Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
2018 GOP Senate … Mitch, Extend the Olive Branch
Majority Leader McConnell has been accurately described as both very strong and very weak. Unfortunately, his strength generally seems to be against different voices in his own Party and his weakness against the “other side of the aisle” (exceptions acknowledged for Garland and Gorsuch). There are continued signs of dissatisfaction with his leadership over the failed attempts at legislative accomplishments thus far this year. The natives are restless. Can’t we all just get along?
Unfortunately, the indications are that the GOP civil war continues. The war between these factions in the GOP (the President’s supporters versus his detractors) continues unabated. The memory of the fight in 2016 over how the President was going to lose the WH and the Senate is being regurgitated for 2018 … “you ‘angry populists’ must accept our Senate committee chosen candidates or risk losing the Senate.” Corker versus Trump.
Oh boy, there you go again. This is the essence of the Stupid Party.
In the 2014 Senate primaries, Mitch famously promised to “punch the Tea Party in the nose”. Well, he did. And he is facing the consequences of that now. Remember Mississippi! Hello President Trump!
So, Mr. McConnell, we ain’t in 2014 any more. And Alabama was a preliminary lesson for you on that. And 2018 is sitting on a silver platter for you and the GOP. If you are the gentleman from Kentucky that your career has shown you to be, humble yourself and make the first gesture of peace offering to the Administration and the “Tea Party” populists in the GOP (think Steve Bannon). It makes no sense whatsoever to fight against each other on this. Give and take. Learn from Alabama. You have certainly “given” a lot over your career (to the other Party). Sit down with representatives of the President and even his former adviser Mr. Bannon. Divvy up the states where the GOP has re-elections of current seats (AZ, MS, NE, NV, TN, TX, UT and WY). Give some to the Bannon wing rather than fight him, in return for their acquiescence on some of the states most important to you and your incumbents.
And from that understanding, form a cooperative strategy on the 25 states that the Democrats must protect in 2018. Fully 10 of these states are ones which were won by President Trump in 2016 (FL, IN, MI, MO, MT, ND, OH, PA, WV, WI), and VA is up for grabs too with the Hillary stain on Kaine. Acknowledge that. President Trump won states that you previously lost. There’s something different going on and instead of the status quo, let’s make some game-changing strategy together in the selection of GOP Senate candidates. This is good for the GOP, good for the Country, and good for your legacy. If you would prefer to go out on top versus having to fight an internecine war within your own Party to retain your leadership, this is a golden opportunity.
You have made great progress with the President with regard to remaking the Federal judiciary. Let’s take that momentum to the greatest GOP Senate win ever in 2018.
If this truce doesn’t occur, we already see the signs of what lies in store. We’ll get articles in the leftist pub The Hill … Bannon putting Senate majority at risk in 2018, Republicans warn. I remember well the same empty false fears thrown out in 2016 about the risk of President Trump and a GOP Senate majority. For the love of G-d, don’t do this again. The GOP needs more Senators. On this we all agree. But you must acknowledge and accept that many of these candidates will not be the same old, same old nice safe and squishy candidates that you most prefer. Accept some firebrands that give you the willies. The voting base of your Party demands it. This is not for Steve Bannon. He’s just the voice for a Yuge segment of your voter base.
Do it for your Country. Do it for your Party. Do it for own your legacy. Please. Don’t pull a Boehner.
Published in General
One observation re: the original post and its premise: Steve Bannon did not win the AL senate race. The very Trump-friendly primary voters of AL had the choice of a pro-Trump candidate and an ACTUAL TRUMP. Roy Moore was Trump when Trump wasn’t cool. Steve Bannon could have spent the primary season in a medically-induced coma and the results would have been the same.
I don’t get the McConnell loathing. He’s a guy trying to lead a political group that has little common ground in an institution that rewards mavericks. Give Rush Limbaugh that job and he’d have a similar track record.
But the important lesson for the GOP from AL and other senate fights is that their voting base has a significant populist make-up. Quality customer service = catering to their needs. Doesn’t mean they get everything they want, but it does mean accommodating them/sucking up to them in smart ways.
