So last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. KY) was doing what he usually does: lying and being a dick:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) came to the American Enterprise Institute on Friday to give a speech on the First Amendment, but the most memorable moment was his awkward exchange with Norm Ornstein, a centrist political pundit who has apparently irked McConnell over the years.
Ornstein, also an AEI scholar and congressional expert, was among those who rose to ask McConnell a question after his speech. As soon as he identified himself, McConnell let him have it.
"I've enjoyed dueling you, Norm, over the years. You've been consistently wrong on almost everything," McConnell said to laughs. "I've always wondered, you know, who eats lunch with you over here?"
Ornstein still hadn't asked a question yet as McConnell kept going.
"Actually, some of the worst things that have been said about me over the years have been said by Norm Ornstein," he continued. "You've been entirely wrong on virtually every occasion. I'm glad to see you. What's on your mind?"
Ornstein then got in his question: He asked McConnell about remarks he made in 2000 on NBC's "Meet the Press" in defense of disclosing donor details in politics, and noted that eight Supreme Court justices similarly ruled in the Citizens United case that there should be disclosures of all kinds in politics. As he continued, McConnell interrupted to say Ornstein's question wasn't accurate.
Ornstein still hadn't asked a question yet as McConnell kept going.
"Actually, some of the worst things that have been said about me over the years have been said by Norm Ornstein," he continued. "You've been entirely wrong on virtually every occasion. I'm glad to see you. What's on your mind?"
Ornstein then got in his question: He asked McConnell about remarks he made in 2000 on NBC's "Meet the Press" in defense of disclosing donor details in politics, and noted that eight Supreme Court justices similarly ruled in the Citizens United case that there should be disclosures of all kinds in politics. As he continued, McConnell interrupted to say Ornstein's question wasn't accurate. - Huffington Post, 6/21/13
McConnell even scoffed at the idea of a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's decision regarding Citizens United:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The amendment, proposed by Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday, would establish that corporations are not people with constitutional rights. This would overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which holds that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns as long as that spending is independent from candidates and political parties.
After McConnell gave a speech on the First Amendment at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington Free Beacon reporter asked him about the Democrats' proposal.
"They were not uncomfortable with corporate free speech when corporations that owned newspapers or television stations were engaging in it," McConnell said. "They only become uncomfortable with it when the Supreme Court said, 'Why should there be a carve-out for corporations that own the media outlet and for no one else?' It's an absurd proposal and it won't go anywhere." - Huffington Post, 6/21/13
And here's video of him saying it:
Now I will let Ornstein work his magic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/...
So let's see how consistent McConnell has been. It is true that in the past he went beyond rhetorical support for disclosure of all sorts. In fact, as the Lexington Herald-Leader has noted, in 1990, McConnell "pledged to introduce a bill that would require full disclosure of donors to multi-candidate political action committees." In 1996, "McConnell supported public disclosure of all election-related spending, including spending by independent groups and contributions to political parties." In 1997, McConnell published an op-ed in the Herald-Leader, writing, "Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate."
In June 2000, in the Meet the Press segment I mentioned in my question to him, McConnell said, "Republicans are in favor of disclosure. There's a serious constitutional question, whether you can require people engaged in what's called issue advocacy to disclose. But if you're going to do that, and the Senate voted to do that, and I'm prepared to go down that road, then it needs to be meaningful disclosure, Tim. 527s are just a handful of groups. We need to have real disclosure. And so what we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so that you include the major political players in America. Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?"
In 2007, in another op-ed in the Herald-Leader, McConnell supported an amendment to an ethics bill because it "would require organizations filing complaints before the Senate Ethics Committee to disclose their donors so the public could have more transparency."
Let's see now, 1990 was ... carry the two, 23 years ago. 1996 was 17 years ago. 2000 was 13 years ago. (What about 2007? Of course, it was about donors to groups challenging senators' ethics, not for campaign-related donors. But McConnell's whole rationale for now opposing disclosure is that it can be used to punish the donors -- so punishment is OK if you are challenging the ethics of McConnell or his colleagues, but verboten if you are contributing to American Crossroads GPS? Hmm.) In any case, each of these examples is less than 25 years ago. Some are a lot less. I don't know if McConnell has problems with basic arithmetic or was just being disingenuous. I just report. You decide.
On the Supreme Court, McConnell was not entirely disingenuous, just misleading. Did the Supreme Court mandate disclosure as a constitutional requirement? In both Citizens United and the related 8-1 case involving disclosure, Doe v. Reed, it came close, conceding very limited exceptions for real intimidation, but no. Yet it is clear from Justice Kennedy's opinion that disclosure was a key factor in unlocking the rest of the Citizens United decision. To Kennedy, disclosure was the counterweight to the expansion of money into the electioneering efforts of corporations and other groups, especially with the ability of technology to make that disclosure prompt and easy to track. Legal scholar Richard Briffault wrote, "By an 8-1 vote, Citizens United held that disclosure need not be limited to the 'functional equivalent of express advocacy' but could be applied far more broadly. The Court emphasized that 'disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech.'"
Citizens United said, "With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ''in the pocket'' of so-called moneyed interests." - The Atlantic, 6/24/13
Ornsetin then went onto his second question:
Ornstein also asked if McConnell believes that groups like Organizing For America and Crossroads GPS are social welfare groups, which is a requirement for qualifying as a 501(c)4 nonprofit. McConnell briefly responded -- he said he agrees with the interpretation the IRS has used for 50 years -- but then took aim at Ornstein. Again.
