before" during the Estrada episode too.

Of course, Bush did, eventually, name a replacement - who was confirmed.  That is a pretty significant difference.

What McConnell did bordered on being unconstitutional.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Of course, Bush did, eventually, name a replacement - who was confirmed.  That is a pretty significant difference.

What McConnell did bordered on being unconstitutional.

Again, I'm not saying that McConnell is not going further than his predecessors or that what McConnell did with Garland was identical in all respects with some prior episode in this series.  Just that all of this is part of a pattern of one side escalating things, the other side saying "How dare you!" and then the other side being the one to escalate things further as soon as they're in power.  We are going on 40 years of this now.

 

[timschochet]

Again, I'm not saying that McConnell is not going further than his predecessors or that what McConnell did with Garland was identical in all respects with some prior episode in this series.  Just that all of this is part of a pattern of one side escalating things, the other side saying "How dare you!" and then the other side being the one to escalate things further as soon as they're in power.  We are going on 40 years of this now.

I think you’re still missing the point here. In the examples of Bork and Estrada and Kavanaugh, Democrats are focusing on the individual: rightly or wrongly, they argued that these individuals are unsuitable for appointment because of something they said or did.

McConnell and the Republicans under his leadership aren’t opposing individuals; they’re opposing Democrats. All Democrats. That is new, highly significant, and awful. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

I think you’re still missing the point here. In the examples of Bork and Estrada and Kavanaugh, Democrats are focusing on the individual: rightly or wrongly, they argued that these individuals are unsuitable for appointment because of something they said or did.

McConnell and the Republicans under his leadership aren’t opposing individuals; they’re opposing Democrats. All Democrats. That is new, highly significant, and awful. 

I think Ivan has clarified - he is not suggesting they are the same thing, only part of the same pattern - of escalating partisanship.  I think that is a fair observation - if you look at the situations with neutral eyes.

 

[Herb]

 neutral eyes.

You know where I can find some of these? Could be useful right about now.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

You know where I can find some of these? Could be useful right about now.

They're not behind any blinders, I can tell you that, so please save yourself some time and just refrain from looking there.

 

[wikkidpissah]

hardly a doubt in my mind that history will see this obstructionist period as neocon based. even if the Dems had the idea first - well libs have imaginations that conservatives don't, just as conservatives have focus & commitment that libs dont - the GOP codified and ingrained it into the process

 

[HellToupee]

I’m glad Mitch had a change of heart and will bring votes up when there is an opening. Good on him to change his mind

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I’m glad Mitch had a change of heart and will bring votes up when there is an opening. Good on him to change his mind

Oh he didn't change his mind. He's always felt that it's his duty to block any Democratic presidents nomination for the SC, while fast tracking any nominations from Republican presidents. No change.

 

[Van Dyman]

Rolling Stone: Of Course Mitch McConnell Is Full of <expletive>

But scouring the history books to prove McConnell is a hypocrite or tweeting memes is pointless. Of course he is a hypocrite. Of course he wasn’t acting in good faith. Of course he is a soulless opportunist who is so obsessed with sticking it to Democrats that he has completely disassociated himself from the oath he swore to uphold when he entered the Senate over 30 years ago. None of this is news, and as the left points the finger and says “gotcha,” McConnell will continue to sip his iced tea and smile. He’ll do the same when the Senate rushes to confirm another conservative should a sitting justice die in 2020.

 

[ffldrew]

Projections Show U.S. Could Fund Medicare For All For 400 Years Charging $1 To Punch Mitch McConnell In The Face

 

[bigbottom]

I think you’re still missing the point here. In the examples of Bork and Estrada and Kavanaugh, Democrats are focusing on the individual: rightly or wrongly, they argued that these individuals are unsuitable for appointment because of something they said or did.

McConnell and the Republicans under his leadership aren’t opposing individuals; they’re opposing Democrats. All Democrats. That is new, highly significant, and awful. 

Let’s say the Dems take the Senate in 2020, but Trump wins re-election. One year into Trump’s second term, RBG passes away. Trump nominates a highly qualified but center right candidate. Do you think the nominee gets a vote?

