All posts tagged "john thune"

'We need them badly!' Trump pressures John Thune to skip vacation to confirm nominees

Donald Trump on Saturday applied some pressure to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD).

Specifically, the president took to his own social media site, Truth Social, to beg Thune to do whatever is needed to confirm Trump's picks.

"Hopefully the very talented John Thune, fresh off our many victories over the past two weeks and, indeed, 6 months, will cancel August recess (and long weekends!), in order to get my incredible nominees confirmed," Trump wrote. "We need them badly!!! DJT"

Read the full post here.

White House rips into Lindsey Graham for pushing bill that 'micromanages' Trump

The White House is pushing back on provisions of a Russia sanctions bill masterminded by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), claiming it would allow Congress to "micromanage" the president on foreign policy.

Graham and GOP "hawks" have pushed the bill for months, according to Politico, but Trump seems to have just now had an epiphany about Russian President Vladimir Putin's duplicitous behavior when it comes to Ukraine.

On Tuesday, Trump expressed his frustration with the Russian president, saying, "We get a lot of bull---- thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless." Trump also let on that he would be willing to consider sanctions against Russia to get Putin back to the negotiating table regarding the war.

"The current draft of the bill allows the president to waive a 500 percent tariff on countries that buy Russian oil and uranium for up to 180 days, and Graham said Tuesday he has agreed to revise the bill to allow for a second waiver, subject to congressional oversight," according to the report.

That's not good enough for the White House, which is working to preserve Trump's "sole authority to oversee U.S. foreign policy."

“The current version would subject the president’s foreign policy decisions to micromanagement by Congress through a joint resolution of disapproval process. … That’s a nonstarter for us,” a senior White House official told Politico. “The administration is not going to be micromanaged by the Congress on the president’s foreign policy. The bill needs a waiver authority that is complete.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said Wednesday that the measure could make it to the Senate floor later this month, but only if Trump is "fully onboard."

That may be tricky since Trump declared this week, "that any additional Russia sanctions would be 'at my option.'"

Read the Politico article here.

Here's the real reason Republicans hate the middle class

A Pew poll published last week finds that 59 percent of Americans say the GOP’s “Big Beautiful Bill” that cuts taxes for billionaires and raises them for working-class people — and was passed by the Senate on Tuesday — “would hurt lower-income people and 51 percent think it would hurt middle-income people.”

And they’re right. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill will measurably reduce the income and spending power of low- and middle-income people while giving a ~$4 trillion gift to the morbidly rich.

Americans have figured this out: according to a Fox “News” poll published last week and reported by Newsweek:

“Only 38 percent favored the bill, while 59 percent opposed it, a 21-point gap against the bill. About half of all voters believed the legislation would be detrimental to their families, and just a quarter thought it would deliver any benefit.”

So, why would Republicans want to further reduce the size and wealth of America’s middle class?

Turns out, there are two good reasons that answer that question.

The first and simplest is that ever since five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court made it legal for billionaires and big corporations to bribe politicians, the GOP has done the bidding of the morbidly rich to the exclusion of everybody else.

And there’s considerable truth to that argument. The Court opened that door with their Buckley and Bellotti decisions in the late 1970s, laying the foundation for Ronald Reagan’s war against unions and working people and his so-called “Reagan Revolution” on behalf of the wealthy.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in the Diamond Alternative Energy v EPA case that was decided on June 20 and made it easier for the fossil fuel industry to challenge environmental regulations:

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. … Our ruling will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act. … I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests. …

“For some, this silence will only harden their sense that the Court softens its certiorari standards when evaluating petitions from moneyed interests, looking past the jurisdictional defects or other vehicle problems that would typically doom petitions from other parties. This Court’s simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of the rights of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others — will further fortify that impression. …

“The Court’s remarkably lenient approach to standing in this case contrasts starkly with the stern stance it has taken in cases concerning the rights of ordinary citizens. … The Constitution does not distinguish between plaintiffs whose claims are backed by the Chamber of Commerce and those who seek to vindicate their rights to fair housing, desegregated schools, or privacy. But if someone reviewing our case law harbored doubts about that proposition, today’s decision will do little to dissuade them.”

But while it’s true that Republicans have been naked toadies for rich people and big corporations for a century, there’s a larger reason why Trump and the GOP are working so hard to immiserate and impoverish working class Americans.

That reason has to do with something called “modernization theory.”

