McConnell Lets Slip Republicans Plan On Doing Nothing In 2016 And The Reason Is Infuriating

[KamaAina]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/02/mcconnell-lets-slip-republicans-plan-on-doing-nothing-in-2016-and-the-reason-is-infuriating/

If you ever find yourself struggling to explain to a foreign friend why the U.S. Congress is so universally reviled, look no further than this bit of political cowardice.

In an explosive report by The Hill’s Alexander Bolton, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office freely and openly admitted that his party’s legislative goal for the next 11 months is to do absolutely nothing.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), seeking to protect his majority in a tough cycle for Republicans, is leaning toward holding back several measures that have bipartisan support but are divisive in his conference.

Some of these “divisive” bills that Republicans want to shove under the rug until they win their re-elections? A crucial justice reform bill. A long sought after authorization bill to combat ISIS (Remember when Republicans said they were serious about fighting terrorism? Ha!). A minimum wage increase? Any action on immigration? Nothing. They’ll show up to their office to collect their paychecks, hold a few fundraisers, but don’t expect them to do their jobs. Not this year.

Astoundingly, McConnell’s “Do Nothing” strategy is being praised by fellow Republicans. Here’s The Hill again:
“McConnell is smart to wait on issues that divide us until such time as we can achieve a consensus,” said a senior Republican aide. “There’s no question that some members want to turn to some things sooner than others. But McConnell’s duty is to do what’s best for the entire conference. Seems what’s best for the conference is to focus on the things that unite us.”

[yeoman6987]

1. Weirdly it seems to work for them

Not sure why voters don't hold them accountable. And no the senate isn't gerrymandered so it is something else.

[KamaAina]

2. Well, in a way, it is

smaller states like the Dakotas tend to be Red, and they get the same two senators as large Blue states like California and NY.

[passiveporcupine]

44. I really don't understand this.

I know that states with fewer residents tend to be more rural and they want "equal" representation with higher population states that often tend to have those population numbers in urban areas. But is that fair to the majority of our population?

Just because you own more land than urban dwellers do, that doesn't mean you should have more representation in congress, especially when rural land owners tend to be far more conservative than liberal, and urbanites tend to be more liberal...so it's unjustly swayed to give more power to conservatives.

This also tends to give more power to conservative rural old white men, who hold a lot more land than minorities do. While urban areas often have higher percentages of minorities in their mix.

This is something Bernie might want to focus on.

[KamaAina]

45. It was a compromise made to get smaller colonies like Delaware on board

The idea was to keep the larger ones like Virginia and Massachusetts from running roughshod over them.

[passiveporcupine]

46. Well, maybe it's time it was revisited.

[KamaAina]

47. Okay, take it up at the constitutional convention.

If it ever happens.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. this was a compromise needed when the Constitution was written

if we had Senators (which is the House of Lords equivalent) assigned the same way as the House, (which is the House of Commons), then small states would be run roughshod.

By the way, until 1917 you could NOT vote for a Senator They were designated by State Governors, since the Senate was not supposed to have much to do with the populous.

By the way, Vermont is a small state, and to change this would mean a Constitutional amendment, good luck. (Of all the issues that have emerged with the US Constitution, this is one of the least severe actually).

[elljay]

56. I ran the numbers once

In 1790, the difference in population between the largest state, Virginia at 748,000, and the smallest, Delaware at 59,000, was about a 1:13 ratio. In 2014, the ratio between California (38.8 million) and Wyoming (584,000) was 1:67. I wonder whether, had there been this much of an imbalance at the time of the Constitutional Convention, 2 senatos per state would have been approved.

[passiveporcupine]

58. I don't understand what state lines have to do with it anyway

shouldn't we have representation based on actual numbers of people?

I mean, in congress, do bills actually hurt or help one state more than another? Not counting headcounts that is. Would some bills that help farmers fail to pass because the rural states don't have enough representation? Should farm states have the power to pass bills that give huge subsidies to corporate farmers that maybe are not in the best interest of the rest of the economy, or even smaller farmers in those states?

I guess, thinking of the gun issue, Sander's says that in Vermont they don't need the kind of gun laws that DC or Chicago needs, so a gun bill in congress might impact his state more than his constituents want, but who the hell cares, if it saves people's lives over the entire country?

I'm just using this as an example because it's a current issue, and I know that Sanders is for progressive gun laws that make sense for everyone. They don't stop hunters from owning a rifle for hunting. I think he understands now that any gun laws he supports are for the good of the entire country, not just his state. He's thinking nationally now, and not just representing his state (which was his job as senator).

