Let’s Ditch Mitch

  
Via:  bob-nelson  •  5 months ago  •  32 comments

Let’s Ditch Mitch

The Senate majority leader comes out of his shell.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


original O.K., throwing this one at you without warning:
What’s your opinion of Mitch McConnell?

A) Spawn of Satan.

B) Sort of pitiful, what with having Donald Trump on his back.

C) Can we talk about how he looks like a turtle?

Definitely not the last one. It’s true that many Americans think of McConnell as turtle-like, due to his lack of anything resembling a chin.

But this is wrong on two counts. First, you shouldn’t tackle people you disagree with by making fun of their looks.

Second, it gives turtles a bad name. Turtles are great for the environment and everybody likes them. They sing to their children . You are never going to see a turtle killing gun control legislation.

Mitch, on the other hand, has a longstanding alliance with the National Rifle Association, which has shown its affection to the tune of about $1.3 million in support. Anything the N.R.A. dislikes never gets the chance to come up for a Senate vote. Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is moldering away in a corner because the N.R.A. doesn’t want authorities taking guns away from domestic abusers.

It’s been another terrible year of mass shooting violence. One simple, very popular response would be to improve the background checks for gun purchases. It would at least show our elected officials care about the crisis.

Such a bill passed the House of Representatives and went to the Senate where it’s, um, laying around somewhere. “There’s a whole bunch of Republican support, but he won’t let it move to the floor,” said minority leader Chuck Schumer.

This goes on a lot. McConnell, who has near total control over what comes up for a vote, sits on things he doesn’t like until they smother. Farewell, immigration reform, Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions, lowering prescription drug prices, protecting election security, restoring net neutrality.

You can, of course, just presume that McConnell is following Trump’s orders. But it’s hard to believe the president even knows what’s going on. This week, when he was in Europe, Trump twittered congratulations to the House on the passage of a huge disaster aid package, adding, “Great, now we will get it done in the Senate!” Helpful readers noted that the Senate had approved said bill two weeks before.

There are well over 100 House-passed bills sitting around gathering mildew in Mitch’s limbo. What do you think that place looks like? A very depressing bus station waiting room? A hospital ward packed with comatose patients? Or maybe just a dimly lit storage bin where little bills sit around drinking juice and playing video games until the end of time?

All of them in the thrall of Mitch McConnell. Before we move on, can we mention that McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, is the nation’s secretary of transportation, and possibly on her way to serious contention for Worst Cabinet Member?

Check out the Times story by Michael Forsythe and Eric Lipton that detailed how Chao, during the performance of her duties promoting the American maritime industry, has also been lending a helping hand to her own family’s very extensive shipping business , which builds most of its fleet in China. Her family has made more than $1 million in campaign contributions to the senator. Which is generous, but not quite as impressive as the somewhere between $5 million and $25 million that Chao’s father has given his daughter and son-in-law as a flat-out gift.

So McConnell has been doing very well indeed — family money, Senate majority and no irritating votes on stuff he doesn’t like. To be fair, he’s not the first leader who’s pulled that disappearing bill trick. (Possibly the first who enjoys referring to himself as “The Grim Reaper,” but that’s just part of his colorful personality.) His predecessor, Democrat Harry Reid, did the same thing, although Schumer claims not nearly so much. “There was not a total blanket on anything coming to the floor,” Schumer said in a phone interview. “I’ve never seen anything quite like this.”

Well, there’s one thing coming to the floor. McConnell is obsessed with cramming the federal judiciary with men and women of a conservative bent. When President Barack Obama was in his second term, McConnell slowed the confirmation process to a mini-crawl, so he was able to gift Trump with more than 100 vacancies to fill.

Most spectacularly of all, when Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, McConnell completely ignored Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland as his successor.

“Not even holding a hearing on the Garland nomination has to be an absolute landmark in Senate process,” said Joshua Huder of the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University.