Back in 1959, one of the inventors of modernization theory, Seymour Martin Lipset, famously wrote:

“The more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.”

Lipset argued that industrialization led to unions and higher wages, which in turn funded higher-education opportunities and urbanization, which both grew a larger middle class. As people’s material conditions improved, Lipset noted, their focus shifted from survival issues like food and shelter to more aspirational elements like democratic values, civil and human rights, representation in government, and the rule of law.

In other words, the wealthier the middle class becomes, the more it will demand a vibrant democracy and a government that represents its interests.

On the other hand — and here is the GOP‘s real goal — if you can do away with or diminish the wealth and political power of the middle class, you can more easily loot the government and act exclusively in the interest of the morbidly rich.

As Barrington Moore noted in his book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: “No bourgeois [middle class], no democracy.”

In 2003, researchers Carles Boix and Susan Stokes found strong evidence that wealthier countries are more likely to be democracies, and once established, democracies are far more stable in richer nations. Similarly, in their book Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy", Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson prove that when economic growth empowers new classes (especially the middle class), those groups will demand political reforms.

Using examples including South Korea, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, and Tunisia, multiple cross-national studies using World Bank income data and Freedom House democracy scores show a strong correlation between per capita income and democratic governance; as people become wealthier they more vigorously demand a small-d democratic political system.

This happens because middle class people have economic security, giving them the time and energy to demand their rights; want property protections, honest courts, education, and fair governance; and typically have relied on meritocratic systems (education, hard work) to achieve their status instead of using corruption or inherited wealth and privilege.

By 1981, the American middle class was at its peak because of a 74 percent top personal income tax bracket, a 50 percent top corporate income tax rate, a strong and healthy social safety net, cheap healthcare (because hospitals and insurance companies were required to be nonprofits in most states), and free or near-free college.

Democracy was also arguably at its peak; for the previous 40+ years Congress had passed, one after the other, bills that primarily benefitted average working people and the middle class. Voting was easy, women and minorities were empowered, and we led the world in education and innovation.

This is not, however, what many wealthy oligarchs want, particularly those who become politically active.

Instead of democracy, they want government to protect their wealth and privilege to the exclusion of “the rabble.”

Instead of paying the cost of a government large enough to guarantee the emergence and sustenance of a middle class, they want tax cuts and subsidies for their businesses. Instead of rights for average people, they want police and courts that will, as Justice Jackson noted, focus instead on their unique wants and needs.

When Reagan came into office in 1981 about a third of American workers had good union jobs, meaning that about two-thirds of all American families lived good middle-class lives on a single paycheck (because the union jobs established the wage and benefits floor for non-union employers who had to compete with them for workers).

That was the year the GOP declared war on working-class people because, in the estimation of the Nixon- and Reagan-era Republicans, our democracy had gotten out of hand.

Workers were demanding good pay and benefits; women, racial, and gender minorities were demanding equal rights; and students demanded an end to the war in Vietnam.

Conservative thinkers like Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley saw these demands as symptoms of a “cultural decay” caused by working class people having more wealth and leisure time than they were “intellectually and culturally capable of handling.”

So, in 1981 the GOP set about dismantling the American middle class with their so-called Reagan Revolution.

Donald Trump Donald Trump, seen in the Oval Office at the White House. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

The result is that today only about 45 percent of Americans are in the middle class, and it takes two jobs to establish that same lifestyle; since Reagan took office fully $50 trillion has been transferred from the homes, savings, and retirement accounts of working class people into the money bins of the top 1 percent.

As the social scientists cited above found, when the middle class shrinks below a certain threshold its demands for democracy are replaced by populist demands for, essentially, revenge.

“Who did this to us?” is the battle cry, and the GOP’s ready answer — first emerging in the 1980s with Rush Limbaugh, going on steroids in the 1990s with Fox “News,” and pounded on by Donald Trump ever since he first came down that escalator in 2015 — is, “It’s the immigrants, Black people, uppity women, college students and professors, and the union bosses.”

MAGA — particularly its white racist base — bought it hook, line, and sinker, leading us to a massive tax-cut bill, court decisions that screw working people and the environment, and an explosion in hate crimes and politically inspired violence.

The bottom line is that the GOP opposes democracy because it interferes with and complicates their very well paid efforts to suck up to — and legislate on behalf of — the morbidly rich. And they disdain the middle class (but love the uneducated poor) because the larger the middle class the louder come the demands for fairness in the distribution of the common wealth and democracy.

