Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Senate Republicans’

This Bold Move by the Senate Has Shocked Democrats


By: Kevin Jackson | September 17, 2025

Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2025/09/move-by-the-senate-is-breathtaking/

In a plot twist scarier than a switchblade at a balloon party, the U.S. Senate just rewrote its own script. On September 11, 2025, Senate Republicans, the perennial guardians of decorum who’d rather filibuster their own lunch order than rock the boat, dropped a tactical nuke. With a unanimous 53-45 vote, they slashed the confirmation threshold for President Trump’s nominees from a stately 60 to a sassy 51, leaving Chuck Schumer and his Democratic posse clutching their filibuster like a toddler’s comfort blankie. NBC News captured the detonation:

No more endless debates, just batch votes for Trump’s picks—48 at a time, like a Costco run for cabinet secretaries. The hypocrisy? Oh, it’s richer than a K Street steak dinner, and the fallout signals something bigger: Trump hasn’t just returned; he’s repo’d the Republican Party from its RINO squatters.

Let’s savor the irony before we dissect the corpse.

These are the same Republicans who, back in 2013, wailed like banshees when Harry Reid pulled a similar stunt to fast-track Obama’s judges. Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s resident Yoda of obstruction, called it a “dark day for democracy” and warned of a Senate “run like a banana republic” CNN archives the meltdown.

Fast-forward to 2017, and McConnell’s singing a different tune, extending Reid’s nuclear precedent to ram Neil Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court. Now, in 2025, the GOP’s back at it, torching Senate tradition to grease Trump’s agenda.

The “nuclear option” is a relatively new beast in the Senate’s menagerie.

The phrase was coined in 2005 when Trent Lott, exasperated by Democratic filibusters on Bush’s judges, mused about blowing up the rules. But the filibuster itself? It’s a relic older than the Capitol’s creaky elevators.

Born in the 19th century, the filibuster allowed senators talk a bill to death—think Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. By 1917, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, requiring a two-thirds vote (later 60) to end debate, per Senate.gov’s history lesson. It was a compromise to keep the chamber from devolving into a verbal Thunderdome.

The nuclear option’s DNA, though, traces to a 1957 memo by then-VP Richard Nixon, who argued the Senate could reinterpret its rules by simple majority—a procedural middle finger to tradition. It sat dormant until Reid’s 2013 gambit, which dropped the cloture threshold for non-Supreme Court nominees to 51.

Republicans screamed bloody murder, but when Trump took the White House, they happily borrowed Reid’s playbook. In April 2017, McConnell nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS, landing Gorsuch and later Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Democrats cried foul, conveniently forgetting their own trigger finger.

As TIME’s 2025 analysis notes, this latest move “further erodes the Senate’s deliberative role.” Clearly, that rule has been on life support since cable news became a food group.

So why this 2025 encore? Because Trump’s 2024 comeback wasn’t just a win—it was a hostile takeover.

Rewind to 2020: The GOP’s RINO wing—think Liz Cheney’s sanctimonious pressers or Mitt Romney’s furrowed-brow op-eds—played footsie with Democrats to kneecap Trump’s re-election. They didn’t rig the ballots (leave that to the tinfoil-hat crowd), but their lukewarm “support” and post-January 6 kumbaya with crooked Democrats fueled the Uniparty narrative: a cozy D.C. club where Republicans and Democrats swap talking points over martinis.

Trump’s base smelled the betrayal. And by 2024, they roared back, delivering him a popular-vote landslide and an Electoral College rout. The RINOs? Caught flat-footed, like deer staring into an orange-tinted semi.

Post-inauguration, the GOP establishment tried to play nice with Democrats, co-signing bipartisan bills on infrastructure and Ukraine aid like it was 2019. Trump, ever the disruptor, wasn’t having it. I’m sure he made overtures to Thune, and then the drastic happened. Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

Democrats showed their asses, as my grandmother would say, and Republican felt the winds in their direction go from smooth sailing to gale force.

By September, as Axios detailed, Majority Leader John Thune bundled 48 nominees into one vote, a procedural middle finger to Schumer’s stalling. The nuclear option wasn’t courage; it was the RINOs waving a white flag before Trump’s MAGA juggernaut.

The hypocrisy parade is a sight to behold. McConnell’s 2016 blockade of Merrick Garland was “letting the people decide,” but Barrett’s 2020 confirmation, weeks before Election Day, was “elections have consequences.” Now, with Trump’s second term, Republicans cheer the nuclear option like it’s the Fourth of July, while Democrats clutch their gavels and moan about “norms.” Schumer’s floor speeches about “Senate tradition” are peak performance art, considering his party’s 2013 precedent. Oh, and let’s not forget his poll numbers.

Everyone’s a constitutional purist until their guy’s in charge. As The Hill pointed out, this move “signals a new era of Senate power dynamics.” But this latest decision by the Senate is less about power and more about survival. The RINOs know Trump’s base is the GOP’s new oxygen.

Now, let’s peer into the crystal ball—polished with the gritty residue of 2025’s news cycle, where #NuclearOption and #TrumpNominees trend harder than a Kanye outburst.

The 2026 midterms are shaping up as a Democratic bloodbath.

Urban chaos, fueled by unchecked migration and gang turf wars, has voters itching for pitchforks. Trump’s border crackdowns, amplified by X’s raw footage, make GOP challengers look like sheriffs in a zombie flick. Democrats’ counter? More sanctuary cities and DEI buzzwords, which play about as well as a kazoo solo at a funeral. By 2028, the presidential race looks even bleaker for the blue team.

Trump’s out, but his successors—JD Vance’s Rust Belt grit or “I’m not Little” Marco Rubio have the edge.

Democrats’ bench? Gavin Newsom, California’s nanny-state czar, or Kamala Harris, still lost in her own syntax. Their coffers? Drained by Trump’s donor purge and FEC reforms that choke dark money. Election fraud? Neutered by voter ID laws and blockchain audits. Ideas? Just recycled climate platitudes while red states grill steaks during blackouts.

This isn’t just a GOP win; it’s a middle finger to the Uniparty cabal that’s held D.C. hostage for decades.

