Archive for the ‘Mitch McConnell’ Category

When Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy got together to write this op-ed that the WSJ published, they definitely tag-teamed Nancy Pelosi. Their opening paragraph definitely was the tempo-setter for the article:

President Trump and the leaders of Canada and Mexico announced the most significant trade deal in a generation a year ago this week. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is unambiguously a win for America. It would create new jobs, expand export markets, strengthen protections for workers, and generate billions of dollars in new prosperity. The USMCA would also help keep North American partners close while the U.S. hangs tough with China.

It wasn’t until the third paragraph that McConnell-McCarthy brought out the sharp elbows:

Under pressure from progressives to deny the country any successes during the Trump administration, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried to run out the clock on the USMCA. Leading House Democrats frequently claim to support the deal in the abstract but have spent months finding one excuse after another to delay passing it.

After that, their elbows get significantly sharper:

The administration has worked tirelessly to address these shifting objections. It’s time for Mrs. Pelosi’s delay tactics to end. House Democrats need to put the country first and stop blocking this significant victory for the American people. The USMCA isn’t some political football. It’s a critical piece of economic policy. Its enactment or failure will have life-changing consequences for workers. Twelve million American jobs rely on trade with our northern and southern neighbors, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mexico and Canada together represent a $500 billion export market for the U.S. They buy one-third of the goods America exports, plus tens of billions of dollars more in services.

Pelosi knows that she cant hold her majority if they don’t have any accomplishments. If she can’t put together the votes to ratify, then voters will know what today’s Democrats emphasize economically, which is socialism.

Frankly, the Resist Movement hasn’t helped Democrats going into this presidential election cycle. Resist has pushed for impeachment and hating Trump. That’s led to nothing in terms of accomplishments. When Republicans face the voters, they’ll rattle off an impressive list of accomplishments. When Democrats face the voters, they’ll be able to say ‘We impeached President Trump.

If anyone thinks that Democrats stand a fighting chance of winning swing districts, they’re kidding themselves.

The disparity between House Democrats and Senate Majority Leader couldn’t be more different. Sen. McConnell’s pro-growth economic agenda stands in stark contrast with Speaker Pelosi’s all-impeachment-all-the-time agenda in the House. Monday morning, Sen. McConnell sat down for an interview with the folks from CNBC’s Squawk Alley on his economic agenda. One of the things that Sen. McConnell talked about was the USMCA:

The argument for USMCA is very, very compelling, you know: 176,000 new jobs, $68 billion increase in gross domestic product, we have 12 million jobs already related to our trade relationship with Canada and Mexico. So I think it is going to be pretty hard for her not to take it up, even though voting for a Trump trade deal, I gather, is a bitter pill for them.

It’s difficult enacting many bills when you hate President Trump. Things would be so much easier if Democrats put our nation first instead of putting the Resist Movement first.

Let’s highlight the obvious. The economy is being held back by the trade war with China but it’s still growing at a faster pace than anything that Obama achieved or that Sen. Warren’s policies would achieve if enacted. If you think that puts Sen. Warren or President Obama in a favorable light, the average person whose wages have increased and whose 401(k)s are much healthier disagree.

Here’s what Sen. McConnell said about the Republicans’ economic agenda:

What I want to do is spend our time accomplishing things for the American people. USMCA, as Leader McCarthy and I pointed out in The Wall Street Journal today, is something we can agree on, something we ought to do. It makes a difference for the American people. The House spent the last three years harassing this president, and I gather we’re going to get another chapter of that with the impeachment episode. But we need to find other things that actually make a difference for the American people and try to accomplish as much as we can. That’s what I want to do, and that’s what we’re in the process of trying to encourage the House to do by taking up USMCA.

That’s something that the Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t paid attention to. This batch of Do-Nothing Democrats have wasted too much time chasing their ridiculous impeachment nightmare. What’s frightening is that the Democrats’ presidential candidates sound just as nuts. Here’s the entire interview:

Until this morning, I thought that the Senate had a constitutional obligation to hold a trial if the House approved articles of impeachment. At this point, I’m not sure of that anymore. Included in David Catron’s article is this quote from “Keith E. Whittington, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University.”

Prof. Whittington is quoted as saying “The Senate could entertain a motion to dismiss the charges at the outset of a trial on the grounds that the allegations did not meet the constitutional standard of impeachable offenses, and a majority of the Senate could send the House packing without ever hearing a witness or seeing evidence. If a majority of the senators thought the House was abusing the impeachment power … there is no reason why the Senate would have to pay obeisance to the House by going through the motions of a pointless trial.”

When Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, a trial was held in the Senate. At the time, then-Sen. Tom Harkin noted that senators were both judge and jury. Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled that Sen. Harkin was right.

If senators have judicial authorities in an impeachment trial, why can’t they dismiss the case? If I had a $100 bill for each time I’ve heard it said that impeachment is whatever Congress says it is, I’d be semi-wealthy. If the House has the authority to say that a president’s actions are an impeachable offense, why shouldn’t the Senate have the authority to rule otherwise? I’ve seen nothing in the Constitution that states the House and Senate must agree.

In fact, the Constitution’s text suggests the opposite. If the Senate was obligated to agree with the House, there wouldn’t be a need for a Senate trial. If the Constitution said that, the Senate trial in those circumstances would be a rubberstamp. I’m certain that isn’t what the men who wrote the Constitution had in mind since they steadfastly insisted on a system of checks and balances.

If the Senate slapped down the House’s articles of impeachment on the grounds that they thought didn’t fit the Constitution’s requirements of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, that’s a legitimate verdict. I can’t picture the Supreme Court overturning that verdict. I’m betting that they wouldn’t want to touch it.

It’s difficult to picture anyone on Capitol Hill taking impeachment seriously, especially when it starts with this clown show:

What’s frightening is that Schiff is the more competent one between he and Nadler. In either case, the Senate should vote to drop the case on the grounds that it doesn’t rise to the constitutional requirements.

This weekend’s hit piece on Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the NYTimes is a new low for the former Paper of Record. The NYTimes isn’t anything except the Democrats’ version of Pravda. Still, it’s worth noting that a pattern is emerging from this article. It’s apparent that Democrats will do anything to stop the Republicans’ Supreme Court nominees unless they’re named Merrick Garland.

Smearing an innocent man and his family has become the Democrats’ new normal. Protecting Roe v. Wade has become an ends-justify-the-means fight in the Democrats’ minds. First, Democrats vilified Justice Kavanaugh with one smear after another, starting with Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford, then with Julie Swetnick (she’s the one that said Justice Kavanaugh was at a series of house parties where young women were gang-raped.) That’s why it isn’t surprising that they’d attempt to smear Justice Kavanaugh with allegations of sexual misconduct involving Deborah Ramirez and an unnamed co-ed at Yale.

It’s frightening to think that Democrats would sink so low that they’d ruin an entire family’s life just to protect their political agenda. Still, that’s what’s happening. I’m old enough to remember Ted Kennedy’s attack of Judge Robert Bork, where Sen. Kennedy said of Judge Bork “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

At the time of Kennedy’s full frontal assault on Judge Bork, this was unheard of. Kennedy’s vicious, unsubstantiated attack would be considered mild by today’s standards. That isn’t the frightening part. Today’s attacks on Justice Kavanaugh will be considered temperate compared to what Democrats will do if there’s a healthy-sized GOP majority in the Senate and President Trump gets to nominate the person who replaces Justice Ginsburg.

Democrats will launch the longest-lasting, nastiest smear campaigns in the history of this nation. They’ll accuse that nominee of being the worst human since the Romans paid Judas Iscariot thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus.

I take issue with the speech that Sen. McConnell gave on the Senate floor Monday. First, here’s the video of Sen. McConnell’s speech:

It isn’t that I disagree with what Sen. McConnell said. Sen. McConnell’s information is more accurate than the NYTimes’ article that started this high-voltage firestorm. To repeat a phrase coined by the late, great Charles Krauthammer, “Sen. McConnell, you aren’t cynical enough.” The Democrats’ intentions are apparent and two-fold. First, Democrats intend to destroy the families of Republican Supreme Court nominees. If they have to make things up, that’s what they’ll do without hesitation. If they need to start a smear campaign based totally on unsubstantiated allegations from 25 years in the past, that’s what Democrats will do without hesitation.

Republicans need to understand that, to Democrats, the fight for the Supreme Court is an existential threat. Without the Supreme Court, Democrats lose too many fights for the Democrats’ liking. Democrats are hyperventilating at the thought of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals not being heavily tilted in their direction. The thought of the Ninth being balanced equally between Republican and Democrat appointees frightens Democrats greatly. This should frighten the American people:

“Six of the Democrat presidential candidates, plus one who has now quit to run for the Senate, have publicly flirted with packing the Supreme Court. Court-packing. Today’s bold new Democrat idea is a failed power grab from the 1930s. Just a few weeks ago, some Senate Democrats nakedly threatened the Supreme Court justices in writing. Our colleagues sent the Court an outlandish brief, gravely intoning that ‘the Supreme Court is not well.’ Here was the punchline: Either issue rulings we like or we’ll pack the court. This is not normal political behavior. These are the actions of a political party whose agenda is so alien to the Constitution that they feel threatened by fair and faithful judges.

