Alright, lets see if I can take a decent crack at this - or not.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What money do the Dems need?

Infrastructure money. Trump's pushing for a $1 billion infrastructure fund. Meanwhile New York (2 Dem Senators) is trying to figure out how to simultaneously (IIUC) rebuild the Hudson River Tunnel and build a new one. Per today's WSJ, Pennsylvania and Ohio (one Dem and one Rep apiece) have been pushing with limited success to get the Army Corps of Engineers to upgrade the locks on canals on the Ohio River. Failure to do so could potentially cost area buisnesses some $200 million in revenues. California (2 Dem Senators) recently rediscovered that at least one of its major dams is prone to failure and will require major repairs (and quite probably upgrades) that Jerry Brown swears California doesn't have the money to pay for.

Some major urban areas in Dem-majority states are facing major (if self-inflicted) crime problems. Both Rahm Emmanuel of Chicago and What's-Her-Face from Baltimore want federal money and want the federal government to spend money on helping those municipalities address violent crime in particular.

On top of that, every state vies to get a share of ordinary federal spending done in their states or the regional economies that benefit them. In this case I'm thinking of funding for research by local universities and think tanks, spending through federal installations like military bases as well as for private purchases by people working there, construction contracts and money for various pilot programs. The Dems will have a hard time getting a cut of that as it is, given Republican control of the White House and Congress.

With all the various types of federal spending out there, I'm sure there are also other ways Dem Senators DC expect to bring home federal money.

quote:

That usually works from states there is no Senator of the Presidents party. At least you might get nominees not AS obnoxious, but here, the Dems are in effect blocking EVERY nominee, much like they did to El Diablo, but diferent tactics.

Ah, but look at the alternative for the Dems. If the Republicans are willing to set aside the option of preventing a nomination with a mere 41 votes, then how much faith do you have in the survival of the blue slip block? More importantly, are Dems willing to drive that option into the ground, knowing that it can so easily be eliminated?

quote:

I doubt the Chairmen can be dictated to what subjects are discussed. The Majority Leader has some power, considerable influence but very little absolute control. Each of the 100 Senators is an egomaniacal big shot in his or her own right, susceptible to persuasion on some things, but hard to dictate to.

You mean McConnell might have to bargain with his fellow Republicans who are committee chairs - over whether he assigns an issue (or legislation) to their committee or some other committee, over whether bills reported out come up for a vote, or over the question of a matter's being either a priority or even worth the committee's time? I would argue that that is precisely how you harness their egos. Ineffective committee chairs don't get much respect, so they need to show they're effective in order to remain committee chairs or be viable candidates for other positions (committees, chairmanships, panels, Whip positions, etc.). If they don't get their egos stroked unless they work with McConnell, then that's what they'll do to get their egos stroked. The worst downside I can see is that committee chairs might wind up pushing McConnell to the right.

quote:

I have no idea what good this might do, or what the advantage might be.

Ask yourself how the Dems feel about Cruz' low-cost alternative being included in the current health care legislation. If McConnell is constantly fighting Cruz and constantly trying to get him to shut up and sit down, that consumes an awful lot of McConnell's and Cruz' time and contributes to the perception of the Republicans' being fractured and therefore ineffective. If McConnell backs Cruz, McConnell gets to focus on what McConnell wants while letting the Dems waste their time and attention on Cruz. And if the Dems succeed in poisoning Cruz' proposals in the eyes of the general public then all McConnell has to do is step back and assume the role of being the only adult in the room - rather than being burned by association with Cruz' activities.

OK, so the Dems haven't figured out that they're largely wasting themselves by reacting vociferously to a so-far-obscure investigation and a few tweets while Trump gleefully slashes and burns his way through Obama-era regulations. Surely a heart to heart over drinks at La Brasserie can put that to rights.

quote:

The God Damned Commies are defending Obamacare with their voting power, forcing the GOP to cram the dinosaur of repeal through the key hole of reconciliation. Almost impossible.

I think the big picture looks different. They've lost chunks of ObamaCare bit by bit and will continue to do so as OCare is administered by the Trump administration. Insurers are continuing to drop out of the markets in various states. We have yet to see any sort of national outcry in support of ObamaCare that hasn't pretty much been limited to obvious Dem activists rather than coming from a broad swathe of the people.

They can protect the shell of OCare and maybe a few programs with their votes. If they keep doing that, though, I think OCare can eventually be hollowed out enough that there'll be no obvious reason in the minds of the electorate to perpetuate it. And if the electorate at large demands some sort of federal activity in the health care market? Then that's when Republicans advance whatever they want to propose as being better than an obviously incoherent, failed and unsupportable (given the insurance companies' defections) policy.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the Dems get to choose from only two viable possibilities over the next few years - outright repeal or death by a thousand cuts. Perhaps the best thing to do is to pull an old prep school trick by telling the Dems that if they support or at least don't oppose the complete repeal of OCare, then the Republicans will let the Dems talk to them about what they would like to see OCare replaced with. As long as the Reps don't commit themselves to any policies before outright repeal occurs, they've gained something in exchange for nothing more than a vague promise.

quote:

Which Senator might do better?

