(05-16-2018 10:08 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-senate-ta...56676.html

A former adviser to Evan McMullin’s independent presidential campaign in 2016 is now in talks with a small group of U.S. senators to form a new caucus that would influence who is chosen as majority leader in 2019.

“This group could say to the Republicans, ‘We’ll caucus with you … [but] we will not do that unless it’s not Mitch McConnell. Instead we’d like to have Susan Collins,’” said Joel Searby, a political operative from Florida, in an interview on Yahoo News’ “The Long Game” podcast.

The notion of pushing for Collins, a Maine Republican who is one of the most moderate members of the Senate, rather than McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who has held the majority leader post since 2015, would be to nudge the Senate toward bipartisan compromise rather than gridlock.

Similarly, Searby said, the group of three to five senators could tell Democrats they would vote with them on most issues in exchange for the selection of a more moderate Democrat like Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, rather than the current minority leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.

“The grand idea is that it could change the culture of how the Senate works by saying there is now a third bloc that will stick together on nearly all issues,” Searby said.

They must be getting concerned there is a growing possibility that McConnel might remove the filibuster rule.

(05-16-2018 12:17 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 12:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 11:47 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 11:45 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 10:53 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  


Long overdue.

Yes, please!

Keep Establishment Politicians entrenched and the voters will continue to revolt!

I'm all for voting out career politicians as well, and plan on doing a bit of that in the midterm elections, but bipartisan work is something desperately needed, not this constant BS of retreating to your corners. If moderates in both parties are willing to do it, make it happen yesterday.

If bipartisanship results in putting America first, getting rid of ObamaCare and stuff like that, then I'm all for it.

However, if "bipartisanship" is the new name for leftist establishment politics, then a rose by any other name.

Or maybe, stinkweed by any other name would be more accurate.

Sorry; it's "trumpcare" now.

I don't care if that act in name goes away, as long as an effective solution is put in its place. You can't just go back to the way things were prior to it.

Call it whatever you want - but repubs & dems are going to have to realize that they're going to have to have some things they don't like in order to have bipartisanship. Compromise means no one is 100% happy.

No, it's still ObamaCare. It was his policy. He drove it to passage.

Note that this was the ONE policy he actually enacted the correct way -- that is, through Congress.

And that's why it's also difficult to undo.

But this policy is nowhere near old enough for those of us impacted by it to forget who forced it upon us. This does not have Trump's fingerprint at all.

He's trying to dismantle it. And I hope he does.

But to call this TrumpCare... nope.

(05-16-2018 11:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  I don't know why the Republicans would make easily the least conservative Republican their leader. McConnell is pretty much in the middle of the Senate Republicans. He's just incompetent.

This. They vote in someone like Collins as majority leader for even one term and there would be a dim sweep of a dozen seats next go around.

The Republicans of Bob Dole era are nearly an extinct species. Daschle and Reid saw to that.

Evan McMullin... lol

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-16-2018 12:17 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 12:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 11:47 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 11:45 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 10:53 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  


Long overdue.

Yes, please!

Keep Establishment Politicians entrenched and the voters will continue to revolt!

I'm all for voting out career politicians as well, and plan on doing a bit of that in the midterm elections, but bipartisan work is something desperately needed, not this constant BS of retreating to your corners. If moderates in both parties are willing to do it, make it happen yesterday.

If bipartisanship results in putting America first, getting rid of ObamaCare and stuff like that, then I'm all for it.

However, if "bipartisanship" is the new name for leftist establishment politics, then a rose by any other name.

Or maybe, stinkweed by any other name would be more accurate.

Sorry; it's "trumpcare" now.

I don't care if that act in name goes away, as long as an effective solution is put in its place. You can't just go back to the way things were prior to it.

Call it whatever you want - but repubs & dems are going to have to realize that they're going to have to have some things they don't like in order to have bipartisanship. Compromise means no one is 100% happy.

Compromise for the sake of compromise may not be good.

Let's say we're debating what to have for breakfast. I want bacon and eggs and you want croissants.

I could compromise and agree to croissants, you could compromise and agree to bacon and eggs, or we could both compromise and agree to biscuits and gravy.

This type of compromise is no big deal because it's not an issue of principle.