As The New York Times noted, the nuclear option “breaks the confirmation logjam,” but it’s more than that—it’s a signal to the deep state: Your lease is up. America’s back, and so’s the world, with a U.S. that doesn’t beg permission from Brussels or Beijing. Yet here’s the sardonic kicker: The GOP, once the party of limited government, now bulldozes Senate rules to pack the executive branch with Trump’s pit bulls. “Drain the swamp”? More like restocking America with loyal gators.

So, what’s the takeaway for us, the X-scrolling, coffee-swilling masses?

Screw party loyalty—it’s as useful as a paper straw in a hurricane. We picked Trump in 2016 and resurrected him in 2024 because the suits wouldn’t. His rallies outdrew Coachella; our memes buried their manifestos.

This nuclear vote? It’s our Molotov cocktail chucked through the Uniparty’s stained-glass window. Messy, loud, and oh-so-satisfying. The midterms loom, the cabal’s crumbling, and America’s got its swagger back—orange glow and all.

10 Naughty Bureaucrats, Brands, And Buffoons Who Deserve Coal In Their Stockings This Year


BY: JORDAN BOYD AND SHAWN FLEETWOOD | DECEMBER 14, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/12/14/10-naughty-bureaucrats-brands-and-buffoons-who-deserve-coal-in-their-stockings-this-year/

Santa’s naughty list

Author Jordan Boyd and Shawn Fleetwood profile

JORDAN BOYD AND SHAWN FLEETWOOD

MORE ARTICLES

Christmas is supposed to be a season for love, comfort, and joy, but the arrival of the holidays means the grinches, scrooges, and corrupt politicians of the world are lurking. This year, unfortunately, yielded an abundance of bureaucrats, brands, and buffoons who blew their shot to make the nice list when they sacrificed common sense and dignity for partisanship and radicalism.

Merry Christmas to everyone except these naughty no-gooders!

1. Jack Smith

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s association with the corrupt Department of Justice alone was enough to land him in Santa’s bad graces. Smith further solidified his place on the naughty list when he brought two “legally flawed and politically shady” cases against former President Donald Trump over classified documents and the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith also demanded the court gag Trump from criticizing him, President Joe Biden, and other deep-state bureaucrats for their hyperpartisan prosecution of his First Amendment right to claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, which D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan eagerly agreed to do.

2. Letitia James

James is on the naughty list for following through on her campaign promise to sue Trump, his children, and the Trump Organization for allegedly “grossly” inflating their assets in financial statements by billions of dollars.

Despite bringing a case with “no merit” and “no evidence,” James continues to work with Arthur Engoron, a judge of the Supreme Court 1st Judicial District in New York, to silence Trump and keep him from conducting business in the state of New York.

3. David Weiss

Every time a bell rings, a corrupt Department of Justice official like Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss gets named special counsel.

Weiss and the DOJ deliberately choked the IRS’s tax crime investigation and charging recommendations for Hunter Biden because they didn’t want to damage the elder Biden’s presidential chances.

After a federal judge denied Hunter’s initial sweetheart plea deal, the Biden son was eventually charged with several tax-related felonies and misdemeanors, but Weiss failed to indict him for any foreign influence-peddling or registered foreign agent violations.

House investigators warned the tax charges would never have happened without the testimonies of IRS whistleblowers the DOJ tried to silence.

4. Joe Biden

Biden may not technically have a stocking since his family was publicly shamed into ditching the tradition after leaving their seventh grandchild out of last year’s display, but he’s for sure getting coal for Christmas (for the second year in a row!) for repeatedly denying his role in the Biden family influence-peddling scheme.

There’s plenty of evidence that Joe, the Biden family brand, financially benefitted from arrangements his brother and son made with foreign oligarchs. Emailstexts, voicemailsbank recordsreceiptsWhite House visitor logsphotos, and sworn witness testimonies from Biden business associates suggest businessmen with ties to some of the nation’s top adversaries eagerly lined the Biden family’s pockets with cash, diamonds, and coveted board positions in exchange for proximity to the then-vice president.

5. Senate Republicans

Senate Republicans certainly don’t deserve presents this year. They may not even deserve your votes.

Their gravest 2023 mistake by far was working to take down one of their own, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, for daring to hold the Department of Defense accountable for its embrace of Biden’s radical abortion agenda. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer later thanked the GOP senators for curbing Tuberville’s protest of the Pentagon’s baby-killing activism.

The upper chamber GOP didn’t stop there. They were also indefensibly silent on Biden family corruption and impeachment, ignored their constituents’ feelings about taxpayer-funded abortion, and spent a majority of the year simping for Ukraine. It was only when it was no longer politically beneficial to put a foreign country over their own — a move many Americans have long opposed — that they started to pivot.

6. Elite Universities

Presidents from three of the nation’s top universities refused to admit that student calls for Jewish genocide following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel violate their schools’ codes of conduct. Backlash ensued, prompting both University of Pennsylvania President M. Elizabeth Magill, who faces a forced resignation, and Harvard President Claudine Gay to issue apologies days after the hearing.

In an interview with the student newspaper The Crimson, Gay blamed her delayed condemnation of antisemitism on a failure to “return to my guiding truth.” As one clever X user noted, Harvard’s slogan is “veritas,” not “veritas mae.”

7. Los Angeles Dodgers

Who doesn’t love a good baseball game? There are rowdy fans, Cracker Jacks, and — drag queens? Well, at least at Los Angeles Dodgers’ games there are.

Instead of focusing solely on the sport — which is what any real fan cares about — the Dodgers decided to honor an anti-Christian drag group during this year’s “pride night” game. Known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, this group’s members mock Christians by dressing up as so-called “queer and trans nuns” and performing highly offensive acts on biblical symbols, including the cross.

While initially disinviting the group after public backlash, the Dodgers caved to the leftist mob by apologizing to the Sisters and begging them to attend the “pride” event.

If that’s not worthy of coal this Christmas, I don’t know what is.

8. Bud Light

What better way to make the Yuletide gay than by chugging down a cold can of Bud Light? 

After partnering with woman-pretender and TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney this year, the Anheuser-Busch brand’s sales tanked, with drinkers abandoning the beer quicker than Hunter Biden left town when he found out the stripper he had sex with was pregnant

Sales got so bad that retailers could hardly even give Bud Light away for free. But that didn’t stop the beer giant from doubling down on its LGBT obsession by sponsoring various “pride” events throughout the country.

