It's time for McConnell to fight with Trump instead of against him

[corbe]

It's time for McConnell to fight with Trump instead of against him

 By Jenny Beth Martin, opinion contributor - 08/11/17 10:40 AM EDT   

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Monday put-down of President Trump’s “excessive expectations” drew a response from Trump Wednesday, when the president tweeted, “Senator Mitch McConnell said I had ‘excessive expectations, but I don’t think so. After seven years of hearing "repeal and replace," why not done?” On this issue, as on so many others, the conservative grassroots leaders, activists, and voters who put them both in power side with the president – and rightly so.

Sadly, the Trump-McConnell exchange reveals a larger truth: Since the start of the current Congress, congressional Republicans have had no leadership, and no game plan. They spent months on half-hearted attempts to repeal ObamaCare, only to end (at least, so far) in failure. They have yet to pass a budget for the fiscal year that begins seven weeks from now, and while the House has passed a “minibus” appropriations bill that rolled four of the 12 annual appropriations bills into one, they’ve yet to pass any of the other eight; the Senate, on the other hand, will almost assuredly discard that “minibus,” and has yet to even consider, let alone pass, any appropriations for the 2018 fiscal year that begins October 1.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/346179-its-time-for-mcconnell-to-fight-with-trump-instead-of

[Bigun]

It's long past time for the senate to do it's damned job and stop screwing around!

[skeeter]

Congress has the opportunity to make real progress on issues critical to the nation with this president.

His abrasiveness & inarticulate style is no excuse for their refusal to cooperate. In fact its beginning to look more like thats just an excuse to keep from doing what they clearly do not want to do.

[Bigun]

Congress has the opportunity to make real progress on issues critical to the nation with this president.

His abrasiveness & inarticulate style is no excuse for their refusal to cooperate. In fact its beginning to look more like thats just an excuse to keep from doing what they clearly do not want to do.

  

[dfwgator]

Congress has the opportunity to make real progress on issues critical to the nation with this president.

His abrasiveness & inarticulate style is no excuse for their refusal to cooperate. In fact its beginning to look more like thats just an excuse to keep from doing what they clearly do not want to do.

Yep.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It's long past time for the senate to do it's damned job and stop screwing around!

Well said @Bigun 

[dfwgator]

Republicans in DC would rather be the minority....All the perks,  none of the responsibility.   Nice work if you can get it.

[EasyAce]

His abrasiveness & inarticulate style is no excuse for their refusal to cooperate. In fact its beginning to look more like thats just an excuse to keep from doing what they clearly do not want to do.

If what they don't want to do is legislate---by which I mean not just making law but repealing law (and there is
only too much law now on the books that ought to be repealed, law that does not protect our rights but
merely metastasises government as a public nuisance)---then, no, they ought not to be excused from doing
their job.

But if what they don't want to do is be a mere rubber stamp for a president (regardless of whom the president
is, whether he is the essence of decorum or the personification of philistinism), then, yes, yes, a thousand times
yes they ought to be excused from it. Neither the Senate nor the House were designed to be a presidential
rubber stamp, any more than the president was granted any legitimate constitutional mandate to be the supreme
lawmaker of the land.

McConnell would be wise to remind his colleagues and the president alike that there are reasons why the Constitu-
tion addressed the legislative branch first, and that according to the Constitution just because the president says
"sh@t!" neither the Senate nor the House are forbidden to ask anything other than, "Which pot?" But with this
president, we may first be required to school him in the separation of powers if not the Supreme Law of the Land
itself, as we may be required concurrently to school Congress in the consequences of assorted portions of their
responsibilities that they and predecessor Congresses have handed to the executive branch, on a silver platter
and otherwise.

[skeeter]

If what they don't want to do is legislate---by which I mean not just making law but repealing law (and there is
only too much law now on the books that ought to be repealed, law that does not protect our rights but
merely metastasises government as a public nuisance)---then, no, they ought not to be excused from doing
their job.

But if what they don't want to do is be a mere rubber stamp for a president (regardless of whom the president
is, whether he is the essence of decorum or the personification of philistinism), then, yes, yes, a thousand times
yes they ought to be excused from it. Neither the Senate nor the House were designed to be a presidential
rubber stamp, any more than the president was granted any legitimate constitutional mandate to be the supreme
lawmaker of the land.