 

[timschochet]

Let’s say the Dems take the Senate in 2020, but Trump wins re-election. One year into Trump’s second term, RBG passes away. Trump nominates a highly qualified but center right candidate. Do you think the nominee gets a vote?

I don’t know. I’d like to think so but McConnell has so poisoned the well that I fear the Democrats will respond in kind. 

 

[bigbottom]

I don’t know. I’d like to think so but McConnell has so poisoned the well that I fear the Democrats will respond in kind. 

This is Ivan’s point. 

 

[timschochet]

This is Ivan’s point. 

No he is arguing that the Democrats have already behaved this way, in the case of Estrada and others. I disagree. I think McConnell’s actions are new. The Democrats may adopt them but they haven’t up to this point. 

 

[bigbottom]

No he is arguing that the Democrats have already behaved this way, in the case of Estrada and others. I disagree. I think McConnell’s actions are new. The Democrats may adopt them but they haven’t up to this point. 

No, he’s arguing that there has been a trend of escalation. He acknowledges that McConnell’s actions with respect to Garland was an escalation. The Dems refusing to consider a GOP Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court altogether (and not just during an election year) would be a further escalation. I would hope it doesn’t happen, but I’m not so sure. And apparently neither are you. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don’t think Garland was quite as big an escalation as some do. It was terrible, horrible, awful — but there was vague precedent for it.

I don’t think that refusing to give hearings or a vote to a nominee is all that different from giving hearings and a vote but automatically voting “nay” regardless of individual qualifications. (If you’re just going to vote nay no matter what, what good do hearings do?)

A number of people in both parties had been doing that since before Garland was nominated. For example, Barrack Obama, as a Senator, voted against confirming John Roberts even though nobody doubted his individual qualifications. Obama was just going to vote against anyone nominated by Bush.

I don’t know how to get back to the days when good judges were confirmed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support (sometimes unanimously), but it sure would be nice.

I think the new rule, starting with Garland, is “No new Supreme Court Justices unless the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party.”

We need a better system than that.

 

[Mario Kart]

Let’s say the Dems take the Senate in 2020, but Trump wins re-election. One year into Trump’s second term, RBG passes away. Trump nominates a highly qualified but center right candidate. Do you think the nominee gets a vote?

Given this scenario, Trump nominating someone from The Federalist list or wherever he got the two previous names from... no. If Trump would seek Democrat guidance as to who they would not mind, someone like you said who might be right center, then the Dems need to swallow their pride and follow the rules. There may be a fight but the Republicans will have their day of comeuppance, hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

[Mario Kart]

He's back to blocking bills that will combat Russian interference. His hands are all over Russian money. What a traitor this "guy" is.

 

[Insomniac]

I don’t think Garland was quite as big an escalation as some do. It was terrible, horrible, awful — but there was vague precedent for it.

I don’t think that refusing to give hearings or a vote to a nominee is all that different from giving hearings and a vote but automatically voting “nay” regardless of individual qualifications. (If you’re just going to vote nay no matter what, what good do hearings do?)

A number of people in both parties had been doing that since before Garland was nominated. For example, Barrack Obama, as a Senator, voted against confirming John Roberts even though nobody doubted his individual qualifications. Obama was just going to vote against anyone nominated by Bush.

I don’t know how to get back to the days when good judges were confirmed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support (sometimes unanimously), but it sure would be nice.

I think the new rule, starting with Garland, is “No new Supreme Court Justices unless the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party.”

We need a better system than that.

It seems more likely that the practice  expands to all federal judges than a GOP controlled Senate confirming any liberal nominated by a Democratic President. to the Supreme Court.

The voters did not punish the GOP for blocking Garland. If anything it fired up the GOP base and was a winning strategy. Why would they stop using this strategy when it helps them achieve their goal of a right wing dominated judiciary and helps them win elections?  What should the Democrats do to counter this? Hoping that the GOP behaves better after Trump is gone doesn't seem like the optimal response.

The blame for the political divide isn't on McConnell (or the Democratic politicians who blocked GOP nominees) it's on the voters who let them get away with it. There's no reason to believe the electorate is going to get better, if anything it's trending in the opposite direction.

 

[wikkidpissah]

I don’t think Garland was quite as big an escalation as some do. It was terrible, horrible, awful — but there was vague precedent for it.