That I don't know. But McConnell's been in the seat for years and doesn't seem to have accomplished much of anything. If the wizard can't do the job, why not roll the dice on whoever else can win an election for Majority Leader?

quote:

You refer to LBJ and Speaker Rayburn.

Sure. But here we're not talking about the balance of power between two of the coequal branches of government. We're talking about shepherding Senate votes so that McConnell can not only enter such agreements with Trump, but actually carry out his end of the bargain by delivering the votes in the Senate. McConnell doesn't necessarily have to be cunning, charming or coercive in the way LBJ was. He just has to find a way to deliver the votes. If he can't, then the position of Majority Leader is pretty much wasted on him.

I'm going off on a tangent, here, but have you ever kinda wondered how McConnell managed to get reelected as the Majority Leader after having to bring in ringers to win the primary and having a rough time getting reelected to the Senate? We've heard a great deal about his wizardry, but I'm beginning to wonder if different factions came to back him precisely because he isn't a strong, effective leader. I don't know that they wanted a place keeper or a blame catcher, but ol' Mitch just never seemed like a natural for the position to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Alright, lets see if I can take a decent crack at this - or not.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What money do the Dems need?

Infrastructure money. Trump's pushing for a $1 billion infrastructure fund. Meanwhile New York (2 Dem Senators) is trying to figure out how to simultaneously (IIUC) rebuild the Hudson River Tunnel and build a new one. Per today's WSJ, Pennsylvania and Ohio (one Dem and one Rep apiece) have been pushing with limited success to get the Army Corps of Engineers to upgrade the locks on canals on the Ohio River. Failure to do so could potentially cost area buisnesses some $200 million in revenues. California (2 Dem Senators) recently rediscovered that at least one of its major dams is prone to failure and will require major repairs (and quite probably upgrades) that Jerry Brown swears California doesn't have the money to pay for.

Some major urban areas in Dem-majority states are facing major (if self-inflicted) crime problems. Both Rahm Emmanuel of Chicago and What's-Her-Face from Baltimore want federal money and want the federal government to spend money on helping those municipalities address violent crime in particular.

On top of that, every state vies to get a share of ordinary federal spending done in their states or the regional economies that benefit them. In this case I'm thinking of funding for research by local universities and think tanks, spending through federal installations like military bases as well as for private purchases by people working there, construction contracts and money for various pilot programs. The Dems will have a hard time getting a cut of that as it is, given Republican control of the White House and Congress.

With all the various types of federal spending out there, I'm sure there are also other ways Dem Senators DC expect to bring home federal money.

Bad dogs get no biscuits.

quote:

That usually works from states there is no Senator of the Presidents party. At least you might get nominees not AS obnoxious, but here, the Dems are in effect blocking EVERY nominee, much like they did to El Diablo, but diferent tactics.

quote:

Ah, but look at the alternative for the Dems. If the Republicans are willing to set aside the option of preventing a nomination with a mere 41 votes, then how much faith do you have in the survival of the blue slip block? More importantly, are Dems willing to drive that option into the ground, knowing that it can so easily be eliminated?

Bad dogs get no biscuits.

quote:

I doubt the Chairmen can be dictated to what subjects are discussed. The Majority Leader has some power, considerable influence but very little absolute control. Each of the 100 Senators is an egomaniacal big shot in his or her own right, susceptible to persuasion on some things, but hard to dictate to.

quote:

You mean McConnell might have to bargain with his fellow Republicans who are committee chairs - over whether he assigns an issue (or legislation) to their committee or some other committee, over whether bills reported out come up for a vote, or over the question of a matter's being either a priority or even worth the committee's time? I would argue that that is precisely how you harness their egos. Ineffective committee chairs don't get much respect, so they need to show they're effective in order to remain committee chairs or be viable candidates for other positions (committees, chairmanships, panels, Whip positions, etc.). If they don't get their egos stroked unless they work with McConnell, then that's what they'll do to get their egos stroked. The worst downside I can see is that committee chairs might wind up pushing McConnell to the right.

That's what Leaders and Chairmen have historically done, bargain, negotiate, make deals. Is it McConnell's fault that this is not apparently working now? The chairmen seem to be team players.