9. Target

Target and the naughty list go way back, but the company’s partnership with a Satan supporter who called for the eradication of critics of transgenderism, and its “pride month” displays featuring “light binding effect” tops and “tuck-friendly” bottoms, angered millions of Americans.

boycott prompted by Target’s alphabet endorsement sent the once-beloved company’s sales spiraling. Despite the clear connection between its embrace of radical gender ideology and flailing financials, Target ended the year promoting its line of LGBT-themed Christmas products, including gay and trans nutcrackers.

10. Taylor Swift

Miss Americana Taylor Swift may have won Time’s Person of the Year, but that doesn’t mean she won over everyone’s hearts. The pop star’s presence at boyfriend Mr. Pfizer’s — er, Travis Kelce’s — NFL games stole the TV cameras, sports announcers, and fantasy football apps away from America’s favorite Sunday evening pastime.

[RELATED: Taylor Swift’s Popularity Is A Sign Of Societal Decline]


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx. Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Mollie Hemingway Op-ed: To Win, Republicans Have To Be Smarter And Tougher Than Sen. James Lankford


BY: MOLLIE HEMINGWAY | DECEMBER 04, 2023

Read https://thefederalist.com/2023/12/04/to-win-republicans-have-to-be-smarter-and-tougher-than-sen-james-lankford/more at

James Lankford and George Stephanopoulos

Author Mollie Hemingway profile

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY

VISIT ON TWITTER@MZHEMINGWAY

MORE ARTICLES

Career Democrat and ABC host George Stephanopoulos completely emasculated Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma this weekend on his Sunday show. Right at the beginning of the interview, Stephanopoulos advanced a flurry of disinformation and lies, to which Lankford, who purports to be a conservative senator of the burgundy-red state of Oklahoma, bowed down in complete supplication:

Stephanopoulos: Your party’s leading candidate for president was on the stump yesterday repeating lies about the 2020 election. He’s called those convicted in the Jan. 6 insurrection hostages. He faces 91 separate felony counts himself. He’s raised the prospect of executing the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and terminating parts of the Constitution. In the face of all that and more, are you prepared to support Donald Trump if he’s your party’s nominee?  

Oh, for crying out loud. What an absolutely preposterous line of questioning. Any Republican elected official with a room-temperature IQ and even a modicum of self-respect would be livid at the propaganda and lies and immediately push back. But not Lankford. Here’s how he responded:

Lankford: Yes, we haven’t had a single vote yet, George. This is still weeks and weeks away from our first votes that are happening actually in Iowa, then New Hampshire and South Carolina. And there are a lot of people that are going to make that decision. That’s not going to be me making that decision, that’s going to be the American people that actually make that decision.  

Stephanopoulos pressed him, and Lankford remained impotent in the face of the questioning. In fact, he was so bad throughout the interview, he even quoted Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s controversial homeland security secretary, as a role model on immigration enforcement. The entire state of Oklahoma looked worse as it went on.

Now, Lankford is more than welcome to stay out of the Republican primary or endorse whomever he thinks is the best candidate, but what he should not feel free to do is allow the corrupt media and other Democrats to destroy the country through propaganda and lies. Americans are absolutely desperate for even the tiniest bit of Republican backbone and leadership, not mealy-mouthed kowtowing to the press.

When you claim to be a conservative senator of a state so Republican that two out of every three voters in 2020 voted for Trump, and a lifelong Democrat operative in the media asks you a completely loaded agitprop question, you should hit it out of the park. Like so:

“First off, George, your audience should know that you just regurgitated back a diatribe of lies, mistruths, and Democrat propaganda. I’m not surprised, given your professional background and track record of maliciously pushing the false and dangerous Russia-collusion scam for so many years during and after the 2016 election, but I can’t allow your lies to go uncorrected.

“The public knows full well there were major issues in how the 2020 election was conducted — from Mark Zuckerberg’s more than $400 million on partisan get-out-the-vote efforts in key swing states, to the deliberate Hunter Biden laptop suppression that the major news and tech companies along with 51 intel officials participated in, to the tens of millions of mail-in-ballots and voting changes that did not follow state laws. So drop the dishonest, holier-than-thou nonsense about 2020 being the cleanest, most perfect election with nothing allowed to be scrutinized or discussed.

“Second, the public is also wising up to the fact that what the corporate media have spun to them about Jan. 6 hasn’t exactly been the complete truth. Yes, we know your line that this was the worst moment in the history of the world, requiring our FBI to do nothing other than arrest people who were anywhere near the event. Well, that, and arrest pro-lifers who are praying and parents who are attending school board meetings.

“But most Americans know that we have not gotten good answers about why Nancy Pelosi turned down security provisions ahead of what intelligence suggested would be a very contentious day, or what exactly was being done by the federal informants and federal agents who were present for the day’s events. They’re extremely worried about how left-wing rioters and criminals seem to be able to do whatever they want with very few repercussions, even when they’re attacking the Supreme Court, federal courthouses, the White House, churches, homes, and police precincts. And now with the release of some of the videotapes from that day, we see that most of the activity that day was not in any way what was hyped up and presented by the Democrats’ Jan. 6 show trial.

“Finally, the Biden administration is at this moment doing everything in its power to put their leading political opponent in prison. They raided Mar-a-Lago, George. When other countries do things like this, when Putin does stuff like this, we say that means they don’t have free and fair elections. It seems the Democrats’ main strategy this election cycle is to attempt to put effective Republicans in prison, to bankrupt them, and to prevent them from speaking out about what is being done to destroy this country. I’ll note this isn’t working with the American people, as Trump now leads widely in almost all polls against Biden, a strong renunciation of what’s going on.

“So I ask you, George, are you prepared to start focusing on the major policy issues facing the country, or will you continue to push lies and propaganda to help put your political opponents in prison?”

You know, something like that.

To state the obvious here, using small words so that even the absolutely feckless and embarrassingly lame Senate Republicans can understand, praising Mayorkas, failing to correct lies about Republicans, and mumbling about how you’ll vote Republican if you are forced to is not a way to win elections. Yes, I’m sure it’s what Mitch McConnell told Lankford to go out and do, but it yields nothing but failure. The people of Oklahoma deserve an actual man to represent them, not whatever it is they’re getting in Lankford.