So, the next time somebody asks you why Republicans hate the middle class, let them know that, “It’s the democracy, stupid!”

'Insane': Musk freaks out over Trump's megabill and blasts 'Porky Pig Party'

Elon Musk is staging a full-throttle freakout over President Donald Trump's megabill that's working its way through the Senate so the House can vote on it before the president's July 4 deadline.

The bill caused a very public breakup of Trump and Musk earlier this month when Musk posted to X, "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination."

Monday, Musk posted, "It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!! Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people."

Monday afternoon, the Senate began its marathon voting session known as the "vote-a-rama." Still up in the air was the issue of cutting Medicaid, which House Republicans have vehemently lobbied against. According to Politico, "Dozens of House Republicans are scrambling behind the scenes to head off the deep Medicaid cuts in the Senate version of the party-line megabill that could pass as soon as tonight."

Trump has vowed that Medicaid would not be touched, but lawmakers have tried to figure out how to pay for his bill that includes tax cuts for the wealthy.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) can only afford to lose one more vote, after fiscal hawks Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) vowed to vote against the bill for adding trillions to the federal deficit. Tillis announced he would not seek re-election before launching a "scathing critique" of Trump's bill on Sunday.

This schtick is so mind-boggling even the GOP has stopped lying about it

We’re about to embark on what will be one of the most interesting political, sociological, and media experiments of our lifetimes. It’ll answer the question: “Can Republicans still get away with lying to their own voters?”

Forty-four years ago, the Reagan administration — after winning the White House because they cut a criminal, treasonous deal with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to hold the American hostages until after the 1980 election — decided to take a second massive chance at deceiving the American voters.

Today’s rightwing media machine didn’t exist at the time; there was no Fox “News,” no 1,500 rightwing radio stations, no rightwing bloggers and podcasters getting millions from Russia and neofascist foundations, no rightwing billionaire owners of social media and the nation’s biggest newspapers and TV networks, so the risk of simply and blatantly lying to the public was far greater than today.

But in 1981 Ronald Reagan and the GOP decided — after 48 continuous years of Americans embracing both the New Deal’s programs and it’s top 90%-74% income tax bracket for the morbidly rich — that the risk was worth it. After all, if their bet paid off the rewards (that would come as future campaign donations) would be in the hundreds of billions.

So, they rolled out one of the most audacious lies, the biggest defiance of simple math and common sense, in the lifetime of most Americans: “Tax cuts pay for themselves and, as a bonus, increase prosperity for average working people.”

At the time, everybody knew it was BS.

  • America had been paying down the debt we ran up fighting fascists in World War II so effectively that our national debt was less than one trillion dollars in 1980.
  • CEOs only took a maximum of about 30 times what their workers did (to avoid that top tax bracket), meaning there was plenty left over in the company to pay workers well, provide generous benefits and retirements, and invest in new factories and products. (The Stock Buyback Scam wasn’t legalized by Reagan until 1982.)
  • Most thoughtful working people understood that their paychecks were based on “after-tax” income; when taxes went up, so did pay (as they’d seen), and when taxes went down employers would freeze or even cut worker’s pay because the tax cut worked as if it were a pay raise. (This is why wages have been stagnant all these years, reflecting repeated tax cuts.)
  • Americans also understood that when the government went into debt, it issued IOUs called Bonds or Treasuries that paid interest to the mostly wealthy people who held them, and that the average American family was then on the hook for $872 a year to fund those then-13% interest payments. (Today, the average American household owes $7,812.50 a year to fund the interest on our national debt.)
  • The experience with Republican tax cuts in the “Roaring 20s” that exploded wealth at the top and then led straight to the Republican Great Depression starting in 1929 taught people back then about the danger of cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Nonetheless, Reagan’s team and the GOP thought they could get away with it if they could just come up with an appealing “story” to explain how tax cuts for billionaires would actually benefit the average working family. So, they went to work and came up with a project worthy of Hans Christian Andersen (author of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”).