The best way to win these confirmation fights is to re-elect President Trump and strengthen Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority.

That’s the best way to thwart the Democrats’ attempt to impose a new normal on the courts.

Anyone that thinks that Big Tech plays fair is utterly delusional. To say that Twitter’s actions feel like they’re straight from the Twilight Zone is understatement. Here’s what happened, according to the article:

The move from the NRSC comes after McConnell’s campaign account was locked Wednesday for posting a video of protesters outside his home that included violent threats against the Kentucky Republican. A Twitter spokesperson confirmed the account was temporarily locked for violating the company’s “violent threats policy.” McConnell’s campaign manager, Kevin Golden, said the campaign unsuccessfully appealed the decision and accused Twitter of hypocrisy.

Think about that a second. Twitter suspended Sen. McConnell’s account because they highlighted a video showing violent protesters protesting outside Sen. McConnell’s home.

“Twitter’s hostile actions toward Leader McConnell’s campaign are outrageous, and we will not tolerate it,” said Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “The NRSC will suspend all spending with Twitter until further notice. We will not spend our resources on a platform that silences conservatives.”

The NRCC has announced that it’s suspending advertising its spending via Twitter, too. If Democrats were principled, they’d suspend their advertising on Twitter, too. An attack against Republican campaigns is an attack against the entire election system. Unfortunately, Democrats aren’t principled. What Twitter is doing is as despicable as what Russia did. Putting a thumb on the scale of our election system is beyond reprehensible.


Democrats repeatedly told us that during the Russia Hoax ‘Investigation’. Now that Big Tech is hurting Republicans rather than Russians hurting Democrats, election security doesn’t seem to be a priority to Democrats. Isn’t that amazing? Who would’ve thought that?

I don’t know what the right solution is to Big Tech but this can’t be ignored anymore. Testimony by Big Tech executives saying that they don’t tip the scales in the Democrats favor should be treated as lying to Congress. That’s because that’s what it is.

Saying that Sen. Tina Smith’s intellectual heft isn’t impressive is understatement. Sen. Snith’s op-ed is filled with Schumer-styled partisanship. What isn’t said is that Senate Democrats went all-in with the Resist Movement in slowing down the confirmation of President Trump’s appointees. What isn’t said is that Democrats did this to keep Obama appointees in key positions as long as possible.

Now, Sen. Smith has written this op-ed to complain that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the Senate is in the personnel business. Sen. Smith has a problem with that, saying “…McConnell has transformed the Senate into little more than the Trump administration’s personnel office, the place where good ideas go to die.”

Had Sen. Schumer, (D-NY), not tied the Senate up in nots with procedural gimmicks, President Trump’s appointees might’ve gotten finished by now. That’s why Senate Republicans changed the rules to limit debate on nominees. Sen. Smith doesn’t mention that fact, though. Then, to pour white gas on the fire she just started, she wrote this:

What that means is that day in and day out, the work of the Senate has been reduced to voting to pack the courts with Trump-appointed, lifetime federal judges, as fast as we can. And because McConnell and the Republicans have dramatically reduced the time for debate on most of these judges — from 30 hours to two — they can pack the courts faster than ever before.

Democrats created this problem. Had Pelosi and Schumer not pledged to empty the rules toolbox to slow down President Trump’s entire agenda, perhaps Sen. McConnell might be more willing to debate bills. Why should he take up far-left bills from the Democrat House knowing that they won’t fix America’s problems?

Then there’s this howler:

Voting on these nominees is part of my job as a senator, and I take this responsibility seriously. I make time to research the background of each nominee, but the truth is, there’s never any real debate.

That’s BS. She was part of a press conference prior to President Trump nominating Justice Kavanaugh to fill the opening caused by Justice Kennedy’s retirement. At that press conference, held hours before the nominee was known, a bunch of Democrats announced that they’d oppose whoever President Trump nominated. What part of that sounds like Sen. Smith and those other Democrats took “time to research” that nominee?

It’s well-known that Smith was the vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota. Sen. Smith’s decision to announce how she’d vote on the nominee wasn’t the result of painstaking, exhaustive research. It was the result of Sen. Smith’s far-left ideology on abortion on demand. Sen. Smith tries to keep that part of her history secret. Imagine that.

Sen. Smith is a waste of a Senate seat. She does whatever the Democrats tell her to do. That isn’t just on major issues. Sen. Smith follows the Democrats’ instructions to the letter on virtually every issue. In this video, Sen. Smith looks like the robot she’s been since becoming part of the Democrats’ minority:

Like Al Franken before her, Sen. Smith has been a partisan hack. The thought of her working across the aisle on important issues is laughable. It’s that simple.