You win elections by saying truthful things, not being sad and scared like Lankford and most other Republican senators are. He should be lambasting Stephanopoulos for not covering the major issues facing the country in an even remotely evenhanded or honest way.

That’s how you go from being a party full of absolute losers who are on their back heels constantly to one that makes people want to vote for you.


Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. She is the co-author of Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. She is the author of “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.” Reach her at mzhemingway@thefederalist.com

Now That Hoodies Are The Senate Uniform, Republicans Should Show Up Sporting These Slogans


BY: ELLE PURNELL | SEPTEMBER 27, 2023

Read https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/27/now-that-hoodies-are-the-senate-uniform-republicans-should-show-up-sporting-these-slogans/more at

Woman wearing hoodie that says "Hunter Biden takes bribes"

Author Elle Purnell profile

ELLE PURNELL

VISIT ON TWITTER@_ETREYNOLDS

Now that Chuck Schumer has dumbed down the Senate dress code to accommodate the slovenly habits of the privileged Pennsylvania senator who cosplays as a representative of the working class, hoodies like Sen. John Fetterman’s signature Carhartt are welcome on the Senate floor.

It’s an ugly visual of the decay of an American institution. But you know what, fine — if that’s the way it’s going to be, Republicans might as well play along. If they want something comfier but just as effective as Susan Collins’s suggested ensemble, they should show up wearing hoodies emblazoned with one (or several!) of these reminders.

1. ‘Impeach Biden’

As my colleague David Harsanyi has pointed out, there exists “more than enough evidence” of Biden corruption for an impeachment probe.

Joe Biden has publicly bragged about bullying Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, an energy firm that paid his son Hunter Biden millions to sit on its board and reportedly hired him to access the protection his father’s political power could provide. We also know that Joe Biden spoke with Hunter’s associates dozens, if not hundreds, of times and that the Bidens received millions from foreign oligarchs.

2. ‘Boys and Girls Are Different’

It’s an indisputable fact that there are two sexes and we are not the same but stating that obvious truth often causes the brains of Democrats who push transgender mania to combust.

3. ‘Democrats Support Abortion Up to Birth’

They don’t like to admit it, but Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly voted for a bill that would ensure abortions throughout all nine months of a woman’s pregnancy as long as she could find a provider to say it was important for her emotional health. Democrat-led states like Colorado have explicitly enacted laws permitting abortion up to birth, and Democrats in Washington have opposed protections for babies born alive in botched abortions.

4. ‘Hunter Biden Takes Bribes’

It’s no secret that Hunter Biden peddled access to his powerful father among his well-heeled foreign clients. In return, Hunter was rewarded with everything from shrouded bank transfers to a car with a six-figure price tag to a three-carat diamond.

Sen. Bob Menendez, who was recently indicted by Hunter’s dad’s DOJ for his own shady dealings, might consider a riff on this slogan, such as “Hunter Biden’s Bribery Scandal Is Worse Than Mine!”

5. ‘Biden Jails His Political Opponents’

Biden’s Department of Justice is prosecuting his 2020 presidential rival and likely 2024 opponent in multiple jurisdictions, threatening him with years of jail time. Not only has the DOJ gone after Trump, it’s targeted peaceful pro-lifers and parents at school board meetings, while throwing the book at Trump supporters like a nonviolent grandma with cancer for being at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

6. ‘Trump Won’

Yes, we’re aware that Biden won the 2020 election in a very literal sense, had more votes recorded for him, and was inaugurated as our 46th president. On the other hand, it clearly wasn’t our “most secure election ever” — it was rigged, or “fortified,” in numerous ways that were damaging to the integrity of our elections.

But you don’t have to get into the nuances of that to exercise your First Amendment rights by wearing a hoodie and enjoy the reactions it inspires.

7. ‘Defund The FBI’

Until the FBI stops interfering in our elections — as they did by falsely labeling the bombshell Biden corruption story sourced from Hunter Biden’s laptop as “disinformation” in 2020 and by furthering the Trump-Russia collusion hoax in 2016 — congressional Republicans should refuse to keep paying its bills.

8. ‘Unborn Lives Matter’

This shouldn’t be controversial, right?

9. ‘Keep Porn Out of Schools’

This one shouldn’t be controversial either. But left-leaning school boards are working hard to fill school libraries with pornographic books promoting their LGBT agenda. They want you to think this is an issue of backwater Republicans “banning” harmless books like To Kill A Mockingbird, but when parents try to read the contents of the books in question at public meetings, it’s deemed too explicit for the ears of the adults in the room.

10. ‘Who Killed JFK?’

Why are parts of more than 15,000 records relating to the Kennedy assassination still being kept from the public after Biden delayed their release? What convinced Kennedy’s nephew that the CIA was involved in what he calls a “60-year coverup”?

11. ‘Save Girls’ Sports’

Allowing boys and men with gender dysphoria to enter girls’ locker rooms, bathrooms, and sports teams is neither safe nor fair to women, but Democrats want to do it anyway.

12. Trump’s Mugshot

OK, it’s not a slogan, but we’d still love to see Senate Republicans show up wearing this.

IMAGE CREDITREDBUBBLE / SCREENSHOT

Elle Purnell is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. Follow her work on Twitter @_etreynolds.

Senate Republicans Grill Biden’s Pick for Joint Chiefs Chair Over DEI, Transgenderism in the Military


BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | JULY 12, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/12/senate-republicans-grill-bidens-pick-for-joint-chiefs-chair-over-dei-transgenderism-in-the-military/

Sen. Eric Schmitt grilling Joint Chiefs nominee Charles Brown at a Senate confirmation hearing

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

MORE ARTICLES

Senate Republicans grilled Gen. Charles Q. Brown over racial politics and transgenderism throughout the U.S. military during a committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday. Brown, who serves as Air Force chief of staff, was nominated by President Joe Biden to replace Gen. Mark Milley as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in May.

Among the more contentious issues raised during Tuesday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing was an August 2022 Air Force memo Brown signed, directing the Air Force Academy and Air Education and Training Command to “develop a diversity and inclusion outreach plan” aimed at “achieving a force more representative of our Nation.” When pressed on the memo by Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., Brown claimed the recruiting targets stratified by race and sex in the memo are based “on application goals, not the make-up of the force,” and that “those numbers are based on the demographics of the nation.”