A man who has never gotten a single vote from anyone living outside the state of Kentucky decreed that a man twice elected president of the United States had no right to have his nominee for Supreme Court considered in the Senate. McConnell told Charles Homans of The Times it was “the most consequential thing” he’d ever done. He was extremely proud.

McConnell’s argument was that Obama was too close to the end of his term to make a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court. But now he’s saying that if there’s a vacancy before the 2020 election, he’ll of course get Trump’s choice for a successor a confirmation vote. “Oh, we’d fill it,” the senator chortled at a Chamber of Commerce lunch back home in Kentucky.

I know you’re not surprised, but isn’t it sort of awful that McConnell’s so proud of himself? You’d hope that, at least in public, he’d murmur something vague and look a tad sheepish.

No self-respecting turtle would ever behave like that.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Bob Nelson
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 months ago
There are well over 100 House-passed bills sitting around gathering mildew in Mitch’s limbo. What do you think that place looks like? A very depressing bus station waiting room? A hospital ward packed with comatose patients? Or maybe just a dimly lit storage bin where little bills sit around drinking juice and playing video games until the end of time?

The article on Elaine Chao was seeded yesterday. Egregious corruption. Business as usual.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    5 months ago

I detect a bit of bitterness in the seeders comment.  Perhaps when the opposition captures both Houses of Congress, and, the presidency, then they can have there way. But that doesn't look likely to happen for a very long time.

The comments about his look is kinda juvenile, but that's what we can expect for the left wing bass turds. Mitch is doing a fine job and hope he keeps on kickin' ass.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    5 months ago
Perhaps when the opposition captures both Houses of Congress, and, the presidency, then they can have there way.

These newbie whiner types already had it, a few times !

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    5 months ago
I detect a bit of bitterness...

Yes indeed. It makes me sad to see so many Americans hoping for the demise of their democracy.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.2    5 months ago

hoping for the demise of their democracy

Your side is the one attempting to do it, viz.

Guilty until proven innocent, no due process, open borders, abortion until delivery, usurious tax rates, totally banning guns, trying to ram through a Supreme Court nominee just before an election...yep, the democrats have sooo much to be proud of and crow about,

 
 
 
evilgenius
1.1.4  evilgenius  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.3    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @1.1.4    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @1.1.4    5 months ago

So true.  My question as well.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.3    5 months ago
open borders

I have yet to see anyone advocating for open borders for immigration... Care to name a few? 

We'll wait. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.8  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.7    5 months ago

Most of the Democratic Party

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.8    5 months ago

None, was the correct answer. If the dems were for open borders, why would Obama ask for 3.7 billion to fix the immigration problems? Seems weird, huh? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.9    5 months ago

So Obama got the money? Are you saying there were serious immigrations back in Obama's term?

If there was a problem then, there certainly is a worse one now. So why would the Dem House hold up the funding for this worsening problem?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.7    5 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.11    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    5 months ago

Toss the same question out but change it to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or Harry Reid and see what kind of answers you get. It is all subjective...

 
 
 
Ronin2
2  Ronin2    5 months ago

Love the article. So much disinformation.

Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is moldering away in a corner because the N.R.A. doesn’t want authorities taking guns away from domestic abusers.

Was the clause a part of the first Violence Against Women Act? No, no, it wasn't. It was thrown in as a poison pill to make sure Republicans in the Senate wouldn't support it. Also, the majority of House Republicans did not support it.  They also threw in some new transgender rights as a kicker to make sure they would lose the Republican Senate vote.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/violence-women-act-clears-house

The House voted Thursday to renew the lapsed Violence Against Women Act, but the proposal stoked contention over provisions restricting gun rights and expanding rights for transgender individuals.

Lawmakers voted 263-158 to pass the measure, which highlighted divisions within the Republican caucus. While the bill does have one Republican co-sponsor, Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick , other House Republicans objected to new provisions included in the VAWA reauthorization measure. In all, 33 Republicans voted for the measure, and one, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, voted present.

The most contentious provision would lower the criminal threshold to bar someone from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of domestic abuse of stalking. The law currently applies to felony convictions.

