Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) sat down the WSJ’s James Freeman this week, and noted, after more than a year of record-breaking obstructionism, he’s rather pleased with himself. (thanks to V.S. for the tip)
“When I woke up after the election in November 2006,” Mr. McConnell says, “I realized I was going to be the Republican leader and not the majority leader. That was the bad news.” The one-time county judge continues: “The good news is that 49 is not a bad number in a body that requires 60. The United States Senate is the only legislative body in the world where a majority is not enough.”
Though he has used a variety of political and parliamentary tactics to steer bad ideas off the rails, Mr. McConnell simply credits the Senate’s cloture rules, which require 60 votes to force consideration of any bill. “My goal from the very beginning, which my Republican colleagues have supported without exception, basically, is to use the power of 41 — or more — to do one of two things: either to stop things that are totally awful … or more frequently, to use the power of 41 to shape.”
This is sheer nonsense. The problem has never been that Senate Republicans judiciously blocked “totally awful” legislation; the problem has been that Senate Republicans have demanded supermajorities for every bill that moved.
To hear McConnell tell it, the GOP caucus has been careful and deliberate about the Senate’s cloture rules. What he did not mention, and which the WSJ ignored, is that Senate Republicans have blocked more bills in 2007 than any previous minority blocked in any two-year span in congressional history.
The Journal’s Freeman credits McConnell for steering “bad ideas off the rails.” But looking back over what was blocked last year, it seems by the standards of McConnell and the WSJ editorial board, practically all ideas are “bad.”
Just as an aside, because it’s a stale debate by now, I should probably add that McConnell basically accused Democratic lawmakers of committing treason, undermining U.S. security in exchange for cash from trial lawyers.
Protection against terrorism may yet prove to be a potent issue this November. Temporary wiretap authority enacted last year has expired. The Senate has passed a bill – supported by Mr. McConnell – clarifying the government’s ability to target overseas terrorist communications without a court order. But Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues in the House Democratic leadership have refused to go along, even to allow a vote on the measure. Among the reasons is that the bill grants immunity to phone companies that respond in good faith when the feds ask for help in matters of national security.
Based on the declared support of House Democrats for the Senate bill, Mr. McConnell says the bill would pass if it came to a vote. Of Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues’ obstructionism he comments tartly, “It would make you believe that they’d rather see companies in court than terrorists in jail.”
Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against phone companies who responded to government requests for wiretaps in the aftermath of 9/11. Mr. McConnell believes the Democratic leadership is doing a favor for the trial lawyers, a key party constituency.
“It shows you how far they’re willing to go,” he says, “to enrich these obscenely wealthy characters who practice this kind of law. They’ll do anything for them, even jeopardize the security of the United States of America.”
McConnell is a pretty sleazy character, but even for him, this is low.
The irony, of course, is that it’s Republican supporters of telecom immunity who are looking to get a financial reward, not Democratic opponents looking for money from the plaintiffs’ bar.
First, the substance.
Having visited EFF’s offices myself, I can confirm Cohn’s description — they’re anything but a swanky law firm. And EFF’s work has been vital to defending and expanding online freedom. The idea that the FISA debate is about trial lawyers, rather than privacy and the Constitution, is an insult both to the hard-working lawyers at organizations like EFF and the ACLU, and to everyone else’s intelligence.
Second, the Republicans’ financial motivation.
With the House Democrats’ refusal to grant retroactive immunity to phone companies — stalling the rewrite of the warrantless wiretapping program — GOP leadership aides are grumbling that their party isn’t getting more political money from the telecommunications industry.
Like most corporate interests with a heavy stake in Congressional action, the major phone companies significantly boosted their contributions to Democrats last year after the party surged back into the majority.
But giving by that sector is getting special attention from Republicans now that the debate over the surveillance program is front and center — and focused on the phone companies’ role in aiding the Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
“It’s quite discouraging,” said one GOP leadership aide, referring to the disparity in giving from the telecommunications industry in light of the FISA debate, but also the broader lack of support for Republicans from the business community in general. […]
In a reflection of the sensitivity of the subject matter, and an apparent recognition that they would undermine their own messaging by appearing to be motivated by fundraising concerns, Republicans on and off Capitol Hill declined to comment on the record. […]
“There’s no question that from time to time staff, and maybe some Members, say to fellow travelers: ‘Are you giving us some air cover? Are you helping us help you?'” [one Republican lobbyist said.]
Pointing at Dems (falsely) with one hand, while reaching for a telecom handout with the other.
Shameless. Simply shameless.