As The Federalist previously reported, Brown has a documented history of supporting the same so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) ideology wreaking havoc on the U.S. military. DEI initiatives employ a divisive and poisonous ideology dismissive of merit to discriminate based on characteristics such as skin color and sexual attraction.

While participating in a virtual discussion hosted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2020, for instance, Brown indicated that “[a]t the higher level of the Air Force, diversity ha[d] moved to the forefront of personnel decisions such as promotions and hiring.” During the same event, the Air Force general also admitted to using his post to increase opportunities for so-called “diverse candidates” in the Air Force, saying he “hire[d] for diversity” when building his staff.

Brown has also previously pushed back against congressional Republicans who have expressed concerns about the Biden administration’s attempt to spread DEI instruction throughout the military.

[RELATED: Biden’s Pick For Joint Chiefs Chair Made ‘Diversity’ And ‘Inclusion’ Focal Points In Air Force Personnel Decisions]

“This administration has infused abortion politics into our military, Covid politics into our military, DEI politics into our military, and it is a cancer on the best military in the history of the world. Those men and women deserve better than this,” Schmitt said. “I believe we … ought to be recruiting in various areas to make sure we have the best and the brightest from every community. … But that’s not what DEI is.”

Schmitt further admonished DEI as “an ideology based in cultural Marxism” and expressed concerns about how the military can continue to have leadership that advocates for “this divisive policy.”

The Center for Military Readiness, a public policy group that analyzes military matters, sent a letter to committee members on Monday, encouraging them to press Brown on issues such as “[r]acial discrimination known to exist in military service academy admissions” and “[m]andates to increase percentages of minority persons, while consciously reducing non-minority (white males) in aviation and other demanding occupations,” among other things.

Schmitt also raised the issue of the more than 8,000 U.S. service members kicked out of the military for not getting the experimental Covid jab due to medical or religious reasons. When pressed on how he would personally recruit these individuals back into service, Brown said he would “provide them the opportunity to re-apply.”

“I just don’t think that’s good enough,” Schmitt replied. “We did a great disservice to this country by firing people because they made that decision. I think they ought to be reinstated with rank and backpay. I have not heard that from anybody that’s come before this committee.”

Another problem raised during the hearing was transgenderism in the military. Shortly after his inauguration, Biden issued an executive order allowing transgender-identifying individuals to serve in the U.S. armed forces, marking a policy reversal from that of the Trump administration.

During his line of questioning, Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., referenced an alleged “young woman in the South Dakota National Guard [who] experienced a situation at basic training where she was sleeping in open bays and showering” with female-identifying males who had not undergone surgery, “but were documented as females because they had begun the drug therapy process.” 

According to Rounds, this 18-year-old woman “was uncomfortable with her situation but had limited options on how to deal with it” because “she feared she’d be targeted for retaliation.” When asked how he would handle such issues as Joint Chiefs chair, Brown didn’t offer a specific answer, instead saying that “as you’re being inclusive, you also don’t want to make other individuals uncomfortable” and that if confirmed, he would “take a look to see if [the military] can improve on how [it] approach[es] situations like this.”

Meanwhile, several Democrats spent their time attacking fellow committee member Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who has been holding up Biden’s DOD civilian and general flag officer nominees in response to the Pentagon’s radical abortion policies. As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd previously reported, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “announced in February that the taxpayer-funded Pentagon would grant up to three weeks of paid time off and travel for U.S. military members and their family members to obtain abortions.”

According to Tuberville, the policy — which “would subsidize thousands of ‘non-covered abortions‘” without congressional authorization or taxpayer approval — is “immoral and arguably illegal.”

“One of my colleagues is exercising a prerogative to place a hold on 250 generals and flag officers. I’m unaware of anything that they have done … that would warrant them being disrespected or punished or delayed in their careers,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in reference to Tuberville. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., also criticized Tuberville, with Rosen indirectly accusing the Alabama senator of partaking in an “extreme, anti-choice agenda.”

A committee vote on Brown’s confirmation will be held at a later date.


Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Senate Republicans Demand Biden Forfeit Info Over His Attempt To Federally Interfere In U.S. Elections


BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | MAY 15, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/15/senate-republicans-demand-biden-forfeit-info-over-his-attempt-to-federally-interfere-in-u-s-elections/

Sen. James Lankford giving a speech at CPAC

Senate Republicans are demanding President Joe Biden hand over documents related to his March 2021 executive order directing federal agencies to interfere in state and local elections.

On Wednesday, 13 Senate Republicans sent a letter to Biden requesting his administration forfeit documents related to Executive Order 14019, which required hundreds of federal agencies to interfere in the electoral process by using taxpayer money to boost voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. As The Federalist previously reported, voter registration efforts are almost always a partisan venture and often involve left-wing groups that abuse their nonprofit status to target likely-Democrat voters.

“First, while we all agree that increased voter participation is a good thing, the job of federal agencies is to perform their defined missions in a nonpartisan way, not use their taxpayer funds for clandestine voter mobilization and election-turnout operations,” the senators wrote. “Second, it seems doubtful that Congress approved all federal agencies to use appropriated funds for the purpose of voter mobilization.”

Under Executive Order 14019, the heads of each agency were required to draft “a strategic plan” explaining how his or her department intends to fulfill Biden’s directive. Despite attempts by good government groups to acquire these plans, the Biden administration has routinely stonewalled such efforts by slow-walking its response to federal court orders and heavily redacting any related documents it has released.

In their letter, Senate Republicans are demanding the White House provide them with copies of these strategic plans, as well as a “full accounting of all federal funding used to-date” to comply with the order, by May 23.

“Therefore, reviewing the agency plans is critical to understanding the degree to which implementation of this order has resulted in improper uses of federal resources,” the senators wrote.

Signatories of the letter include Republican Sens. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Ted Budd of North Carolina, Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Braun of Indiana, Mike Lee of Utah, Cindy Hyde-Smith and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Ted Cruz of Texas, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Katie Britt of Alabama.

Most recently, Budd, along with New York GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney, introduced the Promoting Free and Fair Elections Act, which, in addition to requiring federal agencies to disclose their strategic plans to Congress, would prohibit federal agencies from using federal funds to “solicit or enter into an agreement with a nongovernmental organization to conduct voter registration or voter mobilization activities.”

