Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Interesting: McConnell Threatens "Scorched Earth"

Mitch McConnell is definitely a mixed bag. Leaving the downside for some other time, the upside is that he's a great guy to have on your side when the going gets rough in the Senate.

Today he gave a speech in the Senate threatening a "scorched earth" approach if the Dems eliminate the filibuster. I had no idea that the GOP had alternatives, but it turns out that they do. Zerohedge--McConnell Flips Out Over Filibuster, Threatens 'Scorched Earth Senate' If Dems Pursue Power Grab:

If Dems 'blow up the filibuster,' McConnell says he'll require a quorum for every piece of Democrat legislation - which VP Kamala Harris couldn't become a tie-breaker for, and that previous actions would seem like "child's play."


In short, McConnell is threatening to make Congressional Democrats' lives miserable if they push for a power grab through the elimination of the filibuster, while Democrats know they'll have to negotiate in good faith if they want infrastructure - or any major legislation - to pass with the support of moderate Democrat Joe Manchin - described in January as the most powerful Senator due to this exact scenario.

That's not "flipping out." That's just splashing some cold water in your face. Looks like the GOP may have more cards in its hand than anyone thought. I sure hope so.

Zerohedge has all sorts of analysis of this, but the above looks like the bottom line.


  1. What a joke. The ONLY difference between Democrats and Republicans today is who gets to spend OUR money.

    McConnell is a big hat, new boots, shiny spurs and no cows.

    His decades of screwing the middle class and middle America - right alongside his Democrat 'adversaries' are coming to a close.

  2. McConnell is blustering to get some personal payoff for him and his constituency, but not for the Republican caucus or Americans in general. He'll fold like a cheap cardboard suitcase after that's locked up for him...

  3. Yes, this is good, just as he did well with judges ...

    But ... you cannot ignore the downside.

    Maybe I am wrong, but where was this fire for his president in general? Where was this fire on and just after Jan 6?

    Oh, he’s mad now?

    Sure, sure, we take what we can get, but really McConnell, now?

  4. I'm not sure who's more dangerous anymore, the Dems or the Repubs. What I AM sure of though... Where they may not always agree or be on the same side, neither are EVER on my side of anything.

    So yeah... good luck with it Mitch, may you all tear each other's eyes out.

  5. Looks like quite a few bridges in West Virginia will get a new name: Joe Manchin national bridge,, Joe Manchin highway,, Joe Manchin court house etc.

    Rob S

    1. He's the same as the rest, just another slimy amoeba from the DC cesspool. How can the honest folk of WV continue to be so gullible?


  6. He's just setting his price higher. He's in "money making business", like Bidens and Clintons and Bushs.

  7. Here's what I don't understand and no where have I read anyone mention this. In my opinion, there are really only 48 Democrats in the Senate. There happen to be two "independents" (Sanders and King from Maine) that vote with the Democrats. Can someone tell me, if McConnell is so special, why didn't he fight the dems and keep hold of the majority in the Senate? That would have solved all this other malarky that's going on now.

    1. Yep. My point exactly.

      Here’s McConnell on Trump in June of 2016 for effs sake ...

      “ He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it's pretty obvious he doesn't know a lot about the issues”

      It’s not Trump the man I support, but his ideals, his ideas, his methods and madness, all of it, even punching down.

      The Democrats know how to do this. So does Trump, a former registered Democrat who grew up and lived his life, very successfully, in a heavy Democrat state.

      McConnell, in my opinion has exhibited cognitive dissonance in which he abhors Trump the man, mostly looks down his nose at most of Trump’s MAGA ideals, but recognizes that Trump has captured most of the Republican party in general.

      So, he is schizophrenic, appearing supportive one day then later in opposition with it being kind of like a sine wave.

    2. @anon "Here's what I don't understand and no where have I read anyone mention this. "

      Sundance has been covering this for a number of years where Mitch is concerned and I think he has a very solid conclusion.

      An over simplification being, McConnell makes a pile of cash selling his click of RINO votes when the Senate is in dem favor. It's always the same click of 5 or 6 individuals that when faced with that really god awful voting decision breaks with Dems to pass whatever outlandishly stupid legislation.

      The suspicion being that he prefers the position of selling vs buying. Meaning they make much more money for themselves, family and relatives when the Repubs are selling vs buying votes.