But if you're in favor of abortion and I'm against abortion, are you willing to compromise and outlaw abortion?

Compromise on a matter of principle is, in my opinion, not a good thing.

You mentioned that compromise means no one is 100% happy. In this abortion example. I would be 100% happy if abortion was outlawed but you would be 0% happy.

(05-16-2018 11:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  McConnell is pretty much in the middle of the Senate Republicans. He's just incompetent.

His majority is 50-49. Flake, Corker, and Rand Paul can go off the Rez at any moment. Love him or hate him, but there is nobody else that could get the trains running on time with a situation like that.

Never happen, Schumer keeps democrats on short leash. Anyone dare cross him they'll face loss of coveted leadership positions on key committees.

(05-16-2018 05:33 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 11:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  McConnell is pretty much in the middle of the Senate Republicans. He's just incompetent.

His majority is 50-49. Flake, Corker, and Rand Paul can go off the Rez at any moment. Love him or hate him, but there is nobody else that could get the trains running on time with a situation like that.

OK, that's where they are today. But they didn't get there without some pretty piss-poor leadership for the last decade, in both house and senate. I can cot Ryan some slack, since the speaker position was forced on him when he clearly didn't want it. But all three--McConnell, Boehner, and Ryan--have failed to establish any sort of coherent party.

Part of the problem lies with party leadership. Republicans have allowed some real nutcases to get senate nominations when they had much better candidates available, including:

2010-Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle
2012-Todd Akin
2017-Roy Moore

If republicans had those seats, their senate majority would be much more workable.

But I think the real problem is that republicans simply haven't had a coherent message, and leadership has been unable to keep the rank and file on message. Newt did that in 1994, and they won big. Nobody in leadership on the republican side has done that since.

If you're going to run against Obamacare, have something better to replace it. Bismarck is available. If you're going to run against deficit spending, have some plan to reduce it. But whatever your platform, have a plan to accomplish it and get everybody on message. Trump never hesitated to stake out his positions. Not everybody agreed, and IMO some are absolute BS. But he took stands, stuck with them, and people respected that. I don't see Mitch McConnell inspiring much respect.

(05-16-2018 07:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Part of the problem lies with party leadership. Republicans have allowed some real nutcases to get senate nominations when they had much better candidates available, including:

2010-Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle
2012-Todd Akin
2017-Roy Moore

Not sure about Sharron Angle in Nevada, but I know that McConnell was against the other 3 and supported different candidates in the primaries (Castle in Delaware, Strange in Alabama, I forget who in Missouri but it wasn’t Akin). People have no obligation to follow his advice, but it’s dishonest to reject his advice and then blame him when things don’t work out.

Quote:But I think the real problem is that republicans simply haven't had a coherent message, and leadership has been unable to keep the rank and file on message. Newt did that in 1994, and they won big. Nobody in leadership on the republican side has done that since.

The only time a party’s national message is truly set by the Senate/House leadership is when it is the “out” party in a midterm election. Other than that, the credit/blame belongs with the president or presidential nominee. So if GOP lacked a coherent message in 2010 and 2014, I think McConnell (and Boehner) can be fairly blamed for a lot of that. Yet, those were actually good elections for the GOP, nationwide.

(05-17-2018 03:51 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 07:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Part of the problem lies with party leadership. Republicans have allowed some real nutcases to get senate nominations when they had much better candidates available, including:
2010-Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle
2012-Todd Akin
2017-Roy Moore

Not sure about Sharron Angle in Nevada, but I know that McConnell was against the other 3 and supported different candidates in the primaries (Castle in Delaware, Strange in Alabama, I forget who in Missouri but it wasn’t Akin). People have no obligation to follow his advice, but it’s dishonest to reject his advice and then blame him when things don’t work out.

Quote:But I think the real problem is that republicans simply haven't had a coherent message, and leadership has been unable to keep the rank and file on message. Newt did that in 1994, and they won big. Nobody in leadership on the republican side has done that since.

The only time a party’s national message is truly set by the Senate/House leadership is when it is the “out” party in a midterm election. Other than that, the credit/blame belongs with the president or presidential nominee. So if GOP lacked a coherent message in 2010 and 2014, I think McConnell (and Boehner) can be fairly blamed for a lot of that. Yet, those were actually good elections for the GOP, nationwide.