The bill would furthermore amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to bar public universities from using taxpayer-funded Federal Work Study programs to pay college students to engage in voter registration campaigns. In April 2022, the Biden administration told colleges they could use work-study funds to partake in such activities. Having taxpayers fund get-out-the-vote efforts in this way had previously not been allowed.


Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

MORE ARTICLES

There Is No Bipartisan Gun ‘Compromise’ In the Works, Just GOP Capitulation


REPORTED BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | JUNE 01, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/there-is-no-bipartisan-gun-compromise-in-the-works-just-gop-capitulation-2657434917.html/

Houston Gun Show

A compromise entails giving up something to get something, striking a deal. That’s not what’s happening here. This is just surrender.

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

MORE ARTICLES

Democrats and the corporate media like to call it a “compromise” when they get exactly what they want, and Republicans get nothing. Just witness the bipartisan talks underway in the wake of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas on new gun control legislation. These talks, which reportedly involve four GOP senators led by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, are focusing on two new gun control proposals: universal background checks and red flag laws. Whatever one’s opinion about the merits of these policies, it’s a fact that Democrats have long wanted to make it harder for law-abiding Americans to purchase guns and easier for the government to take them away. Both of these proposals would do just that, while arguably doing almost nothing to prevent the sort of mass shooting we saw last week in Uvalde.  One of the policy ideas, so-called “universal background checks,” isn’t a policy so much as a slogan meant to convey an inchoate desire that bad guys not be allowed to buy guns.

As nearly every gun owner in America knows, almost every gun sold in this country already comes with a background check, which is already required under federal law. As my colleague David Harsanyi noted yesterday, lying on your background check or evading it with a straw purchase are already illegal under federal law.  The other idea, a national red-flag law, would empower judges and police to confiscate guns from Americans who have not been charged with, nor committed, any crime at all. What’s more, a person judged guilty of pre-crime under a red-flag law cannot appeal the decision until after his or her guns have been confiscated.

Nineteen states already have some version of red-flag law already on the books, some worse than others, and all relatively new. New York has one, but it didn’t stop the Buffalo shooter from obtaining the guns he used to kill 10 people at grocery store last month. (He also passed a federal background check.)

So much for the policies themselves. The point here is not that they are good or bad ideas but that they are the sort of things Democrats have wanted to do for a long time and haven’t been able to because Republicans have blocked them. Why have Republicans blocked them? Because too many Republican voters understand that the purpose of such laws is to erode the Second Amendment and eventually take guns from law-abiding Americans who pose no risk of danger to anyone. 

But now we have these bipartisan talks underway. Reporting on the talks, The New York Times repeatedly framed them as efforts to strike a “deal” or a “compromise,” noting, for example, how projected GOP gains in the midterms “could inform how willing Republicans will be in the coming days to compromise on gun rights, an issue that has become central to their party.”

But there is in fact no compromise on the table. A compromise is when both parties give up something to get something else. That’s not happening here. Democrats aren’t talking about how they’re willing to, say, get rid of gun-free zones in schools and colleges that receive federal funding in exchange for Republican support for a national red-flag law. That would be a compromise or a deal, and it would no doubt enrage the base of either party, especially the Democrats’ radical left wing, which is why it’s very unlikely to happen.  What’s happening here is that some Republicans, including Sens. Cornyn and Lindsay Graham, among others, are mulling over whether and when they will cave to pressure from the media and their Democrat colleagues and simply give them what they want without getting anything in return.

Make no mistake, there is no “deal” in the works here, there is only Republican capitulation. That’s something conservatives, at least, should be well familiar with by now. Republicans in Washington have been capitulating to Democrats and the media for decades, on nearly every conceivable issue.

We should not be surprised that they are doing it again, but we should at least be honest about what’s happening and not pretend that Cornyn and Graham and the others are cooking up some kind of genius compromise on gun control. If they were, that really would be news.


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Senate Republicans Trash Rick Scott for Telling Voters How He’ll Work for Them


REPORTED BY: RACHEL BOVARD | MARCH 03, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/senate-republicans-trash-rick-scott-for-telling-voters-how-hell-work-for-them-2656832919.html/

Rick Scott and Donald Trump

Sen. Rick Scott recently did what no one else in the Republican Senate thought important: he released an agenda ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. Up to this point, Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, appeared content to proudly run on no strategy at all, convinced that simply pointing at Democrats and shrieking about how bad they are will crown them victorious.

As a point of electoral politics, this is not completely irrational. Polling shows Democratic policy failures and broad cultural overreaches are driving voters to Republicans in record numbers. But as I’ve written previously, a content-free campaign only gets you so far. In many cases, the voters now identifying with Republicans are non-traditional GOP voters. To get them to stick around—that is, to actually expand the base of the party while continuing to motivate traditional base voters—you have to tell them what you’re for, what you’re going to do. And then you have to go and do it.

Establishment politicians dislike agendas because they’re a measure of accountability. An agenda is a tangible reminder of what a majority said they were going to do. On the contrary, traditional establishment rhetoric routinely plays down expectations about what’s possible, makes vague hand gestures about “the long game” (usually undefined), and generally avoids anything that would force them to roll up their sleeves and attempt to legislate on the hard things—that is, what their base voters care about.

What the establishment prefers to do is what McConnell has always done: run on nothing except how bad the other guy is. But the absence of an agenda is a tacit acknowledgment of an agenda. And the agenda-in-the-absence-of-an-agenda is always the same: Wall Street wins, and so do lobbyists on K Street and the defense industrial base. Having no stated priorities just means the priorities are open to the highest bidder, or that the priorities of the status quo prevail.

Scott Leads, and GOP Leadership Excoriates Him

Enter Scott. Not content to follow the strategy of blandly grinning at the base while committing to addressing none of their concerns, Scott and his team wrote their own agenda—60 pages of it. The 11-point overview covers everything from border security to asserting the primacy of the nuclear family, declaring basic facts of biology, election integrity, and taking on Big Tech. It’s a broad and sweeping look at the issues, from economics to culture, that are roiling Americans all over the country.