McConnell’s new strategy on judicial nominees–ending the “blue ticket veto”–is a smart one. There are more. He should look for them.
At the same time, the Trumpists need to acknowledge that the governing coalition will contain traditional Republicans. Kicking them out = “minority party.” A GOP that has room for a Roy Moore and a Charlie Baker is a winner. Kick either wing out and you’re back to Bob Michel status.
Moderator Note:
Poor timing. This was posted as I was composing my comment.Of course not. [redacted]. As of today I have stopped reading him.
I think this is an interesting article, written from the perspective that, yes, Flake votes with Trump a lot, so, given his frequent and energetic criticisms of the man, what is Flake actually doing to hold Trump accountable in the areas where he disagrees with him? (The concluding sentence of the article is “Flake is taking a less impressive approach[than are some other Trump critics]: Complaining loudly about Trump and doing very little about him,” so the answer shouldn’t be hard to spot.)
As for the “Chemtrail Kelli” story, @garyrobbins, if you actually have some real evidence to support this contention, now would be a really good time to produce it. Because it looks as though your fellow members have, with an unexpected assist from The Washington Post, roundly debunked your proposition. Perhaps it’s time to move on.
I mostly agree with everything posted above.
Here’s my answer to the McConnell loathing … he was quick to punch the Tea Party in the nose … why won’t he do the same to the bullys Collins, Murkowski and McQueeg?
There’s one of the things we always disagree on. The Senate Majority leader should never campaign against the incumbent Senator of the same party; I would be calling for his head if he did, because it destroys party unity.
The Tea Party kept backing nut cases like Christine O’Donnell (which gave us Chris Coons for a decade) and losers like Sharron Angle (which gave us another six glorious years of Harry Reid) and others. Usually, the incumbents backed by McConnell were shoe-ins for re-election and stirring up trouble there could lead to the Democrat winning, which is a far greater sin.
I think it’s been too long to still hold a grudge about the punch in the nose.
As far as those three, Collins will be replaced by a Democrat the moment she stops running, or worse, a Bernie Sanders-type, like the guy who replaced Olympia Snowe. Maine is not a Republican state and I don’t understand their love affair with Susan, but it puts a notch in the ‘R’ column in the Senate, so I’ll take it. In other words, there is nobody for McConnell to back in Maine – it’s Socialists all the way down. To paraphrase William F. Buckley, in Maine you back the least-Socialist candidate who can win. Heh.
Now Murkowski is a bizarre one. How a state can allow a person to represent them in the Senate with only 44% of the vote shows how messed up Alaska’s voting process has become. But we’re stuck with her until 2022, unless AK does a recall. Which they won’t. I don’t see how McConnell can do anything there.
I don’t even want to talk about Arizona. I get too sad.
Interesting, perhaps. Quantitative, no. Mr Robbins made a precise quantitative claim (97%) without support. Some contrary evidence was provided. Still awaiting a citation for the specific claim:
Glad you agree. Somewhat.
I expect that’s why I used the word “interesting” and not a word like “quantitative” or “dispositive.”
I’m not sure if you expect me to do the research and provide the specific evidence to support Gary’s claim. But I’m not going to. I hope he gets back to you on it. If he doesn’t I daresay it won’t be the first, or the last, unsubstantiated claim that’s ever made on Ricochet, though.
Of course I don’t expect you to do the research; sorry if there was any confusion there. I do expect Mr. Robbins to do the research before posting claims, especially extraordinary ones. You know what they say about extraordinary claims. I also expect the moderators to adhere to the CoC and to mark misinformation accordingly, especially when ample evidence is provided. It was my understanding that this was the job description.
Ricochet is becoming less evidence based and more screaming-hair-on-fire based. I’m less interested in Mr. Robbins’s comments per se than I am in promoting the value of truth over sensational false claims and conspiracy-mongering. Your mileage may vary.
I’d also add to that, the ‘Blue Slip’ practice that it looks as if he’s finally looking to end (due only to the pressure being placed on him) – if Mitch’s long game was the Judiciary, then what was he waiting for? – if the Dems didn’t stop obstructing after three months, he should have ended the practice then. Now he looks weak and like he’s being forced to do something. I’ll give him credit on Merrick Garland. Why was he able to enforce party discipline on that but not healthcare or tax reform? McConnell isn’t without guilt in the whole internecine fighting, not by a long shot.