  • Rich people aren’t just rich people, they told America; they’re also members of a noble class among us called “job creators.”
  • Ignoring the fact that the most vibrant part of the American economy at the time was small, family-owned businesses (now mostly put out of business because Reagan stopped enforcing our anti-trust laws in 1983), they promoted the slogan, “No poor person ever gave me a job.” It was endlessly echoed by conservative commentators on weekend TV shows and in newspapers.
  • Republicans claimed that if these morbidly rich “job creators” were just given a few hundred million additional dollars every year via massive tax breaks, dropping the top income tax bracket from the then-74% down to 28%, those “job creators” would dutifully use that cash to build new factories and pay their workers even better.
  • They brought in a handful of hack economists who knew how to do good TV to argue that there was a magical “curve” showing that as taxes went down, government revenue would go up. Cutting taxes could end the nation’s deficit! The media gobbled it up.
  • They lionized Chrysler’s Lee Iacocca for only taking $1 in salary in 1980, as if every CEO in America was willing to sacrifice for the good of their company and their employees. (In fact, Iacocca had almost a million dollars in “non-paycheck income” from Chrysler that year that put him on the Forbes list of the 100 highest paid CEOs in America.)
  • Finally, the GOP promoted, via Reagan’s Budget Director, David Stockman, a “new” theory they termed “trickle down” that claimed that when rich people got billions in tax giveaways they’d nobly refuse to invest that money in the market or stash it in their money bins, but instead would “revive the economy” by “buying more stuff,” thus creating more jobs in manufacturing, distribution, and retail. (Stockman later said, in a moment of candor on my radio program, “Supply-side economics was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.”)

Back in the 1980s, this sextet of deceit worked. Most Americans went along with Reagan’s mind-boggling tax cuts. Amazingly, the lie still worked in the early 2000s when George W. Bush repeated Reagan’s magic trick and again blessed his wealthy peers with trillions more in tax gifts while insisting the cuts would reinvigorate the economy via the shamanic “job creators.”

But this year, things got weird: Republicans and their rightwing media machine aren’t even trying to promote their lies from the ’80s. At least not seriously.

  • When White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “This bill does not add to the deficit. In fact, according to the Council of Economic Advisors, this bill will save $1.6 trillion,” nobody took her seriously and her lie wasn’t even extensively quoted in the media. (Politifact labeled it totally false.)
  • When “Christian” House Speaker Mike Johnson argued that kicking millions of mostly children and elderly people off Medicaid, gutting SNAP food benefits, and taking a $500 billion cut out of Medicare while gifting America’s billionaires with over $4 trillion of borrowed money would provide “rocket fuel” for the US economy, nobody even bothered to echo his sentiment.

Republicans, instead of promoting Reagan’s old schtick, are basically just telling the American people, “Screw you; get over it. This is what we do.”

It has pundits across the political spectrum scratching their heads. Why aren’t Republicans even trying to sell their tax cuts?

  • Is the billionaire-owned rightwing media machine now so powerful that Republicans can today simply ignore voters, not even bothering to offer a rationalization for their tax cuts, and America will continue to elect them?
  • Has Reaganomics so gutted the American middle class (taking us from 65% of us in the middle class with a single income in 1980 to only 47% of us with two people working full time) that people no longer have the free time to pay attention to the news?
  • Since Clinton deregulated newspaper, radio, and TV station ownership in 1996 by largely ending the ownership cap and local control limits, has the destruction of the nation’s newspapers made us so poorly informed that most people really have no idea what’s going on? (Over 200 U.S. counties now have no local newspaper, and nearly 1,500 counties have only one local news outlet; more than two-thirds of local daily newspapers are now owned by out-of-state operations, many of them politically conservative hedge funds.)
  • Have Republicans and their rightwing media actually succeeded in getting Americans to identify with the rich, presumably in the hopes that they’ll one day win the lottery?
  • Or has the lie been told so often that Republican voters still believe it, a sort of Economic Stockholm Syndrome, so GOP politicians don’t even need to repeat it? (Even the famously-conservative Financial Times is skeptical of that one, as you can see from this headline: “Trump’s tax bill triumph could be a poisoned chalice for Republicans.”)

The fate of this bill in the Senate — and the midterm elections next year — will tell us a lot about whether the old reliable Republican bull---t still works.

Stay tuned; this is getting fascinating.

Trump's megabill could turn out to be the GOP's death knell: analysis

A new MSNBC article by former RNC chair Michael Steele claims that Senate Republicans aren't just deciding whether to add $3.8 trillion to the nation's debt by passing President Donald Trump's massive spending bill; it's also deciding on the future of the party itself and the people it claims to represent.