For his efforts, Scott was not applauded, at least not in Washington. Rather, he was immediately savaged by his own leadership. McConnell and his allies reportedly excoriated Scott in a meeting behind closed doors, followed by a press conference where McConnell, when asked about Scott’s proposal, felt the need to remind everyone that “If we’re fortunate enough to have the majority next year, I’ll be the majority leader.” Someone’s feeling touchy. (The conference-wide election for majority leader will occur in the days following November’s election.)

McConnell, who ripped the Republican National Committee for justifiably censuring Republican Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger because “we support all members of our party, regardless of their positions on some issues,” apparently doesn’t support Scott’s attempt to articulate where he stands—and where he thinks the party should stand. Instead of cultivating the creativity and leadership expressed in Scott’s effort, McConnell dismissed it as an affront to his own power.

He also took issue with one of the bullet points in Scott’s sweeping agenda, specifically the proposal that roughly 60 percent of Americans who don’t pay income tax should be brought into tax parity. After feeling the need to remind everyone that he, not Scott, will be the incoming majority leader, McConnell stated, “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people….”

Fair enough. Scott unveiled a 60-page, detailed proposal, and not everyone is going to agree on the full substance. But to dismiss the full proposal because of a bullet point is an obvious attempt to kneecap the effort entirely, not provide constructive feedback. Moreover, McConnell has, in the past, supported income tax parity, telling CBS News in 2012 that “Between 45 percent and 50 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all. We have an extraordinarily progressive tax code already. It is a mess and needs to be revisited again.”

But McConnell’s flip-flop on the issue will hardly bother him, because his fixation on Scott’s agenda isn’t about the substance, it’s about the perceived affront to his own authority. McConnell notoriously rules the Senate—constructed as a body of equals—with an iron fist. Although only when it suits him.

I Can Lead, Just Not on Anything Voters Want

Just two weeks ago, McConnell and his leadership team cried helplessness in the face of four of their own members failing to show up for a vote to take down what remains of Joe Biden’s federal vaccine mandate. Due to Democratic absences, Republicans could have prevailed on the vote, which failed 46-47 due to Sens. Jim Inhofe, Mitt Romney, Richard Burr, and Lindsey Graham choosing to be elsewhere. Inhofe was said to be with his ailing wife. Graham had jetted off to a defense junket in Germany. Romney and Burr were simply not there. Curiously, McConnell was not outraged by this embarrassing failure of senators to heed his authority. Perhaps that was because the vote—hugely important to the GOP base—wasn’t treated as important by the Senate GOP leadership.

Wittingly or not, McConnell’s failure to lead on a midterm agenda has opened the door for senators who will. Scott should be applauded for his effort, particularly as it’s already achieving results. At the end of the press conference in which he trashed Scott’s agenda, McConnell, who has previously said voters will find out the agenda when they re-elect the Senate GOP, was forced to issue the bare outline of one: inflation, energy, defense, the border, and crime.

This has none of the detail or comprehensive thoughtfulness exhibited by Scott’s effort, but right now, it’s all GOP voters have to hang their hat on. And the fact that it exists at all is because Scott saw a leadership breach and stepped squarely into it. Good on him.


Rachel Bovard is The Federalist’s senior tech columnist and the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. She has more than a decade of policy experience in Washington and has served in both the House and Senate in various roles, including as a legislative director and policy director for the Senate Steering Committee under the successive chairmanships of Sen. Pat Toomey and Sen. Mike Lee. She also served as director of policy services for The Heritage Foundation.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution


Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 10, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution

Source: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Senate Republicans should offer to convict Donald Trump in return for Democrats agreeing to fund the wall. Trump is not going to run again anyway. In four years, he will be as viable a presidential candidate as Hillary was in 2020. You wouldn’t have guessed that, either, from all the gnashing of teeth about the MOST QUALIFIED WOMAN EVER TO SEEK THE PRESIDENCY immediately after she lost. 

The reason elected Republicans, Fox News, OAN, Newsmax and a hundred talk radio hosts are terrified of supporting conviction is that they don’t want to look like Mitt Romney and incur the wrath of the Trump base (whatever remains of it).

Trading conviction for a wall solves that. It will remind Trump loyalists that he betrayed them on his central campaign promise, and also will actually fulfill that promise.

Democrats, if they have half a brain, will leap at the offer. They are about to destroy Biden’s presidency by defining themselves — as The New York Times’ Frank Bruni put it — as “antonyms to Trump.” Trump was for a wall. Ipso facto, Democrats are for open borders.

Trump was lying, liberals! Even President Obama was for border security. Great socialist hope Bernie Sanders has denounced open borders as a gift to the Koch brothers.

They don’t care. Trump supporters wanted a wall, so we’re going to punish them by throwing open the border!

If Biden continues with his tsunami of open border executive orders: 1) COVID-19 cases will multiply, as untested, unvaccinated third-worlders pour in at breakneck speed; 2) Black and Hispanic unemployment will go through the roof; and 3) crime — already reaching mind-blowing proportions — will become as potent a political issue as it has ever been.

Good luck in 2022, Democrats!

But if Democrats were to trade wall funding for the holy grail of a Trump conviction, they could save Biden’s presidency, humiliate Trump, and explain to their nut base, We know, we know — walls don’t work — but we had to trade it to convict Trump! Aren’t you happy?

It’s win-win-win all around.

Sitting on a nation-unifying idea like that, I never should have tuned into the impeachment trial. I knew the Democrats would somehow manage to turn me against conviction. I’m still not pro-Trump — that’s a tall order. But could Democrats please ease up on the hysterical weeping?

The president is not supposed to be organizing protests at all, much less against his own vice president. Isn’t that enough? You don’t need to juice up the story, Democrats.

Impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin:

“All around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye ….

“[My] kids, hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final texts and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. They thought they were going to die.”

Yes, being forced to listen to the Trump “shaman” gas on about organic food could have annihilated legions!

Trump is a selfish, ignorant child. But he is not responsible for the reactions of neurotic liberals.

It would be as if Raskin’s neighbor smashed into his parked car, then drove off. Raskin has a perfectly good case without having to wail, I WAS AFRAID HE WOULD COME TO MY HOUSE AND MURDER MY ENTIRE FAMILY!

Raskin’s most precious argument was this:

“Of all the terrible, brutal things I saw … watching someone use an American flagpole, the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly, tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life.”