Anyone that thinks Speaker Pelosi has things under control is kidding themselves. Mitch McConnell’s statement illustrates that dilemma:

Eight weeks ago, the administration sent Congress an urgent request for humanitarian money for the border. For eight weeks, we’ve seen evidence nearly every day that the conditions have been getting worse. But during all this time our House Democratic colleagues have been unable to produce a clean measure to provide this humanitarian funding with any chance of becoming law. The proposal they finally passed this week was way to the left of the mainstream. The president made it clear it would earn a veto, not a signature. Even so, in an abundance of fairness, the Senate voted on Speaker Pelosi’s effort, poison-pill riders and all. It earned just 37 votes.

Fortunately, we do have a chance to make law this week on a hugely bipartisan basis. Yesterday the Senate advanced a clean, simple humanitarian funding bill by a huge margin. Thanks to Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy, this bipartisan package sailed through the Appropriations Committee, 30 to one. And yesterday it passed the full Senate – listen to this – 84 to 8. We sent that clean bill over to the House by a vote of 84 to 8. The Shelby-Leahy legislation has unified the Appropriations Committee. It has unified the Senate. The administration would sign it into law. So all our House colleagues need to do to help the men, women, and children on the border this week is pass this unifying bipartisan bill and send it on to the president.

Anyone that thinks this doesn’t paint Speaker Pelosi into a corner is kidding themselves. Her ultra-far-left partisans won’t vote for the Senate bill. Her far-left Democrats likely won’t vote for the Senate bill either. The House Democrats’ bill passed on a mostly party-line vote. That bill got all of 37 votes in the Senate. That means at least 10 Senate Democrats voted against the House Democrats’ bill.

From a negotiating standpoint, Speaker Pelosi enters the negotiations from a position of weakness. The Democrats’ poison pills will certainly not be in the final funding bill for DHS. That gives Speaker Pelosi 2 options: either she asks for Republicans’ help to pass the bipartisan Senate bill or she can opt to fight for the House Democrats’ bill.

That last option simply isn’t viable. In the end, she’d put tons of her vulnerable somewhat-moderate freshmen in an impossible position by fighting. With her gavel at stake, I’m betting that she caves and accepts the Republicans’ help in passing the clean funding bill. This won’t improve Speaker Pelosi’s negotiating position:


UPDATE: House Democrats caved on the emergency funding bill for DHS:

House Democrats will vote Thursday on a clean Senate-passed bill to address the border crisis, marking a blow to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and liberal members who had demanded additional protections for migrant children.

House Democrats are still in trouble because Pelosi and her far-left ideologues had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support the Senate’s bipartisan bill.

This is my I-told-you-so moment:

“There’s a feeling in the room that the bipartisan Senate vote … leaves the House will very little room to negotiate,” said a Democratic lawmaker in the Pelosi meeting.

Apparently, President Trump’s tactic of imposing tariffs on Mexico worked. Ed Morrissey’s post is both thorough in delivering details to its readers but it’s the best analysis to their readers, too.

Ed cites this article from the Guardian in one of his first updates. That update quote says “According to a US-Mexico joint declaration released later in the evening, Mexico agreed to take more migrants seeking asylum in the United States while they await adjudication of their cases. The country also agreed to increase enforcement to curb illegal immigration, including deploying national guard troops to its southern border and cracking down on human smuggling organizations, the declaration said.”

I can’t praise Team Trump enough for their efforts to stop “human smuggling organizations” as part of this agreement. While others ignored that part of the crisis, Team Trump didn’t. When honest journalists write about this part of the agreement, it will be noticed that the Democrats talked about border security while Team Trump delivered border security to the most vulnerable amongst us.

Put differently, President Trump delivered while Pelosi’s Democrats on the Problem Solvers Caucus sat in the corner and did nothing. As far as I’m concerned, they’re virtually worthless.

Here’s another update and analysis from Ed’s post:

Update: This appears to be the biggest win for Trump in the declaration. Apart from Mexico’s pledge to maintain its current aggressive actions in shutting down the southern border to unauthorized migration, Mexico agreed to take back anyone crossing the border, asylum application or not:

The United States will immediately expand the implementation of the existing Migrant Protection Protocols across its entire Southern Border. This means that those crossing the U.S. Southern Border to seek asylum will be rapidly returned to Mexico where they may await the adjudication of their asylum claims.