"Let me tell you what Norm is really for," McConnell said. "If Norm had his way, he would push the private sector all the way of out the process of getting elected ... A total government takeover of the whole process, from the time you file to the time you're sworn in. And of course what kind of Congress is that likely to produce? The kind that wants to grow the government because the government would be in charge of how you got there."
"So make no mistake about it: Norm is a good, old-fashioned, far-left guy," McConnell added. "I like him. He's fine. He's been wrong for as long as I can remember. And it's great to see you here. I've been wanting to spar with you for years."
One of the reasons McConnell may have beef with Ornstein is because he recently threw his support behind the idea of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoking the so-called "nuclear option" and reforming Senate filibuster rules in response to high levels of GOP obstruction. Ornstein also blames Republicans like McConnell for unprecedented obstruction in his book, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism. Reid even cited Ornstein last year during a spat with McConnell as proof that Republicans are behind Senate gridlock. - Huffington Post, 6/21/13
Mitch McConnell ladies and gentlemen. Literally one of the biggest assholes on the planet. By the way, the Senate recently voted to allow the immigration reform bill to advance in the Senate. Guess who voted against allowing the bill the advance:
http://www.courier-journal.com/...
The vote was 67-27, seven more than the 60 needed, with 15 Republicans agreeing to advance legislation at the top of President Barack Obama’s second-term domestic agenda.
The vote came as Obama campaigned from the White House for the bill, saying, “now is the time” to overhaul an immigration system that even critics of the legislation agree needs reform.
Last-minute frustration was evident among opponents. In an unusual slap at members of his own party as well as Democrats, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said it appeared that lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle “very much want a fig leaf” on border security to justify a vote for immigration.
Senate Democrats were unified on the vote.
The GOP’s two top Senate leaders, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and John Cornyn of Texas, voted against advancing the measure.
Among potential 2016 GOP presidential contenders, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was an enthusiastic supporter of the bill, while Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky were opposed. - Louisville Courier-Journal, 6/25/13
Yeah, so much for trying not to be the face of anti-immigration obstruction now:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
The top Senate Republican has taken a low-profile during the most significant policy fight this year. He’s let his top deputy, Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), take the lead in offering a border security plan that much of his conference has rallied behind. He has stayed away from the efforts by Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker and North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven to bridge the partisan divide on the bill. And he’s made scant mention of the issue on the floor or in press conferences.
Instead, McConnell is using his pulpit to relentlessly hammer home points on fights over the filibuster, the Internal Revenue Service scandal and even Obamacare.
Asked this week about his views on the prospects of getting an immigration deal, McConnell punted: “I’m not going to do an immigration interview right now.”
McConnell’s relative silence is hardly a surprise to GOP senators who know him well. He is rarely vocal in public when his fellow Republicans are badly divided over an issue — particularly one as emotional as immigration.
“I think it’s tough as a leader because obviously you’ve got a conference that’s in very different places,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 3 GOP leader.
And while he is widely expected to vote against the bill, McConnell knows it makes little political sense to become the face of the opposition at a time when Republicans are trying to stem their losses with Hispanic voters.
So McConnell appears to be sitting back and choosing to engage when he and his party are on firmer political ground.
“That’s his style,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, the veteran Utah Republican. “Remember, he represents 45 senators.” - Politico, 6/19/13
Again, huge asshole. He really does depend on the stupid, the ignorant and the uninformed to stay in power. It's no wonder Kentucky Democrats are so eager for Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) to jump in take out McConnell:
http://richmondregister.com/...
They’ve made up their minds. They just wish Alison Lundergan Grimes would make up hers.
They are Madison County Democrats who want Grimes, the first-term Democratic Secretary of State, to challenge five-term Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell ,and some think time is running out to find a solid opponent.
There were several Grimes supporters in a crowd of about 70 who gathered Thursday afternoon here at the Agricultural Extension Office to hear Grimes discuss potential improvements in Kentucky’s election laws. But it was the Senate race which was on some minds.
“Of course she should run,” said Peggy Rice, a staunch Democrat and former Madison County magistrate. “I hope she will.”
Is she taking too long to make up her mind?
“She hasn’t led us on; we led her on,” Rice said, referring to Democratic hopes Grimes will run.
But some, including Democratic U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth of Louisville, have said Grimes should decide soon. She risks “freezing the field” for other potential Democratic candidates and if she decides not to run, it may become too late for Democrats to field a formidable challenger to McConnell.
Democratic consultant Danny Briscoe fears Grimes risks attack by McConnell if she waits much longer.
On Wednesday, the day before Grimes came to Richmond, a SuperPAC — Kentuckians for Strong Leadership — which supports McConnell’s re-election ran an ad in the Richmond Register newspaper attempting to link Grimes with President Barack Obama and Democratic Minority Leader in the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi. Both are highly unpopular in Kentucky.
The same group ran similar ads in Paducah and Covington newspapers before earlier election-law meetings Grimes conducted. - The Richmond Register, 6/22/13
However, after McConnell's vote against advancing immigration reform, maybe she'll finally jump in:
http://www.whas11.com/...
Alison Lundergan Grimes, the leading potential 2014 Democratic challenger to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), is acknowledging rumors of an imminent decision and says she "very watchful" of ongoing Senate issues, yet is not yet ready to announce whether she will enter the race.
In her first specific comments on what would be a priority for her if elected, Grimes singled out immigration reform.
"My hope is that our current senior senator will not block the efforts of the bipartisan work that the Gang of Eight is trying to do for immigration reform," Grimes said in an interview with WHAS11.
"As the issues are going on, especially the ongoing negotiations and meetings, (I) look forward to -- should I decide to get into this race -- having further substantive conversations with you about those," Grimes said. - WHAS 11, 6/24/13
Hopefully we will be hearing her decision soon.