Harry Reid's intention to put Republicans on the spot over a vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland is a good one. Because there are an awful lot of Republicans having a very hard time maintaining (and justifying) their ongoing support for Donald Trump. Forcing them to vote one way or the other on whether they think Trump should be picking the Supreme Court would be a most worthwhile effort.
Take Pat Toomey, in Pennsylvania, who still this week is waffling on the standard-bearer. He won't endorse him, he says, but "I remain in a mode of waiting to be persuaded. I’ve not made a final decision on what I’m going to do."
Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire isn't doing any better in her support but not endorse dance. Here she is when pressed on whether she'd follow suit with Susan Collins, who said she couldn't vote for Trump after his Second Amendment remedy for Hillary Clinton.
I have great respect for Senator Collins. I'm focusing really on, uh, running for reelection for Senate here and that means getting things done for the people of New Hampshire and focusing on how we can work together, find common ground and rather than focus on our differences to get results so you know, obviously there's a presidential race going on. I've said that I'm going to be voting for our nominee, but I've also been quite clear when I've had disagreements with him which I continue to do, blah, blah, blah…."
Yeah, "I'm going to be voting for our nominee" is all we really needed to know. Follow below for much more Republican derp.
Please donate $1 today to each of our slate of Senate candidates to bring some sanity back.
North Carolina's Richard Burr, on the other hand, was "surprised" by Trump's assassination incitement, but avoided actually taking a position on how he's going to vote by issuing a written statement: "Like most Americans, I was surprised by the statement. […] I think Donald Trump could better serve the Republican Party by spending more time talking about the foreign policy failures under President Obama and Hillary Clinton." Like how Obama and Clinton founded ISIS? Be careful what you wish for, Senator.
In Ohio, Rob Portman is keeping his head low, not making any comment but "continues to (technically) 'support the Republican nominee.'" Portman definitely needs to be forced to say one way or the other here, and a vote on Garland would be most helpful.
That makes the next quartet of vulnerable Republicans look downright decisive in their support for Trump. Iowa's Chuck Grassley gets a little grumpy at the question but answers affirmatively: "The answer is … I think I, I said that a couple months ago and I said it Tuesday on the radio and you can read the Radio Iowa news release that you can … said it a couple of months ago … the answer is yes."
Likewise, John McCain, is his usual belligerent self: "I [unintelligible] support the nominee of the party, and I'll tell you what, when any time from now on when that question is asked, if I change my mind, I'll let you know. I'm not apologizing at all. I am not apologizing in the slightest." At the same time he has reportedly asked Trump's number two, Mike Pence, to rein Trump in.
Apparently Roy Blunt, Missouri, is just fine with Trump, and everything Trump might do, telling a crowd back home—featuring NRA bigwigs—"I could easily be the 51st Republican in the next Senate […] We are easily talking about whether the Senate is controlled by Republicans or controlled by Democrats. We're easily talking about whether there's a check and balance on a, god forbid, President Clinton, or somebody to help a President Trump." He might just be the only Republican candidate to let the words "President Trump" pass his lips.
But the king of the Trumpists in the Senate is clearly Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, genius, who has vowed to "do everything I can to help [Trump] win." In fact, says Johnson, "On the big issues, I'm in total agreement with Mr. Trump." And he's not afraid to say it. Over and over and over again.