Senate Republicans did themselves well when they elected Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Minority Leader in 2007. He has what the past 2 (Trent Lott and Bill Frist) Republican Majority Leaders were missing: a pair of big ones. He also has a backbone that hasn't turned to mush. He is bipartisan, but understands the values of the Republican party and listens to those he represents. For example, he was on the fence with McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, but after the outcry by the majority of the country and an overwhelming outcry by Republicans he decided to lead the Minority against the bill, which did not pass.
This time he played Harry Reid (D-Nevada) like a harp. Reid wanted to bring up bills requiring immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Or didn't he? He figured McConnell would rouse the minority to prevent the 60 votes needed to bring the bills to the floor for debate as he's done in the past. This has been used by both parties to accuse each other of partisanship. Reid never thought the bills would never make it to the floor for debate. This time, however, McConnell did the unexpected and the bills will make it to the floor for debate. His strategy is to have both sides of the aisle on the record, which will hopefully work in Republican's favor in the upcoming election. I love it!
5 comments:
you do a disservice to Bill Frist and Trent Lott. They were mostly majority leaders, at least Bill Frist was. It is almost impossible to accomplish anything in the Senate when you are the majority, unless you have 60 votes. Mitch McConnell will tell you that he really has a much easier time because all he has to do is get 41 votes to stop Harry Reid. That is not difficult to do. Why do you think Harry Reid looks so bad. He knows the Senate rules as well as McConnell, but he only has 51 votes. It is really tough to get those extra 9 votes that he needs. A little fairness, please.
You're right, paradise. I did not mean to imply that Frist and Lott were horrible. I was disillusioned with Frist because he didn't fight the Democrats like I thought he should have. He was too bipartisan for me. And Lott had been a real disappointment when he became Maj. Leader. He was too willing to accomodate Democrats. I have come to believe that there is a point anyone who gets re-elected over and over again becomes a little less responsive to his constituents each election. That's why the Senate is seen as the "Old Boys' Club." Frist, I believe, was unprepared for the job. McConnell had been the Republican Whip during both the Minority and Majority years. He was prepared for the job. But he seems to be much more responsive to the Republican public than Lott ever was.
Karen, you make some good points, but I think there are some things you are overlooking. First, the role of a majority leader is to get legislation passed, especially when his party controls the White House. When he does not have enough votes to prevent filibusters, then he must compromise to get his way. I agree with you about Lott, but think you do not give Frist enough credit. I have taken a close look at the bills that got passed during his term as leader, and they are pretty impressive. It is interesting to me that the left hates Frist because they think he was to much of a conservative, the conservatives hate him because they think he was too much of a compromiser. The Senate is an old Boys Club. Frist was always an outsider, because he had term limited himself. You know what I find interesting in this entire discussion. Mitch McConnell, an ultimate "Old Boy", and one who knows the procedure and rules of the Senate better than anyone there, was the whip when Frist was leader. When I started my legal career I worked for a bright attorney, but one who didn't know much about the rules and procedures of the court. As a young attorney, I made it my business to make sure that he never got outmaneuvered in court proceedings. That is how McConnell should have worked with Frist. He should have been making sure that he never got outmaneuvered. McConnell knew the system - Frist didn't. I think Frist was unprepared for the job, but old warhorses like McConnell, Warner, Hatch, Gregg, etc. wanted Frist in the job. They had an obligation to help him succeed. I think when people step back and look at what was accomplished during the last six years, they will be impressed with Republican achievements. Right now our party is in trouble, but history has a way of changing that.
I think you both have very interesting points. I appreciate the back-ground on how the Frist/McConnel relationship should have worked, and didn't. I wonder what fell apart there.
I have nothing else to add. You both are way too intelligent for me!
Paradise, you are so right about Frist and his fellow Republicans. I think that sometimes it's easier to be the minority in the Senate because of the filibuster if the majority doesn't have the 60 votes. I was wrong to be so critical of Frist.
Post a Comment