Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
This week we raise the Jolly Roger against an imitator podcast that is intruding on the 3WHH's exclusive right of commentary on all things McDonald's, but then we move on to our own balance sheet about the Iran War (verdict—we're winning big, and Trump is killing it), and the saga of the SAVE Act in the Senate, where opinion divides more sharply among the three of us.
Here we land the blame squarely on GOP Senate leader John Thune, and did you know that "thune" is a slang French expression for for money, though it is often used with a modifier to indicate the lack thereof, like "sans thune." Seems fitting for a GOP Senate that can't figure out how to fight.
The exit music this week is an obscure callback. . . I doubt one person in 1,000 will get it.
John Yoo
'Lucretia'
Steve Hayward
Discussion (4)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
You three are too kind to my home state disgrace Nancy Pelosi. Her political power began and ended with the control she wielded over the unthinking block of democrat votes from CA house representatives.
She had no other skills. As speaker she had control of her party purse strings, but that was the result of her block of votes.
Her only personal accomplishment in power was to never pass a single budget. it was all continuing spending resolutions. she saw a budget passed early in her career, but never passed one herself.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Where to begin. On Nancy Pelosi's ability to keep the Democratic caucus under tight control. First, Democrats are the party of yes, and Republicans are the party of no. It's easier to build a coalition when you're able to say yes to everyone. When you're trying to reduce spending, but not every Republican is a spending hawk, it's harder to build a coalition. I never like Paul Ryan's stance on immigration. But one thing he dedicated his career to, was finding a resonable glide path down toward reducing the U.S. depency on entitlements. He couldn't overcome the problems of being the party of no.
Another argument to make about Pelosi is she just was super talented at being a legislative leader, and was perhaps a once or twice in a generation talent at it
On the Senate and what makes it harder to lead: First, which was not brought up during the discussion at all, you have to go to what makes up the Senate even before you talk about institutional traditions such as the filibuster. Senators are elected to staggered 6 year terms. It seems so obvious it doesn't bear mentioning. But it means that 2/3’s of the Senate aren't as influenced by the electorate in the way a member of the House is, and they are not as vulnerable to threats by lobbyists and other influences. It's the real reason the Senate is so hard to lead from a partisanship perspective.
Which brings me to why Lyndon Johnson was so effective as a Majority Leader. First, he was a talented legislator. But he had some other things going for him too. There wasn't as much partisanship under Dwight Eisenhower as president. And like today, things were virtually tied between the Democrats and Republicans at the time. To get things passed or defeated, he only needed to influence one or two votes. When the Democrats won many more seats and became more ideological, that's when Johnson became a less effective Leader according to Evans and Novak (they wrote a book about his time as Minority/Majority Leader).
On John Thune. I don't have strong opinions of him, but I don't get the impression that Mitch McConnell was all that charismatic either. I certainly didn't see charisma when he spoke on the Senate floor. He was effective behind the scenes, but not as a spokesman. Thune could be the same way, or he simply isn't as talented. Remember McConnell has been compared to Lyndon Johnson, which implies that the Majority Leaders in between were not super talented. They were just competent.
On Steve's aside about Thune not being presidential material, no Majority Leader is. First, Lyndon Johnson was not elected to the presidency as a non-incumbent. And he had a horrible presidency anyway. One of McConnell's virtues was, unlike many senators, he did not fancy himself as a future president and never tried.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
On a talking filibuster. The whole Senate suffers, not just the people talking. At any moment when the senator who has the floor notices, he can call for a quorum call. A lot of the time when the Senate is in session, you can see on C-Span that there might only be two Senators in the chamber. The Senator talking and the presiding officer. But the senator who has the floor could call for a quorum. It generally doesn't happen, because of courtesy.
During a filibuster, the talkers will call for a quorum to harass the majority. That may not bother Lucretia, but Lucretia ignores incentives anyway.
One note on the filibuster the way it used to be and the way it is now. It used to be that to invoke cloture, it took a 2/3's vote of the members present. Now it requires 60 votes regardless of how many senators are present. A quorum, according to the constitution, is 50% plus one. So under the old rules, if there are 51 senators present, then it only would take 34 senators to break a filibuster. Because it was used to prevent civil rights legislation, the Senate was under some pressure to get rid of it back in the 1960s. So they came up with that clever trick. It looked like the filibuster was reduced to 60%, but in reality, it became harder to break and easier to invoke.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
On the SAVE Act. I'm for it. Most people across the political spectrum are for it. But few are passionate about it.
Nor am I. I figure that the lack of voter ID might influeence an election by one percent at most in favor of the Democrats. I've also got mixed feelings about the filibuster, but I'm not sure the SAVE act should be the bill that decides it.