“It is not the time to hold the safety of women as a bargaining chip against infringements on religious liberty or weakening of the Second Amendment,” said Rep. Carol Miller , R-W.Va. on the floor Wednesday.

The bill would also close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” to expand gun prohibitions to include dating partners convicted of abuse or stalking charges

Loved this line.

Such a bill passed the House of Representatives and went to the Senate where it’s, um, laying around somewhere. “There’s a whole bunch of Republican support, but he won’t let it move to the floor,” said minority leader Chuck Schumer

Because Chucky never lies; especially about Republican positions./S (not that I should need it)

Funny about no outcry from the left when Harry Reid did the same damn thing on bills that came from a Republican controlled House.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4505147/harry-reid-332-bills-sitting-desk

https://govtracknews.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/whos-blocking-the-bills-the-numbers-dont-help-much/

There are 347 bills  (including joint resolutions) that the House has passed that the Senate hasn’t yet picked up (352 if concurrent resolutions are included). But the number doesn’t really tell us much.

Both sides only hold votes when they’re reasonably sure the measure will pass. So when a bill doesn’t get a vote, it doesn’t mean the bill is being blocked but that there isn’t enough support for it to pass anyway. Reid could hold a vote on all of those bills, but he knows that his Democratic majority in the Senate won’t vote for them anyway.

Both sides want to look good by passing bills without thinking any further ahead about whether what they’re passing has any support in the other chamber. When a bill doesn’t get a vote in the other chamber, it shows a failure on both sides to reach consensus.

Well, at least this article admitted Reid did the same thing; but dragged out little boy Chucky again(who never lies) to downplay it.

His predecessor, Democrat Harry Reid, did the same thing, although Schumer claims not nearly so much. “There was not a total blanket on anything coming to the floor,” Schumer said in a phone interview. “I’ve never seen anything quite like this.”

Remind us again who enacted the nuclear option when it came to judiciary appointments in an effort to do an end around judicial candidates getting approved so they could cram the courts with liberal judges? That would be Harry Reid and the Dems. Of course they bitched once the Republicans took control of the Senate, and then held it. 

Well, there’s one thing coming to the floor. McConnell is obsessed with cramming the federal judiciary with men and women of a conservative bent.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/democrats-go-nuclear-eliminate-filibusters-on-most-nominees

Senate Democrats succeeded Thursday in deploying the "nuclear option" to make the most fundamental change to floor operations in almost four decades, ending the minority's ability to kill most presidential nominations by filibuster.

The Senate voted, 52-48, to effectively change the rules by rejecting the opinion of the presiding officer that a supermajority is required to limit debate, or invoke cloture, on executive branch nominees and those for seats on federal courts short of the Supreme Court.

Three Democrats — Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — voted to keep the rules unchanged.

Of course since Republicans are in control of the Senate the rules have to change. How dare they operate under the same rules as every time the Democrats controlled it?

A man who has never gotten a single vote from anyone living outside the state of Kentucky decreed that a man twice elected president of the United States had no right to have his nominee for Supreme Court considered in the Senate. McConnell told Charles Homans of The Times it was “the most consequential thing” he’d ever done. He was extremely proud.

Bottom line is don't like McConnell then the Dems need to run someone that can defeat him. Don't like Republicans in control of the Senate then win some elections. To quote the Democrat messiah, "

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1  Heartland American  replied to  Ronin2 @2    5 months ago

Republicans voted to extend the act in a clean manner without poison pills as part of the effort to reopen the government during the democrats shut down of the government to assure we’d be overwhelmed by enemy illegal alien invaders.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    5 months ago
Republicans voted to extend the act in a clean manner without poison pills as part of the effort to reopen the government during the democrats shut down of the government to assure we’d be overwhelmed by enemy illegal alien invaders.  

President Obama asked the republican congress for 3.7 billion dollars to solve the border problem that they cried about every single day. Know what congress said? "NO!!!!!!!!!!" Why? Because if Obama solved the problem, the cons would have to find something new to cry about. The dems have not shut down the government once in the last 50 years. 

enemy illegal alien invaders.  