I don’t think that refusing to give hearings or a vote to a nominee is all that different from giving hearings and a vote but automatically voting “nay” regardless of individual qualifications. (If you’re just going to vote nay no matter what, what good do hearings do?)

A number of people in both parties had been doing that since before Garland was nominated. For example, Barrack Obama, as a Senator, voted against confirming John Roberts even though nobody doubted his individual qualifications. Obama was just going to vote against anyone nominated by Bush.

I don’t know how to get back to the days when good judges were confirmed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support (sometimes unanimously), but it sure would be nice.

I think the new rule, starting with Garland, is “No new Supreme Court Justices unless the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party.”

We need a better system than that.

dood, you build up all this respect and then piss it away by enabling & excusifying for the irredeemable. i really want some conservatives to respect but they keep shaming themselves for party's sake  

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'd be happy with 9 moderate Justices who were all potential swing votes depending on the issue.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

dood, you build up all this respect and then piss it away by enabling & excusifying for the irredeemable. i really want some conservatives to respect but they keep shaming themselves for party's sake  

Accurately describing the state of the world is not the same as enabling or excusing the state of the world.

 

[Mario Kart]

Is anyone going to justify McConnell's or the Republican's actions... or inaction in the Senate?

 

[sho nuff]

Is anyone going to justify McConnell's or the Republican's actions... or inaction in the Senate?

Why do that when you can just complain about AOC?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 44m44 minutes ago

More

McConnell: "I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 yrs ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea. We've tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war ...We've elected an African American president."

I am not really a fan of reparations per se - I think it can be done in a different way - but, McConnell really showing his southern roots here....

 

[The Commish]

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 44m44 minutes ago

More

McConnell: "I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 yrs ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea. We've tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war ...We've elected an African American president."

I am not really a fan of reparations per se - I think it can be done in a different way - but, McConnell really showing his southern roots here....

It's really shocking that the old white guy is completely lacking in self awareness and shows zero understand the systemic racism still at play in this country.

 

[Jackstraw]

dood, you build up all this respect and then piss it away by enabling & excusifying for the irredeemable. i really want some conservatives to respect but they keep shaming themselves for party's sake  

Bof Sidezzz dude. Bof Sidezz always and forever. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 44m44 minutes ago

More

McConnell: "I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 yrs ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea. We've tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war ...We've elected an African American president."

I am not really a fan of reparations per se - I think it can be done in a different way - but, McConnell really showing his southern roots here....

Same here.  I'm opposed to reparations, but I'd prefer that Mitch McConnell just sit this one out.

 

[joffer]

Didn’t realize the idea behind reparations was punitive

 

[Ghost Rider]

McConnell is awful, but I am not sure the divide can be mostly or largely blamed on one person, and that includes Trump.  Yes, Trump has made it worse in the last few years, but the divide was already as big as the grand canyon prior to his presidency. 

 

[Godsbrother]

McConnell: "I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 yrs ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea. We've tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war ...We've elected an African American president."

I think it is awesome that McConnell voted for Obama.    Hopefully THAT shuts up all of you liberals criticizing Mitch.   

 

[sho nuff]

@knowledge dropper

As requested, now...how about that discussion.

What of the current bills linked to in the Trump 2020 thread are left wing silliness? What about Garland was left wing silliness?  And for the other poster, I believe it was @Widbil83...which of those bills were just passed because they knew they couldn't pass the senate?

 

[sho nuff]

@knowledge dropper

As requested, now...how about that discussion.

What of the current bills linked to in the Trump 2020 thread are left wing silliness? What about Garland was left wing silliness?  And for the other poster, I believe it was @Widbil83...which of those bills were just passed because they knew they couldn't pass the senate?

Almost a full 24 hours....and not one attempt.  @Widbil83 @knowledge dropper

Do you just not want legitimate discussion?  

 

[lazyike]

My favorite quote today by Tom Friedman on MSNBC “ We have a President without shame, backed a party without spine amplified by a network without integrity”

 

[knowledge dropper]

Almost a full 24 hours....and not one attempt.  @Widbil83 @knowledge dropper

Do you just not want legitimate discussion?  

Why am I being trolled?