I remain kind of mystified by this argument. We are told that Mitch is a weak leader because he can’t turn his thin majority into legislative accomplishments. But the reason he can’t do it is because he has several members of his caucus who do whatever they want and don’t care what the Party establishment is trying to accomplish. Now I don’t really blame Mitch for that, and I doubt that any other majority leader could control the likes of McCain, Murkowski, or Rand Paul. Those kind of Senators are purely creatures of self-interest, and don’t give a damn about Party loyalty. But what mystifies me is that a lot of the critics of Mitch are calling for more Senators who won’t pay attention to him (or any other Party leadership). Even Trump recognized that a Roy Moore is far more likely than a Luther Strange to undermine legislative objectives that Trump supports. The way I see it, you can either demand greater fealty to Party leadership, so that things like repealing Obamacare can get done, or you can demand greater disrespect for Party leadership. But you can’t have both. If you are going to criticize Mitch for failing to get his caucus to do what he wants, then you shouldn’t be asking for more Republican Senators who will refuse to do what he wants.
So far, on this thread, I have pointed out to Gary that his “Chemtrail Kelli” assertion is demonstrably false and suggested he move on from it, linked to a small article which says that Flake may be criticizing Trump a lot, but that he’s not doing much substantive to thwart his agenda and expressed a hope that Gary will get back to you with the source for his citation of the 97% figure.
I completely agree with you about the proliferation of hair-on-fire posts and comments around here lately. They’re everywhere! And sometimes it’s easy to spot the misinformation. And sometimes it’s not.
Your mileage may vary also, but “Flake votes with Trump 97% of the time” does not strike me as such an egregious assertion that it demands to be struck from the record immediately as “misinformation.” You’ve already shown that, on immigration, Flake doesn’t always vote the “Trump side”. There probably are areas where he does always vote the Trump side. Perhaps there are some where he never votes the Trump side? So, are we talking about an average, and if so, what is it?
I expect we’ll find out that Flake votes with the Trump side, on average, greater than 90% of the time. (Heck, I’ve seen reports that the dreaded McCain votes with Trump in the mid-eighties, percentage-wise). And perhaps Gary is right. Or not. He’s been asked to provide a citation. It’s Sunday. Let’s give him a little time and see what he says.
Thanks for your interest in clarifying the details of the moderator job description. While it is sometimes quite easy to notice and point out areas of misinformation, and we try to do that, there’s no obligation, as far as I can see, to research and validate every single assertion made in every single post. Usually, the validity (or not) of such statements is demonstrated through the conversation that follows them, as others present supportive or opposing detail, as the conversation flows. We usually try not to intervene unless there seems to be a logjam at some point. And that is as it should be.
Allow me to clarify my position a little further. I think there is more that we agree upon than not.
First, the Majority Leader should campaign for the incumbent. What I oppose is the campaign attacks (at times even worse than the democrats) by the GOP Majority Leader against the challengers. These go beyond nasty and destroy party unity. See Mississippi 2014 and Alabama 2017. And I would be happy to leave the grudge behind if Mitch weren’t still employing the same tactics in 2017.
Secondly, I completely agree that some states are very liberal and that we should be happy with the ‘establishment’ candidate. This includes Susan Collins in ME as well similar blue or purple states like CT or NV. I am not suggesting extreme candidates everywhere either.
I do disagree with the “nutcase” charge. Christine O’Donnell was a rookie who didn’t handle media attacks well but this was no nutcase. And that charge has been indiscriminately labeled on anyone who wasn’t hand selected by Mitch. See the primaries of Chris McDaniel, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee (in spite of Mitch), etc. Mitch’s safe candidates were a disaster in 2012. Remember Senators Connie Mack IV, Denny Rehberg, Rick Berg, Tom Smith, Josh Mandel and John Raese?
Lastly, we agree that both the Senator from Alaska and Arizona should be subject to some sort of punishment for their selfish, uncooperative grandstanding that has most certainly destroyed party unity as well. Yet, they continue to get all deference and senior voice of the party status. Mitch could end that. For party unity.