Perhaps it wasn't as clear as it should have been, but I was making three separate points.

One, McConnell, Boehner, and Ryan have been ineffective leaders. They have certainly seemed pretty weak at whipping their troops into line compared to Reid, Schumer, and Pelosi.

Two, in part their job has been made more difficult because the party has failed to quash the candidacies if some pretty unattractive candidates. If McConnell were working with a majority of 55 rather than 51, he would have considerably more leverage. This is meant more as wider criticism of generic party leadership who placed McConnell in this situation, rather than McConnell specifically. The fact that McConnell campaigned against most of the nutcases but they still got nominated does suggest that either McConnell didn't carry much weight or he didn't campaign hard enough.

Three, I think one reason why republicans have been vulnerable to nutty candidates is the lack of coherent message. This is meant as still wider criticism than the first two. In 1994, Newt's Contract expressed a coherent message that had been tested with extensive polling, and candidates were told, "This is the message. Stay on it if you want to win." Republicans stayed on message and won the biggest victory in recent memory. Then they promptly forgot to stay on message in governing. I once had a very interesting conversation with John Sununu in which he said, "Your ideas mean nothing if you don't win the election." Democrats seem to understand that a lot better than republicans. Yes, 2010 and 2014 were pretty good for republicans. If they were better at politics those could have been better elections. But if they were better at politics, they probably would not have had to fight back from losses in 2006 and 2012, and particularly the devastating one in 2008.

The lack of coherent message is the one that bothers me the most. It was so bad that during the Obama years it handed democrats a sound byte, "Republicans have no ideas. All they know how to do is oppose Obama because he is a black man. They even met after his first election and vowed to make him one-term president." Well, can anyone tell me the last time democrats did not want to turn a new republican president into a one-termer? The lack of a message allowed democrats to turn a difference on issues into a vile personal attack on individual republicans. Now, I have no problem with opposing everything that was on Obama's agenda--not because he is a black man but because I think his ideas are wrong-headed and harmful. And before someone chimes in with the inevitable, "So you oppose Obamacare because you want people dying in the streets?" let me point out that before Obamacare very few people were dying in the streets (except maybe from being shot by gangs in Chicago). But when I was critical of Obama, I tried to make it clear what I had in mind instead. Republicans don't do that, because they don't seem to have a clear idea of what they do stand for. And if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Donald Trump had a message. I disagree with al lot of it, and a lot of it has been pretty badly perverted and misrepresented by a generally hostile media, but at least he was out front with here's who I am and this is what I'll do. And guess what, he pulled the biggest republican upset since 1994.

As is, the four leaders suck at what they are doing. McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi and Ryan will not work with the other side. Collins does, and would be willing to fix things to get things done.

(05-16-2018 11:45 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 10:53 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 10:08 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The notion of pushing for Collins, a Maine Republican who is one of the most moderate members of the Senate, rather than McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who has held the majority leader post since 2015, would be to nudge the Senate toward bipartisan compromise rather than gridlock.

Long overdue.

Yes, please!

Keep Establishment Politicians entrenched and the voters will continue to revolt!

Moderate Establishment Politicians are still Establishment Politicians.... Collins has been in the same office since before I met my wife, and FFS I've been married 16 years and have four kids.

So no, this is not "getting rid of establishment" politicians... It's talking a center left (and yes Collins is center left) and putting her in charge of the GOP caucus...

(05-19-2018 07:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  As is, the four leaders suck at what they are doing. McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi and Ryan will not work with the other side. Collins does, and would be willing to fix things to get things done.

Fine.

Things like what?

What’s Susan Collins gonna “fix”?

Specifics, please.

(05-19-2018 07:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  As is, the four leaders suck at what they are doing. McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi and Ryan will not work with the other side. Collins does, and would be willing to fix things to get things done.

The problem is that Collins doesn't really have anyone to work with on the other side. She is pretty much the only centrist left on either side in the senate.

I think Collins might be a good idea, if democrats responded with a moderate leader on their side. But they don't have one.

I'm definitely not a fan of McConnell. I understand he gets the job because he's really good at raising money, and that buys a lot of loyalty. But he couldn't lead a sex addict to a whorehouse.