Part of me wants to think the problem goes beyond him, and that the sewage hydra that is the modern GOP will just grow another sh*t-faced canker sore once he's gone, but I'm not sure I can recall as much of a bald faced liar and hypocrite as Mitch McConnell.
The irony is, Garland is now the judge who will be deciding on trump's appeal to hide his financial records from Congress.
No one was under the impression McConnell would do otherwise, were they? This is as much a rationalization as the argument on the principle that the voter should decide who the nominee should be. The risk McConnell faced was wholly asymmetrical. Obama could have appointed a more left-leaning judge himself, and he conceded to McConnell before McConnell even had a chance to stonewall him -- and got stonewalled anyway. If Clinton won the election and she appointed a more left-leaning judge, McConnell would have been in the same spot he was in at the outset, so no real loss yet. And, with all projections saying he'd still control the Senate after the election, he'd still have an opportunity to block more extreme judges and force Clinton toward a more moderate appointment. And in any case, even a calculated gamble where he puts his own political assets at risk still doesn't justify dereliction of duty.
Correct. And mcconnell will lead republican outrage when Democrats (when the pendulum of power swings back to them) respond with an escalation.
McConnell's position was that when there is a vacancy during an election year and the senate and white house are run by different parties, then appointing someone should be delayed. Not sure why anyone would thing he has changed course on this. Republicans hold both senate and presidency.... I dont agree with McConnell, but he hasn't changed his view.
If Mitch makes it back. He was polling at 33% popularity in Kentucky (56% disapproval) in February. He’s up for re-election this next cycle.
This is absolutely not true and a total attempt at justification after-the-fact. Don't shovel dung for this cretin.
I don't know if you are intentionally lying or if you are just mistaken on the facts. Either way, it inaccurate.
If Clinton won he'd have immediately approved Garland before she took office. There was no risk on his part
I'll say it if no one else will this guy is such a douche bag and slime ball i can't see how the people in his district can still vote for this clown.
Of course McConnell would do this, everyone knew at the time that there were no actual principles involved in the decision to stonewall Obama's nominee, it was nothing but partisanship and opposition at all costs. There were even some Republican senators running at the time (Burr in NC comes to mind) who vowed to leave the seat open for four years if Hillary won the election. Senate Republicans were never interested in compromise or "giving the American people a voice," they were only interested in getting some right wing ideologue into that seat no matter how it was done or how long it took. Also, there's a good chance a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 while the Republicans hold onto the senate. In this scenario, will the Democratic president even have a cabinet? What gives us any hope that a Republican-controlled Senate would confirm any nominees for the cabinet that a President Biden or Warren were to put forward? What McConnell did in 2016 may have worked out for his side then but it set an awful precedent that is going to be hard to undo and will undoubtedly do long term damage to our government.
You cannot shame people who have no shame Hypocrit . . .liar .. . . shitty . .. call them what you want . . . . .they don't care Rocket River
Yet he nearly lost in 2008. I just hate one senator having the level of control to prevent it coming up for vote. Same could be said for the Speaker. We deserve to have our elected officials actually vote on these matters.
