This is the real thread title: are there any Republican members of the Senate or House who have the personal integrity and [del]balls[/del] courage to break the chokehold of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan?
I don’t mean global define, but it might be from something as simple as a public comment different from the party line to something as big as (a hangin’ offense in this Congress) NOT voting in lock step with the party. I’m not asking if any are closet liberals, but are there any that one might describes as moderate, and they’re not afraid to show it?
I don’t count those two outlier votes in the Sessions confirmation, which was a done deal from the start. I also don’t include defiance of the so-called President in this question, because he’s not the one who controls the Pubs in Congress. As I said elsewhere, he’s the dummy in the storefront window, there to amuse and distract.
Are there any Republican members capable of independent thought and action?
Interesting thing about threads and arguments like this is that liberals criticize Republicans for being both of two opposite things.
You can read through the discussions on this very board concerning the struggle over the Speakership, with John Boehner and later Paul Ryan, and the consensus of liberals on this board is that Republicans in Congress are out of control and can’t be led by anyone. Bad, bad Republicans. Then you get Republicans (& Democrats) voting in lockstep on some issues and the consensus shifts to being that Republicans have no independent thought and follow their leaders like zombies. Bad, bad Republicans.
Basically the bottom line is that Republicans are bad in being too much/too little independent of their leaders, much as they are in every other conceivable way. Two legs bad, four legs good.
In my OP, this word “I don’t mean global define…” should have been “defiance.”
For example, when the Republicans voted to silence Warren, did every single Republican search his or her conscience and decide, independent of pissing off McConnell, that yes, she was breaking an important rule, and to let her get away with it would set a dangerous precedent and I must vote with my party? Even though Cruz was not criticized for insulting McConnell?
This is what I mean by thinking independently. Does it even occur to them to consult their own sense of right and wrong or do they automatically look to Mitch and Paul to tell them what they’re supposed to do, because they’ll be in Big Trouble if they break step?
What is there to support? Lindsey Graham seems to be making it a habit of going in front of the camera and pulling faces about the current state of the republican party but when he’s in the Senate he’s as much of a bootlicking toady to Trump as any other republican.
DeVos confirmation. Alas, Senators Murkowski and Collins voted to confirm Jefferson Beauregard Sessions for AG. On the flip-side, Sen. Manchin (D-Blue Dog) voted against DeVos but was the only Dem who voted for Sessions.
There’s sometimes less to these counter votes than meets the eye.
Sometimes the leadership will insist on voting party line when they need the votes, and “release” members to vote their conscience when they have enough votes without them. It was reported in the days prior to the De Vos vote (and after the Murkowski/Collins announcements) that McConnell privately said he was 100% confident that the nomination would pass. This suggested that he had released them, having lined up enough votes without them.
Similarly, it was reported that Nancy Pelosi released certain Democratic House members and allowed them to vote against the ACA once she had enough votes without them.
If you want evidence of independence, you need someone who voted against the party when that vote actually cost something.
No. Every single Republican and every single Democrat has toed the party line, without any exceptions. The only difference is that Republicans did it because they are mindless lockstep automations, and Democrats because Democrats are always right.
He and McCain occasionally say things that sound good. But it’s votes that count. Votes. And so far they consistently vote with all the other Republicans.
It’s very difficult for individual members of congress to buck the senior leadership on matters that the leadership cares a lot about. The nature of a parliamentary system is that individual members have little power other than in unique situations involving very close votes. So a lot of power is concentrated in the leadership. And you, the individual member, need the leadership for all sorts of things, like getting amendments inserted into bills for causes that are important to your constituents or that you believe in strongly.
So there’s a give and take involved, and if you decide to be super-principled and vote your conscience in all instances, then maybe you’re not a team player and the leadership is not going to accommodate you on all sorts of other issues that are more important, and in the long run the world is a worse place for all your principles.
The main significance of this is that party matters. Come election time and many people like to piously pronounce themselves to be above petty partisan matters and declare that they look at the individual candidate on their own merits and not based on their party affiliation. By marked contrast to those lesser partisans who pay attention to party labels. But that’s ignoring a big part of the picture. You take two identical candidates who hold the same position on all issues, and when push comes to shove and their vote matters, there will be a big difference on how they vote on issues on which their parties hold to different positions. (Which is even leaving aside the most crucial vote of all - which party controls the leadership positions themselves.)
Partisanship per se is not bad, and it doesn’t have to be petty. Politics is based on negotiation, give and take, win some-lose some-- as long as you do win some. But ever since the Tea Party came into being, Republicans have put party first with the well-being of the public far behind. They have become all about destruction and obstruction. Now the divide across the aisle is too big to cross.
Ted Cruz and every member of the House Freedom Caucus clearly fit the standard described unless you require the disagreement be only towards the center - they hold views different than the bulk of their caucuses. Till the House races swung against them having enough influence, their was serious talk about opposing Ryan continuing as Speaker. It’s not necessarily the kind of opposition you, or me as a centrist Republican, necessarily prefer. Independent does not necessarily mean only opposition to the party in the way that we prefer.
There’s also the hidden aspect. It’s hard to say how much opposition happens, and how much affect that has on policy, is exerted based on votes or floor speeches. Take a look at the story about a recent leaked audio from a closed door meeting of Congressional Republicans. Click through to some of their concerns on the individual days…especially the day about ACA. There’s a lot of not just falling into line at that level. Not stepping out of line once the internal process is completed is not the same as marching in lockstep.
It can be difficult to tell who does or doesn’t demonstrate true stature and principles. This is because of all the stage management that goes on behind the scenes.
Because the party wants to retain their majority FIRST, and win the point-of-the-moment second, they will often allow some members who have to at least pretend to oppose the leadership, to speak out in opposition, so as to insure a local electoral victory, and therefore win the point anyway. Occasionally, when something is especially contentious, party leadership may secretly encourage a few members to give the appearance of overt rebellion, as a way to provide the general electorate with the illusion of allies to Justice in the majority.
On the flip-side, Sen. Manchin (D-Blue Dog) voted against DeVos but was the only Dem who voted for Sessions.