He seems the master of duplicity. The rest of his Twitter feed reads as supportive of Trump. Apparently ceaseless war footing is too profitable for the Senate to give up.
The Senate just passed the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act. I’m especially proud it includes my amendment reaffirming the importance of our nation’s ongoing missions in Afghanistan and Syria.— Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) February 5, 2019
The bill passed 77-23
Rand Paul talks to 77 hands.
7 comments:
So we're going to keep pouring money like water on the sands on the M.E. but no pittance for a wall on our own border.
The establishment, left and right, wants endless graft (not endless war, necessarily, but hey, whatever works).
Turtle feels safe because he can retreat into his protective shell.
Twitter comments can't get him there.
Well I guess the MIC must be fed. Obscene. And not a darn thing a lowly citizen can do about it.
A lot of this is kabuki.
Never forget how many military bases have large numbers of civilians working on post, as well as those who, um, "cater" to the needs of the servicemen when they're off post. Then there are all those defense contractors.
'20 is an election year and how better to shore up all that support than with a meaningless resolution?
I'd like to see Mitch McConnel's ass in the grass, and then ask him if it's worth it.
I tend to agree with Edutcher on this.
Sure, it could be that McConnell just decided to poke the President in the eye. But there are alternative theories:
- Trump is really ok with this, because it gives him an "out" if he wants it. Even if you agree with the idea of withdrawal, does anyone really think he rolled it out the right way? Remember when Obama put a time-limit on troops in Iraq? Remember what Trump said about that? (Hint: he rightly said it was a bad idea.)
- Trump doesn't really care, understanding that this is McConnell getting himself off the hook with someone; or, it may be a quid-pro-quo. Remember when Flake said he'd oppose nominations unless something or another was voted upon? Getting your particular thing voted on in Congress is actually a valuable thing, both for an individual member of Congress, and for those interested parties who favor that particular policy. So, for example: those of us who are prolife definitely want various prolife bills voted on, even if they don't pass; because that puts people on record. So for whatever reason, some senators said, we want this voted on. If McConnell traded that for something else, then if it was a good trade, what's the problem? Maybe he got something Trump wanted? We may never know, but that's how it works.
I'm not necessarily saying McConnell is a good guy; I have better things to do than defend him; and I don't really know him. But I can say a couple of things about him. First, he is pretty good at counting votes; far better than Boehner or Ryan were in the House. Second, he is also pretty good at delivering things, if they are deliverable. For example: judicial nominations. But what people forget is that there is a lot of horse-trading to make that happen.
I will say one good thing about McConnell, which most people forget or don't know about him. Back in the 90s and 00's, Sen. John McCain teamed up with Russ Feingold to advance so-called "Campaign Finance Reform." Actually, it preceded them, but they decided that was going to be their claim to fame. The proposals were, actually, free speech/free association restrictions; but lots of GOP types were either clueless, cynical or cowardly about it. Backing it, even admitting it was probably unconstitutional (G.W. Bush), or else just too terrified of being on the "wrong" side.
Not McConnell. He waded into the fight, during his first term in the Senate, if memory serves. He had been elected in an upset, at a time when Kentucky was almost solid Democrat; his re-election was far from uncertain. This is a principled fight; yet it isn't something that electrifies many people. It's hard to see that it was going to help him politically. Yet he did it, and he was magnificent, and he stopped it for quite awhile. He was re-elected, obviously; and that was really useful in getting other Republicans to come up from cover on the issue.
Eventually, G.W. Bush helped get it through, but thankfully, the Supreme Court eviscerated it in Citizens United. But McConnell played an important role in preparing for that outcome. Whatever his motives may really have been, that was a good thing he did.
Post a Comment