One of Ricochet’s favorite Senators, Ben Sasse, was on the receiving end of McConnells attacks. This was an open seat with no incumbent
Kelli Ward held a hearing in the Arizona Legislature so that crack-pot kooks could talk about their theory that airline contrails were actually chemtrails.
Disposal of the ‘Blue Slip’ policy by McConnell is not a done deal. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley has not decided to follow through with McConnell’s claim. The problem is these guys are politicians. Therefore who knows what to believe. Is McConnell really wanting to end the policy? Or is he just faking it, knowing that Grassley will not allow its end? They play so many games.
This is a good case study. Yes, Sasse was strongly opposed by Mitch and team since they didn’t select him. However, once in Washington, Sasse has now sided with McConnell and the entrenched Senate GOP leadership to be the heir apparent and strongest anti-Trump GOP senatorial voice. He has been seized by the Washington leadership versus his own electorate.
Sasse should be strongly opposed by the Nebraska GOP when his re-election comes up. Nebraska is a very conservative state and we should have senators from there more resemble Cruz and Lee rather than Corker and McCain.
Repeating garbage does not prove a point. Ms. Ward held a hearing to address her constituents concerns about environmental quality. Listening to her constituents is her job. It is not her fault that a number of voters believe this junk
Gary, this is misinformation. Kelli Ward never held a hearing in the Arizona legislature about chemtrails.
She held a town hall meeting so that her constituents, who had concerns about them, could sound off. (Sometimes, when you’ve a bee in your bonnet about something, sounding off helps.)
I have already suggested that you abandon this line of argument. Please do it gracefully, and not by escalating further into the realms of fantasy.
Okay, I have done my homework. There was an authority, but it is somewhat, should we say, dubious. According to an attack ad on Facebook, the Arizona Democratic Party said that Senator Flake voted with Trump 97% of the time. That figure had stuck in my mind.
I found an article by a Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer whose title about an article about Flake said, “Meet the hypocrite who rips Trump but votes with him 95.5% of the time.” Mr. Bunch’s politics appear to be quite liberal.
Moving on to more reputable sources, 538 did a comparison of how a Senator voted versus how a model Senator from that state would vote based upon Trump’s margin of victory or loss. Under that analysis, Senator Flake had the 11th highest voting percentage of 100 senators, voting with Trump 91.5% of the time. I then checked to see where Senator Flake voted contrary to Trump. There were four votes. Twice Flake voted with 97 and then 98 Senators to impose sanctions on Russia that Trump opposed. Flake was right, Trump was wrong. The other two votes were on raising the debt limit where Senator Flake was on the losing side of a 80-17 vote, and the Appropriations bill where Senator Flake was on the losing side of a 78-17 vote. So, I guess Senator Flake is more fiscally conservative than Trump, not a bad place to be in my mind.
The point remains that Senator Flake votes very conservatively on a consistent basis. Trump’s issue with Flake is that Flake doesn’t like Trump. I don’t either. But Senator Flake is one of the most reliable conservative voters in the Senate. (I do have one difference with Senator Flake; he believed that having diplomatic relations with Cuba will undermine the Castro regime. I am not so sure about that.)
If someone has evidence that Senator Flake does not vote as a consistent fiscal conservative, let’s hear it.
My position is that baring some exptional problem like a crime McConnell should generally support incumbents or he won’t get anything done. I would prefer that support to be positive rather than attack ads.
I don’t think he needs to get involved in primaries for open seats or seats held by Democrats. He should never attack other Republicans.
Excellent. Relying on Democrat propaganda for your “facts.”
Moving the goalpost. The original claim was not about fiscal conservatism.
Also, no cite for the 538 analysis so it’s hard to evaluate.Edit: I see that it was cited above by someone else.He can’t. It’s beyond him.
Update:
President Trump negotiates a truce between Mitch McConnell and Steve Bannon. I expect more cooperation between the two sides on over states where the incumbent is fine versus those which are “up for grabs” and/or challengers are not viciously attacked by the GOP any longer …
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article179171251.html