Everyone talks about candidates promises to repeal and replace as if they were a monolith, fungible. I have yet to hear a single Senator say, "screw thus. Let's just keep O'care." The devil is in the details. 51 men and women with 57 different ideas about how best to accomplish it, and ham strung by the reconciliation requirement.

quote:

I have no idea what good this might do, or what the advantage might be.

quote:

Ask yourself how the Dems feel about Cruz' low-cost alternative being included in the current health care legislation. If McConnell is constantly fighting Cruz and constantly trying to get him to shut up and sit down, that consumes an awful lot of McConnell's and Cruz' time and contributes to the perception of the Republicans' being fractured and therefore ineffective. If McConnell backs Cruz, McConnell gets to focus on what McConnell wants while letting the Dems waste their time and attention on Cruz. And if the Dems succeed in poisoning Cruz' proposals in the eyes of the general public then all McConnell has to do is step back and assume the role of being the only adult in the room - rather than being burned by association with Cruz' activities.

OK, so the Dems haven't figured out that they're largely wasting themselves by reacting vociferously to a so-far-obscure investigation and a few tweets while Trump gleefully slashes and burns his way through Obama-era regulations. Surely a heart to heart over drinks at La Brasserie can put that to rights.

This must be way over my head. The GDCs are against it, no matter what. Trump is right. The best healthcare plan ever will get no Dem votes.

quote:

The God Damned Commies are defending Obamacare with their voting power, forcing the GOP to cram the dinosaur of repeal through the key hole of reconciliation. Almost impossible.

quote:

I think the big picture looks different. They've lost chunks of ObamaCare bit by bit and will continue to do so as OCare is administered by the Trump administration. Insurers are continuing to drop out of the markets in various states. We have yet to see any sort of national outcry in support of ObamaCare that hasn't pretty much been limited to obvious Dem activists rather than coming from a broad swathe of the people.

They can protect the shell of OCare and maybe a few programs with their votes. If they keep doing that, though, I think OCare can eventually be hollowed out enough that there'll be no obvious reason in the minds of the electorate to perpetuate it. And if the electorate at large demands some sort of federal activity in the health care market? Then that's when Republicans advance whatever they want to propose as being better than an obviously incoherent, failed and unsupportable (given the insurance companies' defections) policy.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the Dems get to choose from only two viable possibilities over the next few years - outright repeal or death by a thousand cuts. Perhaps the best thing to do is to pull an old prep school trick by telling the Dems that if they support or at least don't oppose the complete repeal of OCare, then the Republicans will let the Dems talk to them about what they would like to see OCare replaced with. As long as the Reps don't commit themselves to any policies before outright repeal occurs, they've gained something in exchange for nothing more than a vague promise.

quote:

Which Senator might do better?

That I don't know. But McConnell's been in the seat for years and doesn't seem to have accomplished much of anything. If the wizard can't do the job, why not roll the dice on whoever else can win an election for Majority Leader?

quote:

You refer to LBJ and Speaker Rayburn.

Sure. But here we're not talking about the balance of power between two of the coequal branches of government. We're talking about shepherding Senate votes so that McConnell can not only enter such agreements with Trump, but actually carry out his end of the bargain by delivering the votes in the Senate. McConnell doesn't necessarily have to be cunning, charming or coercive in the way LBJ was. He just has to find a way to deliver the votes. If he can't, then the position of Majority Leader is pretty much wasted on him.

I'm going off on a tangent, here, but have you ever kinda wondered how McConnell managed to get reelected as the Majority Leader after having to bring in ringers to win the primary and having a rough time getting reelected to the Senate? We've heard a great deal about his wizardry, but I'm beginning to wonder if different factions came to back him precisely because he isn't a strong, effective leader. I don't know that they wanted a place keeper or a blame catcher, but ol' Mitch just never seemed like a natural for the position to me.

Why do these shrewd hard bit Senators keep voting for him?

Townhall.com


Schumer Blocks Pentagon Nominee Vote...Because of Health Care?


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is apparently so bitter about losing Obamacare that he is blocking any attempts to hold confirmation hearings for President Trump’s nominee for deputy defense secretary. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tried to get Boeing executive Patrick Shanahan a swift floor vote, considering the current man in the job, Bob Work, is leaving his post on Friday. But, he was denied by Schumer – twice.

Health care appears to have something to do with it.

"We'd be happy to consider the nominee in regular order and maybe once things change a little bit in healthcare we can, with the consent of my friends on this side of the aisle, move a lot of things quickly," Schumer said.

Democrats are predicting complete catastrophe if the GOP follows through in its effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Nancy Pelosi called it “a very sad, deadly joke.” Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL), predicted that the bill " will kill thousands of Americans every year.”

As Democratic leadership continues to seek revenge over the GOP's plans to dismantle Obamacare (or losing the 2016 election), it’s not just the Pentagon that is being impacted. Several judicial nominees are stuck as Democrats withhold “blue slips” from the Judiciary Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell chalked up Schumer’s behavior as “historic obstructionism.”

McCain agreed.

"You can choose to vote ‘no,' you can choose to vote ‘yes,' but let's just vote," McCain said. "The obstruction has gone on long enough and it has to stop."

Democrats may be pleased to hear that the Republican health plan has yet to garner enough votes to pass.

Link

Schumer - the antithesis of a patriotic American