Share this page!

Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
Twitter logo
7 Jan, 10 tweets, 3 min read
Hawley is likely to emerge with the political upper hand from today, and it’s important to be clear-eyed about that. Elite opinion may pile on him for a while. But by this time next year his GOP colleagues will be begging him to do fundraising events for them.
Republican voters embraced Trump from the moment he set foot in the 2016 primary. They stayed loyal to him for four years and turned out in record numbers for him in 2020. There’s simply not much basis for thinking they will now reject the approach of folks like Hawley.
Folks having a strong reaction should remember that they’re probably not the ones Hawley is appealing to. After the violence, 138 Republicans took stock and decided it was still in their interests to stick with Hawley. He wants to be a hero to the right. Seems to be working.
Adding to this thread. To be clear, I think Hawley is slime. And it will take a while for the dust to settle. But we have to be clear-eyed about what the modern GOP has become. It is a party that will ultimately reward the kind of reprehensible behavior Hawley has displayed.
When Trump entered the primary, many observers mistook the discomfort of the GOP elite and establishment party leaders for the signal when it turned out to be the noise. The same is true now. GOP politicians will follow GOP voters.
Adding to this. Half the GOP approves of what happened. That number is likely to grow, or at least not shrink, as Rs get their footing and settle on exculpatory narratives. The other half of the party will accommodate those that embraced the riots, and move in their direction.
Marist shows higher GOP disapproval. One way to resolve the discrepancy is to watch the actions of GOP electeds. After the violence, 138 House Rs voted against the election results, and so far, real action against the enablers seems to be off the table. pbs.org/newshour/polit…
Adding.
Quick note because some seem to think I think this is a good thing. Hi, nice to meet you [gestures at everything I’ve ever written or said]. My point is, the GOP has evolved into a proto-fascist party👇and we can only figure out the path forward if we confront that fact head-on.
Adding to this 🧵. We have to be clear-eyed about the fact that GOP voters will side with the rioters. Politicians follow their voters. This is where the party has been headed for a long time now, towards proto-fascism. It will continue moving in this direction.

• • •

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

Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
30 Dec 20
Yup. Before the filibuster emerged in the mid-19th century, the chair could simply end debate when they thought senators had become dilatory, by ruling them out of order.(Relatedly, the idea that the Framers wanted Senate debate to be unlimited is a myth.)
Before he was a senator, John C. Calhoun was Adams' VP and presided over the Senate as Chair. Calhoun hated Adams because of his "corrupt bargain" with Clay. At the time, it was standard practice for the Chair to rule dilatory senators out of order. But one day...
... a senator was on the floor assailing Adams. Normally, the Chair would rule him out of order. But Calhoun was presiding, and in bitterness to Adams, he let the senator go on. This shocked senators, set a new precedent and nudged the door open to the obstruction we know today.
Read 4 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
29 Dec 20
Re-upping. If Trump wants to, he could ask Pence to preside and recognize a senator who is willing to bring up the House-passed bill raising checks to $2K. The VP is president of the Senate, can preside and is free to recognize any senator. How about it, @realDonaldTrump ?
Unlike in the House, the Senate Leader’s power to set the agenda is statutorily weak, based on tradition & precedent not rules. The Garner precedent gives the Leader priority recognition but it’s not a rule. The presider (aka Pence) can ignore it and recognize whoever they want.
Yes it is! Ultimately it comes down to whether the bill has the votes, because the end result of the maneuver is just to get the bill a vote. But for bills like the $2k/CASH Act that McConnell is not brining up precisely because he fears they might pass, this could come in handy.
Read 5 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
24 Dec 20
McConnell wants folks to think the $2k bill is doomed in the Senate but he’s really trying to avoid a vote that puts Perdue/Loeffler in a bind and might split his conference. Trump’s the X factor but if he backs it, there’ll be huge pressure on McConnell to bring it to the floor.
Actually, there is! If @realDonaldTrump is feeling as vengeful toward McConnell as reports suggest, he should read @jiwallner (no raging lefty) on how the Senate Majority Leader’s power to set the agenda is statutorily weak, based more on habit than rules.
Trump is probably just being a chaos machine. But if he actually wants the checks he can have Pence preside (VP is the president of the Senate) and give floor recognition to someone who’ll bring up the House $2k bill. If Trump won’t use this power, it confirms he’s just bluffing.
Read 4 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
23 Dec 20
A quick procedural word about unanimous consent (UC) agreements since we might hear a lot about them in the next few days: a single objection from any member blocks them (hence “unanimous”). On the hill, there’s a term for bringing up UCs you know are likely to fail: UC practice.
The beauty of UCs is that they can be very fast: even in the Senate, if a member asks to pass a Bill by UC and no one objects, it passes, just like that. Doesn’t matter how big or small or on what topic, the bill is passed. The downside of course is that one objection blocks it.
Before a bill is brought up by UC, leadership runs a “hotline” which is a caucus-wide canvass (usually over email) to see if anyone has an objection. By the time a bill is brought to the floor by UC, leadership knows whether it’ll pass or fail based on feedback from the hotline.
Read 7 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
21 Dec 20
Democrats should not take a victory lap on this bill. It provides less than a third of the aid economists say is necessary and McConnell is getting all the credit- after blocking aid for months. Instead we should explain why this bill is inadequate and how Dems will deliver more.
Dems got out-maneuvered. Failing to secure state/local aid means the bill comes in ~$300B below what was achievable, with harsh consequences. Politically, McConnell is getting all the credit. Embracing the bill undercuts Warnock and Ossoff by validating McConnell’s victory lap.
Vote yes, say it’s crap. This bill may be better than nothing, but it’s a slap in the face to working Americans who are getting hosed while corporations rake in record profits. Hang its inadequacy around Trump and McConnell and hammer home that Dems want to deliver more.
Read 9 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
18 Dec 20
So... agree or disagree, I say what I think on here. 🤷‍♂️ I took flack from the left for defending CARES. The current deal might end up as better than nothing and worth passing. But Dems left billions in aid on the table that would’ve helped many facing dire straits. For example.. Image
Let’s take the 12/2 decision by Dem leaders to endorse the 900B bipartisan frame. These kinds of negotiations are all about that baseline- you fight like hell to give an inch. Pelosi/Mnuchin had a $1.8B baseline. Securing no concessions, Dem leaders *halved* the baseline to 900B. Image
Some argue that Dem leaders refusing to cut a deal before the election helped Biden. Sure. Others note McConnell rejected the 1.8T deal. Yes! But: why cut the baseline in *half*, giving away ~$1T in aid, for no concessions? There’s miles of landing room between 1.8T and 900B.
Read 10 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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AJentleson has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AJentleson!

Read all threads by @AJentleson