McConnell would be wise to remind his colleagues and the president alike that there are reasons why the Constitu-
tion addressed the legislative branch first, and that according to the Constitution just because the president says
"sh@t!" neither the Senate nor the House are forbidden to ask anything other than, "Which pot?" But with this
president, we may first be required to school him in the separation of powers if not the Supreme Law of the Land
itself, as we may be required concurrently to school Congress in the consequences of assorted portions of their
responsibilities that they and predecessor Congresses have handed to the executive branch, on a silver platter
and otherwise.

I'm fairly certain Trump would be delighted to be able to sign and brag on anything that moved the ball in the direction he loudly promised during the campaign. Something he can point to and claim he's being an effective leader.

But to my knowledge no significant legislation, regardless of origin, has been placed on his desk.

In the past the president has been considered the defacto leader of the party, and the party has considered it a kind of obligation to act on the issues, to some degree or other, a new president campaigned and won on. Except when that president isn't a member of the DC clique apparently.

[Bigun]

I'm fairly certain Trump would be delighted to be able to sign and brag on anything that moved the ball in the direction he loudly promised during the campaign. Something he can point to and claim he's being an effective leader.

But to my knowledge no significant legislation, regardless of origin, has been placed on his desk.

In the past the president has been considered the defacto leader of the party, and the party has considered it a kind of obligation to act on the issues, to some degree or other, a new president campaigned and won on. Except when that president isn't a member of the DC clique apparently.

  You are on a roll today! 

[EasyAce]

In the past the president has been considered the defacto leader of the party, and the party has considered it a kind of obligation to act on the issues, to some degree or other, a new president campaigned and won on. Except when that president isn't a member of the DC clique apparently.

Party before constitutional mandates and separation of powers, now, is it?

Weren't we the ones screaming bloody murder when it worked that way with Democrats
in the White House---or what we used to call RINOs (George W. Bush, anyone?)---whose
regard for the constitutional order of things was equal to that of a crippled millipede?

Are we finally the political version of Animal House, observing, "They can't do that to
the Constitution? Only we can do that to the Constitution!"

(And, above and beyond the Obamacare debacle, how come everyone's still talking about
getting things done and not a whisper if that much about getting things undone?
Donaldus Minimus's reversals of some of His Excellency's executive orders were more than
welcome, but they amount to a mere raindrop compared to the oceanful of things that need
to be undone, the better to make government something other than an abusive public
nuisance. The Obamacare debacle aside, not one legislator, never mind this president, has
said much of anything about it above and beyond campaign rhetoric.)

[skeeter]

Party before constitutional mandates and separation of powers, now, is it?

Weren't we the ones screaming bloody murder when it worked that way with Democrats
in the White House---or what we used to call RINOs (George W. Bush, anyone?)---whose
regard for the constitutional order of things was equal to that of a crippled millipede?

Are we finally the political version of Animal House, observing, "They can't do that to
the Constitution? Only we can do that to the Constitution!"

(And, above and beyond the Obamacare debacle, how come everyone's still talking about
getting things done and not a whisper if that much about getting things undone?
Donaldus Minimus's reversals of some of His Excellency's executive orders were more than
welcome, but they amount to a mere raindrop compared to the oceanful of things that need
to be undone, the better to make government something other than an abusive public
nuisance. The Obamacare debacle aside, not one legislator, never mind this president, has
said much of anything about it above and beyond campaign rhetoric.)

I'm afraid you saw a lot in my reply that just wasn't there.

[Bigun]

Party before constitutional mandates and separation of powers, now, is it?

Weren't we the ones screaming bloody murder when it worked that way with Democrats
in the White House---or what we used to call RINOs (George W. Bush, anyone?)---whose
regard for the constitutional order of things was equal to that of a crippled millipede?

Are we finally the political version of Animal House, observing, "They can't do that to
the Constitution? Only we can do that to the Constitution!"

