Ever since McConnell's hand-picked candidate, Trey Grayson, lost to Rand Paul in the 2010 GOP primary he has almost always done whatever the base wants. E.g., blocking Garland was a move to cover his right flank after seeing Boehner ousted by the Tea Party. It just paid off big.
When McConnell entered the Senate in the 1980s he carved a niche by doing what other Republicans would not, and blocking popular campaign finance reform bills. After leading one such filibuster, his colleagues “were finally beginning to know who I was,” he enthused in his memoir.
McConnell’s efforts to block campaign finance reform bill spanned the 1980s and 1990s and earned him the nickname Darth Vader. They also helped him climb the ranks of GOP leadership and rise to NRSC chair. Along the way he embraced the Darth Vader tag. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
As the GOP Whip in 2005, McConnell led Senate Republicans’ efforts to go nuclear under President Bush. He had twenty years’ experience to Frist’s few. That effort was championed by some of the loudest critics of Democrats’ decision to go nuclear in 2013, like Hatch and Grassley.
And of course, in 2009 and 2010 McConnell twisted arms to keep Republicans from working with President Obama on the Affordable Care Act and declared that his top priority was to make Obama a “one-term president.”
McConnell’s brief sojourn as an “institutionalist” was from 2013-14 when it served his political interests and fed the narrative that he would restore Senate traditions if Republicans took back the majority. As soon as he had power, he broke all of those promises.
McConnell will always do whatever serves his own narrow interests and helps him gain power. Since Boehner was ousted, that has almost always meant hewing closely to the Republican base. Any analysis that suggests otherwise is contrary to history and his own extensive record.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Adam Jentleson 🎈

Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AJentleson

13 Oct
With respect to Bruce, the thing about Madison is that you have to follow his entire thought. A few lines up, he calls majority rule "the fundamental principle of republican Government." He would lay out both sides, then come down firmly for majority rule. loc.gov/resource/mjm.0…
At the Constitutional Convention, Madison argued for majority rule in the Senate and against giving states the same number of senators. Remember this next time someone throws Madison at you: he wanted the Senate to be majority rule *and* proportional by population like the House.
That quote ^^ is Madison at the Constitutional Convention arguing against the Great Compromise: a bicameral Congress with representation in the House proportional by population but equal in the Senate. Madison decried equal representation for states in the Senate as "injustice."
Read 6 tweets
9 Oct
A word about @SenAngusKing's comment that "the 60 vote majority requires some level of consensus," which reflect a common myth about the Senate. The Framers designed the Senate to promote compromise, but the filibuster was not a part of that design. mainebeacon.com/sen-king-seen-…
The Framers designed the Senate as a venue for compromise but were extremely clear that it should be, and remain majority-rule. They had seen how supermajority thresholds led to gridlock in the Articles of Confederation and explicitly warned against them - over and over.
The Framers were familiar with the idea that supermajority thresholds promote compromise but had seen that in practice, they provided an irresistible temptation for the minority to "embarrass" the majority. They warned us about what would happen. Here's Hamilton in Federalist 22.
Read 11 tweets
9 Oct
This by @mattyglesias is the strongest case for reconciliation I've read. But IMO reconciliation is a mirage for a few reasons. All paths lead to the filibuster; you either nuke it or you don't. Even an ambitious use of reconciliation leads you there. 1/ vox.com/21499869/joe-b…
The appeal of reconciliation is that it's fast. It can be, but probably won't be for large-scale bill like this.First you have to write and pass a budget. Then, making a bill of this scope comply with reconciliation rules will be extremely hard, and guaranteed to contain errors.
Small errors can be fatal; any provision that doesn't survive the test of compliance (called a "Byrd bath") gets struck from the bill by the parliamentarian. If a major provision gets struck, you either have to abandon it or go nuclear to change the rules. So, back to square one.
Read 8 tweets
5 Oct
McConnell made clear that tomorrow he'll seek consent to adjourn for ~2 weeks. Before a bunch of Rs got Covid a big benefit to keeping the floor open was the ability to force Rs off the trail & onto the floor. But that’s dangerous when we don’t know how many of them are infected.
By adjourning to pro formas Dems lock in that there'll be no floor vote on ACB for the next 2 weeks. It deprives them of tactics like forcing live quorums but also increases the chances they don’t get covid. With a real covid outbreak among Senate Rs, the pros outweigh the cons.
On quorums: To vote or conduct any business in the Senate you need a quorum of 51 senators physically present on the floor. It appears Dems can deny a quorum right now, but the real question is whether they can do so when Republicans are ready to vote on Barrett. That’s TBD.
Read 12 tweets
22 Sep
This is a Copernican moment. Democrats are realizing the old ways no longer apply. Our democracy has tilted to minority rule by white conservatives who are imposing their will on the diverse majority. That’s unsustainable and it is Dems’ responsibility to rebalance our democracy.
Republicans are imposing minority rule by white conservatives through the most undemocratic elements of our system, many of which have mutated far beyond anything the framers envisioned. Reforming those elements & bringing our democracy back into balance is absolutely essential.
This generation of elected Democrats is being called on to reform the system so it can continue to function. Minority rule by white conservative judges and senators wielding veto power over the will of a diverse majority is not a healthy or sustainable dynamic for democracy.
Read 5 tweets
21 Sep
🚨 It's not just Mark Kelly who could be seated in November: if Dems win the GA special election for Loeffler's seat the winner could be seated in Nov, too. @ReverendWarnock is the guy but Joe Lieberman's son @LiebermanForGa is playing spoiler. Drop out. ajc.com/politics/polit…
This is an uphill battle: Warnock has to win *with* 50% in November to avoid a Jan runoff. But if he does, GA elex law says the winner can be seated immediately. In a fight like this, with these stakes, being in position to win every seat and catch every break is critical.
@ReverendWarnock is the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta - Martin Luther King Jr.'s former congregation. DSCC endorsed. He's clearly the right candidate for this race and Lieberman has no business except as a spoiler. Give to Warnock here: secure.actblue.com/donate/wfg_ads…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!