This is not a correct statement. This is:
“You can’t make national changes without having 60% of Senators and a majority of Congresspeople agree with you.”
…five Supreme Court Justices?
SCotUS is an after-the-fact part of the equation. You can make changes with a majority on the court, but the court can subsequently reverse your changes. In the future, though – if you move to sell off the park service to extraction companies and it goes to SCotUS, by the time they get around to ruling, the parks could already have become trash heaps.
Wow, really.
I guess I wasn’t aware that was the case. Huh.
It’s more, "They want paper clips? No way, man, Congressional paper clips must be Red! Tell the President Pro Tem that we are filibustering paper clips unless they are red!”
Democrats, “Fine, we’ll make them red, if that will be a show of bipartisanship.”
Republicans: Not a single vote. Claim that their lack of vote proves that the Democrats rammed the paperclip bill through without any Republican input.
Yes, it is the case. It tells you that there are 2 conservative Republicans – the rest being some other thing for which non-derogatory labels are exceedingly hard to come by.
Totally characteristic of Repubs to torpedo a paper clip bill, after one of their own invented the damn things!
tl;dr: After Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet (what he actually did was promote funding for early net development), Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott claimed to have invented the paper clip.
Ok, what’s the catch? 
I have a hard time believing this is on the level. Are they trying to draw attention away from the Jan 6 hearings?
Inflation
“Infrastructure” in the abstract is always easy to support. This was just a vote to begin the debate on the bill, and there’s no actual bill text yet for anyone to get mad at.
And the financing of it as described in media reports is pure fiction, relying on a mix of already-passed coronavirus stimulus funding, toying with some prescription drug rules, and the ever popular “savings from reducing waste, fraud and abuse.” Democrats dropped the idea of new taxes on the rich or even stepping up enforcement of existing tax laws to pay for it.
They had to do this to get any Repub support, which is a seriously poison pill. Sooner or later in the process, it’s going to get torpedoed over how to pay for it.
Its mostly being paid for by reappropriating existing unspent funds.
The plan is for the sybsequent reconciliation bill to be paid thru new taxes.
Speaking of which, Senator Krysten Sinema has come out and said that she can’t support the $3.5 million reconciliation package that Democrats are working on because the price tag is too high. Joe Manchin has previously made comments suggesting $2 billion was his upper limit. Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders had originally sought a $6 billion package. Senate Democrats will need every singe one of their members on board to pass the bill, as no Republicans will vote for it. And of course, the House is still a thing that exists so whatever deal that can get all 50 Democratic Senators on board has to pass over there too.
Long story short, it’s by no means a certainty that a subsequent “soft infrastructure” bill will pass through reconciliation.
That seems like bullshit to me. How about next time we give a tax break to billionaires and corporations we just reassign existing tax breaks and say, “You’re good to go.”
I don’t expect it to pass, but I thought Mitch’s firm stand was, “We don’t cooperate with Dems on this in any way, shape, or form. Case closed. Don’t bother us about it again!” <said with arms folded across his chest and a foot stomp thrown in for good measure>
So is pretending to play nice a ploy to distract from the Jan 6 hearings?
i believe sen. mcconnell wants a particular bridge fixed and will allow the bill through.
To respond to your last point first – I don’t think so. Schumer’s the one who schedules the votes in the Senate. The simple explanation is that they’re about to go on a month-long recess and want to be able to spend that month bragging about all the infrastructure money they’re brining home.
I also think your characterization of McConnell misses the mark. Mitch isn’t a tantrum-throwing toddler (that’s Trump), he’s a cynical, soulless political operator ready to embrace any position that will protect and add to his caucus. Obstruction is generally good politics for Senate Republicans, as it fires up the base and lets Republicans bemoan that Democrats aren’t being “bipartisan” (even though its Republicans refusing to cooperate). But he’s always been flexible about cooperating with Democrats here and there to avoid being tarred as too obstructionist – e.g. he’s voted for most of Biden’s cabinet nominees.
All that being said, I can’t imagine Mitch is too excited about this bill. An infrastructure bill could be a huge political boost for endangered Republican incumbents who would spend the next year wearing hard hats and leaning on ceremonial shovels at groundbreakings. But Mitch doesn’t really have any endangered incumbents. The Republican Senate seats in most danger are open seats – PA, NC, OH. Maybe WI depending on what Ron Johnson ends up deciding to do. Meanwhile Democrats do have several incumbents running for reelection in potentially tough races in AZ, GA, NH and NV.
I think Mitch got steamrolled here a bit by those retiring members and Republicans in “safe” seats who still want to be able to brag about bringing home the bacon. But Mitch isn’t one to pout when he doesn’t get his way – he voted for the motion to begin debate. He’s still got some plays here to make, and I never count McConnell out.
EDIT: nm read your post correctly this time.
In before ‘Infrastructure is just a democrat code word for SOCIALISM!’
Good post. 
@flurb
As long as they make sure Democrats don’t get credit for it. Lying should fix that.