In response, Mexico will authorize the entrance of all of those individuals for humanitarian reasons, in compliance with its international obligations, while they await the adjudication of their asylum claims. Mexico will also offer jobs, healthcare and education according to its principles.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued this statement after the official agreement had been signed:

I am glad President Trump has secured a commitment from the Mexican government to do more to secure their own borders and control the flow of people through their country. The security and humanitarian crisis on the southern border of the United States is unacceptable and Mexico has a crucial role to play as a responsible neighbor.

It is also good news for Kentuckians and for all Americans that U.S. families won’t be hit with the price increases that would have resulted from new tariffs on imports from Mexico.

Following this new progress, the onus is now squarely on my Democratic colleagues in Congress. Republicans have been working for weeks to secure supplemental funding for the badly overstretched agencies conducting law enforcement and humanitarian missions amid the border crisis. Thus far, Democrats have dragged their heels and preferred to pick political fights with the President rather than get something done. Until they put aside political gamesmanship and allow us to pass this needed funding, Democrats will continue to own the grave consequences.

By contrast, Senate Minority Leader Schumer issued this ‘statement’:


McConnell and Trump sound like leaders. Schumer sounds childish. That’s why Sen. Schumer is likely to be the Minority Leader for a great many years. David Asman at Fox Business offers this commentary:

The only way to characterize this article is to call it Democrat spin from another planet. How else would you characterize this BS?

Supreme Court reform has entered the public debate, with legal luminaries like former Attorney General Eric Holder and constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe supporting adding justices to the Supreme Court, and a number of 2020 presidential candidates expressing openness to the idea.

Regardless of your views on proposals to reform the Supreme Court, there is important context to this discussion that is often missed: Conservatives are already packing the courts. Senate Republicans have been changing the rules and ignoring long-standing practices in order to fill the judiciary with narrow-minded conservative elitists. Their goal is to use the courts to implement conservative policies, regardless of their popular support. The issue we face now is how to respond to this power grab.

Conservatives have done everything they can to keep their years-long court packing efforts under the radar. Rather than start by adding new judges, they instead subtracted them, quietly refusing to let President Barack Obama appoint judges. Then, under President Donald Trump, they have changed the rules to fill those seats with ultra-right wing judges at breakneck speed.

First, it’s BS to say that conservatives quietly refused “to let President Barack Obama appoint judges.” They stood in the way of Judge Merrick Garland. That’s the only one. Period. That’s judge (singular), not judges (plural.)

Next, conservatives aren’t “packing” any court. They’re doing a fantastic job of confirming judges appointed by President Trump, just like Harry Reid did when he was the Senate Majority Leader and President Obama did the nominating. The difference is that Sen. Reid threw out the rulebook (and the filibuster) on district court and appellate court judges.

The other difference is that Sen. Mitch McConnell is doing a far better job of confirming President Trump’s judicial nominees than Reid did with confirming President Obama’s judicial appointees. That falls under the category of “Elections have consequences. I won.” Only presidents get to nominate judges. Congress’s role is advise and consent. They play a roll but their role is well-defined and limited.

Packing the court has always meant that a president has tried adding judges to a court when it’s already full. This idiot spinmeister is attempting to tell people that a president filling vacancies on the district courts, appellate courts and the Supreme Court, which is the president’s responsibility, is somehow a constitutional crisis. Hint to the author: Presidents have been doing this since the late 1700s. They’ve done it because it’s part of their job.

This Saturday, I wrote this post highlighting President Trump’s offer intended to bring both sides to the negotiating table. It failed. In fact, it failed before President Trump offered it. According to Bloomberg’s article, “Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected the proposal on Saturday, hours before Trump outlined it in a White House speech to the nation.”

What’s interesting is that this isn’t the only ‘efficiency’ that Democrats display. Notice how Democrats vote in lock-step with leadership. Notice how Democrat members of the Problem Solvers Caucus issued a statement exactly reflecting Ms. Pelosi’s views that they wouldn’t negotiate until the government was re-opened? Translation: We won’t negotiate until Republicans forfeit their leverage. Right.

Mitch McConnell weighed in on the situation:

This bill takes a bipartisan approach to re-opening the closed portions of the federal government. It pairs the border security investment that our nation needs with additional immigration measures that both Democrat and Republican members of Congress believe are necessary. Unlike the bills that have come from the House over the past few weeks, this proposal could actually resolve this impasse. It has the full support of the President and could be signed into law to quickly reopen the government.

Everyone has made their point—now it’s time to make a law. I intend to move to this legislation this week. With bipartisan cooperation, the Senate can send a bill to the House quickly so that they can take action as well. The situation for furloughed employees isn’t getting any brighter and the crisis at the border isn’t improved by show votes.

Let’s get this impasse resolved. That means my-way-or-the-highway proposals don’t fly.