Mitch brought the centerpiece of Democratic legislation, the New Green Deal, up for a vote.  Most Dems running for President voted “present.”   It makes sense he does not want waste more time on partisan clown show legislation coming from the House.  

 

[sho nuff]

Why am I being trolled?

Mitch brought the centerpiece of Democratic legislation, the New Green Deal, up for a vote.  Most Dems running for President voted “present.”   It makes sense he does not want waste more time on partisan clown show legislation coming from the House.  

McConnell came up in conversation in the Trump  thread.  When you were challenged on several questions, wven after openly discussing him for a couple posts, you said it wasn't the McConnell thread and refused to answer questions.  Therefore, I asked tue questions here to politely move the conversation out of the Trump thread.  That isn't trolling.

The Green New Deal wasn't the centerpiece of actual legislation.  As was discussed at the time.  It was brought for a vote as a political ploy.  And it doesn't address the questions ask or what was being discussed.

Which of the bills linked in the Trump thread are partisan clown show?  How was Merrick Garland partisan clow show (outside of McConnells treatment of the nomination)?

 

[Mario Kart]

Putin's Mitch strikes again.

 

[The Commish]

Putin's Mitch strikes again.

Why the Dems can't get out of their own way and make this a cogent talking point to be brought up every day is beyond me.

 

[Godsbrother]

Why the Dems can't get out of their own way and make this a cogent talking point to be brought up every day is beyond me.

Does anyone know what specifically was in the bill that was objectionable to the Republicans?   

 

[Mile High]

Does anyone know what specifically was in the bill that was objectionable to the Republicans?   

It was proposed by Democrats. 

 

[Godsbrother]

It was proposed by Democrats. 

True but I had heard that he similarly blocked bi-partisan bills meant to curtail interference in elections.   Does anyone know what was in these bills that so concerned McConnell?

 

[Mile High]

True but I had heard that he similarly blocked bi-partisan bills meant to curtail interference in elections.   Does anyone know what was in these bills that so concerned McConnell?

 Democrats were just trying to make political hay on the heels of the Mueller testimony in their attempt to bring up a House bill that would mandate the use of paper ballots in states' election systems and provide additional funding to the federal, nonpartisan Election Assistance Commission.

"This is partisan legislation from the Democratic House of Representatives," McConnell said, noting that the bill garnered just one GOP vote in that chamber and was designed to give Democrats the political upper-hand.

"It's very important that we maintain the integrity and security of our elections in our country," the GOP leader said, but he added, "any Washington involvement in that task needs to be undertaken with extreme care, extreme care and on a thoroughly bipartisan basis. Obviously this legislation is not that. It's just a highly partisan bill from the same folks who spent two years hyping up a conspiracy theory about President Trump and Russia."

 

[The Commish]

True but I had heard that he similarly blocked bi-partisan bills meant to curtail interference in elections.   Does anyone know what was in these bills that so concerned McConnell?

Well, the first one they put up had all kinds of things like making election day a national holiday and other things that would make it easier for people to vote.  HR1 had a bunch of things in it that would reduce the GOP's desire to suppress the vote.  I haven't looked at the most recent one.  I cursory google search seems to suggest he opposes it because only one GOP rep in the house passed it.  So "because Democrats proposed it" seems pretty accurate.

 

[Godsbrother]

 Democrats were just trying to make political hay on the heels of the Mueller testimony in their attempt to bring up a House bill that would mandate the use of paper ballots in states' election systems and provide additional funding to the federal, nonpartisan Election Assistance Commission.

"This is partisan legislation from the Democratic House of Representatives," McConnell said, noting that the bill garnered just one GOP vote in that chamber and was designed to give Democrats the political upper-hand.

"It's very important that we maintain the integrity and security of our elections in our country," the GOP leader said, but he added, "any Washington involvement in that task needs to be undertaken with extreme care, extreme care and on a thoroughly bipartisan basis. Obviously this legislation is not that. It's just a highly partisan bill from the same folks who spent two years hyping up a conspiracy theory about President Trump and Russia."

Okay.  I believe there was also a bill that would require candidates, campaign officials and their family members to notify the FBI of assistance offers from foreign governments.

What is objectionable about that and how would it favor Democrats?

 

[timschochet]

Joe Scarborough has taken to calling McConnell “Moscow Mitch”.