(And, above and beyond the Obamacare debacle, how come everyone's still talking about
getting things done and not a whisper if that much about getting things undone?
Donaldus Minimus's reversals of some of His Excellency's executive orders were more than
welcome, but they amount to a mere raindrop compared to the oceanful of things that need
to be undone, the better to make government something other than an abusive public
nuisance. The Obamacare debacle aside, not one legislator, never mind this president, has
said much of anything about it above and beyond campaign rhetoric.)

Tell me what part of the federal government  telling citizens the must purchase a product you find constitutional.  Constitution reference appreciated.

[EasyAce]

Tell me what part of the federal government  telling citizens the must purchase a product you find constitutional.

That would fall under the heading of one element I enunciated above . . . things that ought to be undone.

I'd like to think you knew that.

(If you're referring to Obamacare, do note that I said "above and beyond," since we know the first bids
to undo it have flunked spectacularly. But what all else needs to be undone includes getting the government
the living you-know-what out of the market entirely, something I suspect the crony capitalist now
occupying the White House may be witless to understand based on his past business record.)

[Bigun]

I'm afraid you saw a lot in my reply that just wasn't there.

I fully understand that there are some folks here who can't stand Trump as a person.  I'm not so fond of his personal lifestyle myself.  But I see not onevthing he has done as president that is in conflict with the Constitution.

[EasyAce]

I'm not so fond of his personal lifestyle myself.  But I see not one thing he has done as president that is in conflict with the Constitution.

I didn't say he had, either---yet. I said only that there are constitutional mandates applying to Congress
and to the president, and that merely because the president says "sh@t!" Congress, either house of it, is
under no obligation to ask "which pot?" In theory, any chamber of Congress can tell the president where
to shove it when it seems as though the president demands "action," rather than recommending
legislation.

I thought I'd outlined earlier the distinction between whether "refusing to cooperate" equaled refusing
to legislate and whether "refusing to cooperate" equaled merely being the president's rubber stamp.
Folks like us had such debates when it concerned previous presidents and Congresses; I suspect we
will have them still, at least until the time arrives when we quit looking at the president as some de
facto monarch or boss of bosses, and at government as the alpha and omega of all solutions
to all temporal troubles whether or not said troubles belong in the political cauldron.

[Bigun]

I didn't say he had, either---yet. I said only that there are constitutional mandates applying to Congress
and to the president, and that merely because the president says "sh@t!" Congress, either house of it, is
under no obligation to ask "which pot?" In theory, any chamber of Congress can tell the president where
to shove it when it seems as though the president demands "action," rather than recommending
legislation.

I thought I'd outlined earlier the distinction between whether "refusing to cooperate" equaled refusing
to legislate and whether "refusing to cooperate" equaled merely being the president's rubber stamp.
Folks like us had such debates when it concerned previous presidents and Congresses; I suspect we
will have them still, at least until the time arrives when we quit looking at the president as some de
facto monarch or boss of bosses, and at government as the alpha and omega of all solutions
to all temporal troubles whether or not said troubles belong in the political cauldron.

Ok. You are right in saying that no branch of government can tell the others what to do and this Senate seems determined to do nothing despitec all the lies theybtold while campaigning last year.  Their damned swamp matters more to them than the country at large by far!

[EasyAce]

Ok. You are right in saying that no branch of government can tell the others what to do and this Senate seems determined to do nothing despite all the lies they told while campaigning last year.

Frankly, Ricky, I am shocked---shocked!---to discover lying on the campaign trail. 

[Bigun]

Frankly, Ricky, I am shocked---shocked!---to discover lying on the campaign trail. 

I'm sure!   

[EasyAce]

I'm sure!   

Round up the usual suspects! 

[skeeter]

I fully understand that there are some folks here who can't stand Trump as a person.  I'm not so fond of his personal lifestyle myself.  But I see not onevthing he has done as president that is in conflict with the Constitution.

Yeah folks need to stop emoting and start looking at things as they actually are.

[corbe]

   It's time to put the campaign behind us and focus on the imbecile trying to save us and not necessarily in a negative way as I am often accused of.

   Love this NEW Avatar idea, thanks for sharing @skeeter

[skeeter]

   It's time to put the campaign behind us and focus on the imbecile trying to save us and not necessarily in a negative way as I am often accused of.

   Love this NEW Avatar idea, thanks for sharing @skeeter

You're welcome @corbe. You looked like a real stinker.