AH! You mean like Malaria trump? 

https://www.apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d

Melania Trump modeled in US prior to getting work visa  (which is illegal)

LOL oops. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.1.2  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    5 months ago

President Obama asked the republican congress for 3.7 billion dollars to solve the border problem that they cried about every single day. Know what congress said? "NO!!!!!!!!!!" Why? Because if Obama solved the problem, the cons would have to find something new to cry about.

wrong. It’s because it provided a path to citizenship.  We will work to unseat anyone who supports a path to citizenship for illegals.   Reagan made that mistake becaus3 the Dems promised to solve illegal immigration.   He didn’t realize they meant encourage open borders

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.2    5 months ago
It’s because it provided a path to citizenship.

Why is that a bad thing? You do realize this country was built by immigrants, right? Besides, I am 99.9% sure Jesus wouldn't turn away people fleeing violence. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.1.4  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.3    5 months ago

Not by people illegally invading and denying the sovereignty of our country

Jesus never advocated breaking the law

providing temporary assistance should not equate to rewarding lawbreaking

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 months ago
Love the article.

I'm glad you liked it. I'm not sure why you've included a video of Obama... but hey!

You have lots of information. You should post an article about all of Mitch's bills. It should not be arduous...

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4  Freedom Warrior    5 months ago
But this is wrong on two counts. First, you shouldn’t tackle people you disagree with by making fun of their looks.

Does that mean I can attack his looks if I agree with him.   In that case the guy is fucking old ugly white geezer whose chin isn't worthy of a turtle.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    5 months ago

Mtich McConnel and his wife are parasite criminals and should be locked up for their crimes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/us/politics/elaine-chao-china.html

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6  Trout Giggles    5 months ago

Answer: B

He can't be the Spawn of Satan because he never comes to the family reunions

 
 
 
MrFrost
7  MrFrost    5 months ago
C) Can we talk about how he looks like a turtle?

It's true... 

384

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.1  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @7    5 months ago

Sorry, he doesn't look like a sea turtle. I happen to like sea turtles.  Politicians, not so much.

 
 
 
JBB
7.1.1  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1    5 months ago

I must agree. Mitch looks more like a common terrapin than a sea turtle...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
8  Mark in Wyoming    5 months ago

every time someone compares him to a turtle I get an ear worm and start humming the tune.

"once I was swimming cross turtle creek , man them snappers were all around my feet, sure was hard swimming cross that creek, with both hands holdin my ding a ling a ling...." Thanks chuck berry.

wonder how many dems can relate to that part of the song...

anyone else got an earworm now?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8    5 months ago

   jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Steve Ott
9  Steve Ott    5 months ago

I've made this statement on Facebook several times, so I guess I may as well post it here.

Everyone likes to bitch about politicians. But apparently, it is everyone else's politician they don't like, because they keep voting in the politicians that everyone else bitches about.

The issue isn't the politicians, it is the lazy american voter. They can't get off the couch because they have eaten too many potato chips to vote and they can't get away from the talking heads because it takes too much energy to push the button to change the channel.

American's don't give a damn about who is in office as long as the bread and circuses continue and as long as they they are told they are free and safe.

You want Mich out, go rally the voters in Kentucky, because here in Texas, I can't do a damn thing about it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10  Tacos!    5 months ago
Mitch, on the other hand, has a longstanding alliance with the National Rifle Association

Um, ok. Oorrrrr . . . he has a deep and abiding commitment to the right of citizens to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution - a document he has sworn to defend. And the NRA is an organization that holds a similar position. That's not real weird.

To make the argument we often hear: i.e. that this or that Republican is somehow beholden to the NRA, you would have to demonstrate that said politician has a history of being against this right to keep and bear arms but votes to support it because the NRA gives him money. You don't generally see such proof, which tells you the claim is, well, BS.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



32 visitors