Here’s an interesting possibility I hadn’t heard before, or considered. Not my idea, but I just stumbled across this.
Mike Flynn and others wanted Trump to declare martial law, but the military wouldn’t go along with it. What if Tubervllle is digging his heels in so that should TRump (or some similar Republican) should win in 2024, they’d be able to appoint those 400 top military officers, and so stock the posts with more “reliable” ones.
I’m bumping this for visibility. I think this latest suggestion is worthy of comment. I note that Tuberville and his blockade are in the news again this morning
Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy says Tuberville isn’t going to back down – “He’s having the time of his life”, and doesn’t care if it burns the military down. So he’s envisioning changing the rules:
Good. Especially if Tuberville’s real aim isn’t abortion demands, but keeping the appointment of military leaders open for the anticipated and hoped-for Republican victor in the elections.
So, will senators agree to resolve the problem by going around their right-wing colleague? Maybe, but the Punchbowl News report added that top Senate Democrats “have said that if the rules are changed to go around Tuberville, even temporarily, this could encourage other senators to resort to the same tactics in the future.”
Oh come on, how does that “concern” even make sense?
“If we show we can circumvent this temper tantrum, it will only encourage future temper tantrums!”?!? WTAF??
The article doesn’t state how Murphy and Senate Democrats plan to enact this “temporary” rules change. It takes 2/3 of the Senate to formally change the rules. They can brute force it on a majority vote through a point of order, but there’s nothing “temporary” about that – it would establish a new precedent that any future majority of the Senate could use to override a hold.
Is the goal to force a single, clear vote on military appointments leading into an election year? Force the GOP to encourage Tuberville to give way so that they all don’t have to go on record choosing between abortions and military appointments?
I don’t get Tumberville’s motivation here. I assume he’s pretty safe for reelection, and he’ll have the right wing regardless of these antics. He probably personally doesn’t give a shit about abortion, and he should know that it’s not a winning issue (See Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio). Why is is raising a ruckus of any kind? What’s his end game? Higher office? That’s not happening.
Overthrow of democracy seems like a plausible motivation. A lot of Republicans really, really hate democracy.
I hate feeling all conspiratorial, but since it’s pretty clear there actually was a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, we kind of have to be. Someone earlier suggested that this is the military version of delaying the vote on a Supreme Court judge in 2020; they’re hoping that Trump will win, and this lets Trump pack the higher ranks of the military with his yes-men.
There’s now just too much public precedent for such things to allow us to discount this idea out of hand, as we would have done ten years ago.
Look sat what I wrote upthread.-- it’s been suggested that Tuberville saying that he’s digging in his heels because of health procedures in the military relative to abortions is simply a smoke screen. He’s really stalling so that military leaders can’t be confirmed, thus leaving those appointments open for the next president to make – and it’s assumed that it will be Trump or at least another Republican.
It’s the same game McConnell played with Supreme Court appointments. And for the same reason – to get people into positions of authority that agree with you. In this case, that’d be military leaders who have no problem quelling civilian resentment against blatantly illegal and unconstitutional power grabs.
You know, unlike this officer:
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. And is a lot more concerning.
I’ve been wondering about this, too
In addition, quoting from Flurb upthread:
So then why not call out Ronna McDaniel and other Republican leaders on releasing the legislative “hold”. They’re enabling Tuberville, they should get some of the heat.
And don’t talk about “yeah, but next time this comes up…” If Trump appoints 200+ military leaders there might not be a next time.
But, I mean, why even care if there’s a “next time”? What possible positive use could there be for allowing one Senator to completely halt the normal functioning of the government? Get rid of it, period, and let the rest of the Senators get on with doing their actual job.
Good points in that article.
Biden’s Chief of Staff needs to make it clear that every 30 days, there will be a new project kicked off to begin the process of moving one of those [major military] installations out of Alabama.
Can someone point out the potential downside of this approach (other than “the Republicans will do the same thing when they’re back in power”)? Because I’m not seeing one. It’s not like Biden’s going to win Alabama anyway.
I could make an argument that the Republicans would paint it as “weaponizing the military” and “impacting military readiness.” Horseshit, of course, and I agree someone needs to get serious about this.
But they’re going to do that anyways. Hell, this whole thing is (allegedly) because the military was enacting rules to avoid state-level bans on abortions, so they think the military is already “weaponized” for the pro-choice side of this fight.
And I’ll bet 40 Quatloos that, when they finally decide to just stomp on Tuberville and appoint these officers, the “Freedom Caucus” will defame them all as “Biden’s unqualified appointees” who are “WOKE!” and want all the soldiers to get sex changes and wear pink camo.
There’s no point in worrying about what potential BS they’re going to spout, because spouting BS is all they ever do.
Sure, and if this wasn’t an election year we shouldn’t care. But can they use it to tip even a few more votes against Biden? Me, I’d say damn the (electoral) torpedos and stomp him, but as others have often said, Democrats are sometimes too careful.
Moving military bases out of a state actively hostile to the military would, in fact, impact military readiness. For the better.
I’m not sure either. As you and @CalMeacham said it could be to try to keep those slots open. It could be Tuberville returning a favor to donors; he had strong support from anti-abortion orgs.
I don’t know enough about Tuberville to know if he is a sincere. However, after three decades of radicalization by right-wing radio, and later TV and internet, I have begun to assume that most GOP politicians and pundits are true-believers. Though as a coach turned politician, he may have escaped and is just a garden-variety opportunist.
Decisions for those military installations should be made based on what is best for their operation, not what is worst for a senator of their state. I would think the disruption to moving a base is larger than these 200 appointments being blocked.