[jeff47]

8. Well, when we run lousy candidates against them, they don't lose. (nt)

[Octafish]

26. Imagine what a difference it would make for DEMs to mention this in the fall.

They used to call it "Hell" when we told the truth about them.

[kacekwl]

35. How "Lousy" must they be

to lose against this kind of b.s. Maybe we don't support them and vote and maybe the party itself doesn't support and promote them.

[jeff47]

36. :facepalm:

So...never heard of Alison Grimes? The party picked her. They promoted the fuck out of her. She got clobbered by doing dumb shit like refusing to say whether or not she voted for Obama. And then party chosen and promoted Jack Conway more-or-less copied her awful campaign.

How 'bout Blanche Lincoln - the party itself worked to defeat her primary challenger, so damaging the party that she lost the general.

The problem is not the voters. The problem is the party.

[kacekwl]

53. You may be correct that some candidates did dumb shit but

what has the voter turnout been since 2008 ? Poor at best.

[jeff47]

57. It's the job of candidates to turn out voters. It is not the voters job to turn out for candidates.

Lousy candidates doing dumb shit yields low turnout.

[kacekwl]

65. It is the voters job to turn out. If they did we would not have

such lousy candidates.

[jeff47]

67. Again, no. It's a democracy. The government, and the people running to be in it

are the ones who have the duty to serve the people.

That means the candidate has to get the voters out. Candidates are not automatically entitled to votes, as you claim.

[kacekwl]

68. Democracy, by the people for the people.

The candidate deserves a vote for or against. The employer has to hire employees to work for them.We are the employer.

[jeff47]

69. The employer has no duty to hire.

The candidate has to convince the employer to hire.

[kacekwl]

70. Ok

[jeff47]

71. It's your analogy.

The employer in your analogy does not have a duty to hire.

[brush]

41. IMO it's not how lousy the dem candidates are. Years and years of 24/7 right wing hate radio . . .

and Faux Noise have brain washed low-info, red state majorities to vote against their own economic interests.

Unfortunately it works, which is how these do-nothing clowns in the Senate keep getting elected. Same with the red state governors and legislatures.

The repug party has been pushed further and further right by the teabaggers, racists, warmongers, anti-immigrant spewers and other extremists they're virtually fascists.

Fortunately for us, a correlated opposite reaction, spear-headed by Bernie Sanders has pushed the Democratic party more and more to the left.

That's the silver lining in all this.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. So, they are going to sit on their asses and do nothing, but they will continue to draw

that government check. Does that make them "welfare queens"?

Hypocrites, one and all!

[HassleCat]

4. They're already bust with more important thngs

Repealing the ACA.

[Hoppy]

5. --- doing what's best for the (Republican) conference... as for doing what's best for the rest of us

Americans, as far as they are concerned, we can just go fuck ourselves.

[beac]

59. You said almost exactly what I was going to say.

It's amazing how those assholes achieve job security by screwing over the people that hired them.

[Hoppy]

61. Its classic smoke and mirrors. Keep their constituents' eyes on that there's a black Muslim in the

White House.

---and if you don't pay attention, there's gonna be Hillary in the White House and that will be worse.


Meanwhile --- as the rubes are watching Fox, we are getting paid by the banks and insurance companies to eliminate Glass-Steigle and defund ObamaCare.

[beac]

62. It is extemely frustrating to watch so many of our fellow citizens

consistently vote against their own best interests.

[rhett o rick]

6. Well since it isn't looking good for a Rep win in Nov , I'd say he is waiting for a Clinton

presidency. We keep getting told how well she would work across the isle with the Republicons. Yeahhh, to the detriment of the 99%.

[Vinca]

7. And they wonder why citizens are revolting . . .

don't pay the bums.

[tblue37]

12. Citizens are revolting because McConnell and his ilk are revolting! nt

[pampango]

9. "But if cowardice permeates every corner of the Republican Party, it’s not without reason. For years

Republican politicians have been held hostage by a radical fringe of their base that says any bipartisan cooperation means you aren’t a “true” conservative. Just passing a bill to give more support to veterans is considered a “betrayal” to the party if it means working with Democrats. You accomplish exclusively conservative goals or you don’t accomplish anything at all."

Apparently, they are afraid to do anything while their presidential primary is happening since all their candidates are pandering 24/7 to the tea party base which brooks not compromise with Obama or congressional Democrats. After their convention they will come up with a different reason to do nothing, but 'doing nothing' will stay the same.

[madamesilverspurs]

10. So many words ...

... hate, detest, despise, loathe, abhor -- and none of them are adequate to describe my thoughts toward the republican trash heap.