      It's just a theory of course but historically it does seem to fit very well into what transpires in the Senate. I also think that is why you see him flexing the muscle he is at the moment. The populist dem calls to end the filibuster puts him into a position to remind them that no matter what he can still control everything he wishes so "don't bother".

    3. With the caveat that sundance was right about Barr and I was wrong ... How does he explain McConnell's stand against Merrick Garland for SCOTUS? Saving a SCOTUS seat for ... Trump?

      I'm not suggesting McConnell is one of those elusive "principled conservatives" I've heard rumors about, but the reality may be more complex than is being suggested. In fairness to myself, the reality of Barr was also more complex--it's just that he betrayed us on THE biggest responsibility he was faced with.

      Now, you can argue that McConnell did the same thing, re Election 2020. The difference is that McConnell is still with us and remains in a position to perhaps get us through to 2022. He has a long record of being a very determined and effective fighter in defense of partisan positions. That's different than being honest or principled, but it may suit our purposes for the time being.

    4. He had no mention of Merrick Garland when the SCOTUS seat was previously open. But had a recent blurb on him during his AG run up with McConnell's support...

      The jest of it being "Mitch supports any system or nominee that will remove any entity that is considered a threat to the professional political class."

      Easy shot of personal opinion of course... but I think that's a fair crack at him, "professional political class" and as I said in a previous post, not on my side.

      I'd say RINO but I think it's a misleading or misused term. I like the RINOs, their the only honest ones.

  8. The ZH article also mentions that the Dems aren't real worried about this as they can resort to the budget reconciliation maneuver to pass highly prized legislation free of any filibuster. This was how Obamacare was passed, as you recall.

    For McConnell and his ilk, it's the same, old game: betray the base voters and then turn around and proclaim your outrage over something to refurbish his so called conservative credentials. See Loeffler and Purdue. Then Conservative Inc will all excoriate anyone daring to suggest that these guys be tossed out of office.

    Republicans are weak because the leadership values money and power above all else. Democrats are corrupt but they combine it with a zealous, almost religious fervor for oligarchy that is merciless in its quest for supremacy.

    1. In fact ZH says trying to do it by reconciliation could end up being "problematic."

    2. I'll be waiting to see what happens when Biden signs a bill passed 51-50 by 'reconciliation' which McConnell says is 'problematic': i.e., ineligible for reconciliation. That will be a Constitutional 100 car pileup. Well, I guess the Supreme Court will just have to sort that one out...not.

      Having said this point, why ever trust McConnell?

    3. Please note: I wrote that "ZH" says attempting to pass lots of stuff through the reconciliation process could prove "problematic." "ZH", not "McConnell." In fact Dems have already run up against that, with the Senate parliamentarian nixing measures that don't qualify for reconciliation.

      The reason ZH calls regular resort to reconciliation problematic has nothing to do with the Constitution. Rather, it's the question of holding 50 senators together. The dynamics in Senate elections tend to be more extreme than in House races. Dem senators in Red states will be far less inclined to march in lock step than Reps in the Dem house when the measures at issue could prove unpopular in their home state. The Dem agenda, after all, is largely about disempowering all but the Bluest states--which could prove to be a recipe for losing the Senate. More so than losing the House.

    4. @ mark.

      Maybe. Maybe not. The more likely scenario in 2022 will be more Republican retirements as the establishment types see they can't win even a primary in Trump's Party now. But that will only make safe seats vulnerable as Dems are typically better at backing even a phony candidate than Republican big donors and party apparatchiks who fail to support a Trump backed candidate. I don't think the Dems are worried at all about losing seats in 2022. All their powers of fraud will be employed to keep their majority. The electoral calculus that plays so prominently in ZH article is outdated now. In short, federal elections don't matter much now. And if HR 1 becomes law, game over.

    5. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Or we're talking past each other.

      What I'm saying is that the Dems in the Senate may try to use reconciliation for a bill which doesn't qualify for reconciliation. They may attempt to override the parliamentarian. If they succeed, and Biden signs such a bill, you've got another 'Constitutional' issue for the Supreme Court to resolve.

      Far fetched? We'll see.

  9. I’m not sure this matters as much in the Trump ERA...

    It depends if Trump can direct funding or not.

    > Republican big donors and party apparatchiks who fail to support a Trump backed candidate