First, give me a break, Democrats, pretending to give a crap about the American flag.

Second: “Tortured”?

Impeachment managers apparently used a thesaurus to write their speeches:

Siri, give me a synonym for “poke” or “strike.”

Siri: jab, punch, prod, thrust, wallop … TORTURE.

Really?

Yup, it’s right there in Roget’s!

Curiously, even the teary-eyed Raskin didn’t allege that Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by the protesters, a claim being made hourly on MSNBC.

Raskin: “People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. People’s eyes were gouged. One officer had a heart attack. One officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives.”

Jeremy Bash, later that day on MSNBC: “They killed a cop, Nicole!”

If Officer Sicknick’s death truly resulted from injuries sustained at the hands of the mob, it would be the case in chief against the protesters. (We’re not counting heart attacks, much less suicides that occurred days, or weeks, later.) But no one in the media has been able to scare up a single eyewitness to the attack on Brian Sicknick?

Unlike defund-the-police liberals, I actually am heartbroken about the death of a Trump-supporting law enforcement officer.

But the media are lying about his death. First, they claimed he was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher. Then they said he was dragged into the crowd and beaten. All that is known for sure is that after Sicknick returned to headquarters, he collapsed and later died.

Last week, CNN nonchalantly inserted this into a story on Officer Sicknick: “Medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.”

There’s no hope for our media, who are irredeemable liars. But there’s still a chance for everyone else to come out a winner here! Trade conviction for a wall, Republicans.

Obama’s last hope for GOP support on Iran: Susan Collins


By Julian Hattem08/26/15

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine). Photo by Greg Nash

Suicide-USA-NRD-600Senate Republicans are united in their opposition to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran — with one exception. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has yet to take a position on the agreement, making her the last undecided Senate Republican who could conceivably side with the president. Some observers say Collins, a centrist known for bucking party convention, could go it alone next month and vote against a resolution to kill the Iran deal when it comes to the Senate floor.

“At this time, Sen. Collins is still gathering a lot of information and has not reached a final decision,” an aide said last week. The aide reaffirmed on Tuesday that Collins is still undecided. Collins “remains concerned about several aspects of the agreement, such as the lack of a good inspection regime to make sure that the Iranians are not cheating on the agreement,” the aide added, while noting that the senator has been “meeting with people on both sides of this very complex and important issue. She believes a good inspection regime is absolutely essential and is carefully weighing this issue in her decision making.” Picture3

Death to AmericaOn Wednesday afternoon, Collins’s office said that she would not announce a position on the deal until after lawmakers return to Washington in September. Collins became the last Senate Republican on the fence after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced on Friday that she would oppose the agreement. The Alaska senator said the deal does not require Iran to completely abandon its nuclear program.

Murkowski and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) — who announced earlier this month that he would vote against the deal — had been considered the only other Senate Republicans who might side with Obama.

There are reasons to think Collins is truly torn. She was one of just seven Senate Republicans who did not sign a controversial letter to the Iranian government in March that warned a nuclear deal could be revoked by the next president. Collins may also be feeling boxed in by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who came out in support of the agreement in a floor speech shortly before the August recess. Though he is officially an independent, King caucuses with Democrats.

Additionally, Collins might be hesitant to rebuff the president, given that the United States took a lead role in the multination Iran negotiations.

“Sen. Collins is quite frequently concerned with good governance and good process,” said Blaise Misztal, the director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s national security program. “I could see her not wanting this deal to have to go to a presidential veto.”More Evidence

Missing-Piece-600-LIStill, close observers of the Iran deal remain skeptical that Collins, or any other Republican, will side with the president and vote to uphold the deal. “Given that the way votes are breaking, it might even be difficult for opponents to get the 60 votes they need in the Senate to get past cloture,” Misztal added. “I don’t think [Collins is] going to feel that compunction to have to break with her party on the deal.”

The White House likely needs the support of 34 Senate Democrats to uphold a veto of the disapproval resolution, and the support of 41 to prevent it from ever reaching Obama’s desk. So far, only two Senate Democrats have announced that they will oppose the deal, while 29 have committed to backing it. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) became the latest supporter of the deal on Tuesday.

The math is slightly different in the House, where the lack of a filibuster means Republicans will have no trouble passing the initial resolution. If the House voted on whether to override Obama, Democrats could afford to Deflated Diplomacylose no more than 43 members to uphold the White House’s veto.

While supporters and opponents of the deal have been focused on the Senate, there’s also a chance that one or two House Republicans break from their party and oppose legislation aiming to kill the deal.

“It is a rare occasion when Republicans all vote together,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) — an ardent critic of the Iran agreement — told reporters earlier this week. “This will be close, I suspect,” he added. “I can’t imagine there will be too many [defectors].”

But might there be at least one? “Sure,” Pompeo answered.

Reps. Walter Jones (N.C.), Justin Amash (Mich.) and Thomas Massie (Ky.) are considered to be the House Republicans most likely to oppose a Pitiful-Deal-NRD-600resolution against the Iran deal. All three are often on the opposite side of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).Cannot fix RINOS

However, Jones — a former Democrat — appears to be facing a primary challenge against veteran Republican operative Taylor Griffin next year, which could make a defection on Iran politically risky. Griffin came within six points of ousting Jones last year, and he criticized the lawmaker earlier this summer for being “just not a good conservative.”

Spokespeople for Massie and Amash said in recent days that the lawmakers had yet to settle on a position. A spokesperson for Jones did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The White House is not expecting any GOP support for the deal, but would surely not hesitate to use even a single Republican vote as evidence of bipartisan backing.

Yet there are risks in touting any GOP support, given opposition from top Democrats such as Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) — the likely next Senate Democratic leader — as well as Reps. Eliot Engel (N.Y.) and Brad Sherman (Calif.).  “Even if one or two Republicans do vote for the deal, it really matters very little because it is now virtually certain that the deal will be voted down by significant, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress,” said Jamil Jaffer, a former top aide to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and current director of George Mason Law School’s Homeland and National Security Law Program.

By voting it down, lawmakers will be “sapping the deal of all political credibility, and making it clear to European companies that they ought wait until at least November 2016 before taking any action to start trading with Iran,” he added.Picture4

This story was updated at 5:36 p.m.

Tag Cloud