[Faux pas]

11. Why

are we paying these a**holes to do nothing???????

[eggplant]

13. It's called multislacking.

When you don't do shit about anything all at the same time.

[brush]

42. "Multislacking". Never heard such an apt description before. Mind if I use it?

[eggplant]

43. 'Tis not mine to own. Have at it, good friend. n/t

[MsMAC]

14. What about doing what's best for the country?

In that case though, it would be to get rid of ALL the repugs!

[world wide wally]

15. I'll bet the can find time to vote to repeal Obamacare about 10 more times before the election

[lpbk2713]

16. More obstructionism from the party of obstructionists.

SSDD

Pay them on the basis of their productivity and they will change dramatically.

[SoapBox]

17. Vote the Rascals OUT!

If anyone doesn't believe it's time for a Political Revolution...

Well, gawd help ya.

[mmonk]

33. Can't due to gerrymandering

[ffr]

37. Try. You gotta try. Get more voters to show up.

Is there anything more patriotic than taking back your country from these theocratic aristocrats?

[SmittynMo]

18. McConnell's action are another reason why

millennials are out on force. Our current government is broken, and corrupt.

They will be voting their asses out next cycle around. "We the people" have to get these assholes out of office.

[ffr]

38. Amen! n/t

[asjr]

19. McConnell would leave all the cakes

in the oven until all have been burned into ashes.

[tclambert]

20. Democrats should mess with them by introducing a bill to build a giant wall on the southern border.

They wouldn't pass it if a Democrat submitted it, but if they oppose it, they risk insulting Donald Trump.

[KamaAina]

21. Who's Donald Trump?

http://www.loser.com

[tclambert]

22. You're right, of course. That loser doesn't matter any more.

[Volaris]

39. Lol..or offer up a bill that both repeals the ACA and replaces it with single payer..

McConnells balls would be in such a twist he would have to make a proctologist appointment.

Go down to the floor every day and just POUND THEM WITH IT.

[trueblue2007]

23. i hate TURTLEMAN McConnell.

[kristopher]

24. Did you know turtles eat pond scum? nt

[KamaAina]

25. So that's what happened to Boner!

[kristopher]

27. Genuine LOL!!! nt

[smirkymonkey]

28. They are in office to work for the people of America, not play childish

partisan games while drawing pay from our tax dollars. These selfish bastards piss me off beyond belief!

[libodem]

29. Infuriating

Especially since it colors the common man's perception that "both parties do it".

It's them, not us!


Why, I oughta....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Corrupt: selling out the country for personal political gain. . nt

[JPnoodleman]

31. How long can do nothing work though? Pres. Sanders/Clinton...

Both would likely get the same treatment they dealt Obama. Can we go 16 years without a congress?

[cyberswede]

32. I thought their jobs were to do what's best for AMERICANS

Fuck their "conference."

[Stuart G]

34. Very sad..Perhaps McConell should end up in the same place as Governor Poison. for doing nothing!!!

[rladdi]

40. That's not news. Hell they done nothing at least since 2010 except collect paychecks and built up a

big pension when they retire with benefits. Why do I think they are Politicians, they are unable to work in a real job, but can do nothing in government and still get paid. yeah, they do complain about out big wages and benefits and pass laws to reduce them.

[pansypoo53219]

49. TECHNICALLY, the congress needs expanding. need more congress critters,less low pop congress.

[KamaAina]

52. Expanding the Senate would require a constitutional amendment.

Or the admission of more states.

Congress could vote to expand the House from the present 435, but can you really see them doing that?!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

50. Hillary will tell them to knock it off

Voilà

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Well, thre ya go, then. 'Bernie won't be able to get anything done' is officially dead as a reason

not to vote for him, because Hillary isn't going to get anything done either. All of her blather about how SHE can work with Republicans is nonsense anyway, but here we have it, they're not doing jack no matter who wins.

[spanone]

54. they haven't governed for seven years. they are worthless.

[JudyM]

55. Didn't they take some vow when they were sworn in?

The public must have some kind of leverage if they just de use not to work!

It is positively revolting that hard-earned tax dollars are paying these guys!!!!

[B Calm]

60. The more republican reveals, the more people understand that republicans can't govern.

[LiberalElite]

63. They've been doing nothing since Obama was elected -

why should they stop now?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

64. Do nothing? Can't they at least reverse Obamacare?

I think they should reverse Obamacare, one more time. Or two.

Just so they can say they did something.

[Rex]

66. How is that any different than what they've done since the 1980s?

Congress is a pathetic joke and the GOP made it that way from the ground up.