"Is it a party of Trump — tossing new parents, tipped workers and seniors a few crumbs while cutting the social safety net and giving very wealthy individuals a massive tax cut?" Steele asked. "Or are there enough old-school conservatives left to make the bill more economically responsible?"

Steele claimed that Trump's bill is essentially a loyalty test to see who will feed into the president's desire for total control. It would allow him to pay for his $175 billion Golden Dome missile defense system, among other expensive pursuits, while fiddling with entitlements like Medicare to pay for it -- something Trump said he'd never touch.

EXCLUSIVE: Trump accused of new grift that puts Qatari plane in shade

House Republicans have already come to heel, passing their version of the bill that bows to Trump's whims.

"This isn’t a battle over fiscal prudence. It is a battle over obedience," Steele wrote. "If they side with Trump, they’ll have to defend cutting programs like Medicaid and SNAP. They will have to answer to constituents who will feel the direct effects of their vote. We are not talking about the price of eggs anymore. We are talking about the cost of healthcare–or having access to healthcare at all. Do they think the voters won’t remember who took their safety net away?"

Steele claimed that hanging in the balance are "the remnants of traditional conservative philosophies" about spending versus "unfettered economic retribution at the hands of Trump."

Steele asked, if the Republican Party is already a shell of what it was before Trump's complete dominance, what would be its future if it no longer served the people at all?

"So far, no one seems willing to truly risk their political careers on principle," Steele wrote. "Which is why Trump remains so smug about passage of his 'Big Beautiful Bill.'"

Read the MSNBC article here.

'Man up!' MAGA in panic mode after GOP senator tanks key Trump nominee's chances

Word that President Donald Trump's troublesome nominee for D.C.'s top prosecutor may fail to get enough support among Senate Republicans has MAGA in full panic mode that's led them to ramp up the pressure campaign in person and on social media.

Tuesday night, the president reportedly made call after call to Republican senators urging them to support interim U.S. attorney Ed Martin's bid for the permanent position.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) may have hammered the nail in Martin's coffin on Tuesday.

“I’ve indicated to the White House I wouldn’t support his nomination,” Tillis said after meeting with Martin — a "Stop the Steal" organizer and J6 supporter — on Monday night.

ALSO READ: ‘Pain. Grief. Anger’: Families heartbroken as Trump backlash smashes adoption dreams

Joyce Vance, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, wrote in her Substack, "Before Martin goes to the floor of the Senate for a confirmation vote, he has to make it out of committee. And that’s unlikely to happen now. The Senate Judiciary Committee is made up of 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. All of the Democrats oppose Martin. With Tillis abandoning him, the best Martin could do is 11-11, and a nominee who receives a tie vote doesn’t advance. For all practical purposes, the outcome of that vote will be a death knell for his nomination."

But MAGA isn't giving up yet.

Donald Trump Jr. posted to social media Wednesday morning, "How can any supposed 'Republican' justify voting to confirm leftist thug Merrick Garland, but oppose voting to confirm @EagleEdMartin? Drain the DC Swamp. Confirm Ed Martin for US Attorney in DC!"

J6 defendant John Strand took aim at Tillis, writing, "I was sentenced to nearly 3 years in prison—not for violence on J6, but for standing my ground and refusing to bow to a rigged political prosecution. Now Senator Thom Tillis wants to block Ed Martin—one of the few fighting for real justice. We see you, @SenThomTillis."

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) wrote, "77 million Americans voted for President Trump and his America First Agenda. Get on board, or get out of the way. CONFIRM ED MARTIN."

MAGA reporter Nick Sortor posted, "Sen. Thom Tillis has informed the White House he will NOT vote to confirm Ed Martin as U.S. Attorney for DC What the hell are you doing, @SenThomTillis??! Ed Martin has been VITAL in fulfilling Trump’s goal to clean up DC. VOTE TO CONFIRM ED MARTIN!"

Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk called for Tillis's ouster following his revelation, writing, "If Thom Tillis wont vote Ed Martin out of committee then he needs to be REMOVED from the committee and replaced with someone that will vote to confirm. Its not that tough, @LeaderJohnThune. Man up and do what needs to be done."

CNN reported Wednesday that Martin "did not appear on the agenda for the Senate Judiciary Committee’s meeting Thursday – a key deadline for him to be confirmed by May 20, when his interim position expires."

Trump opponents hope threat of 'bootlicker' legacy enough to make Senate leader snap

House Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is being warned to push back against President Donald Trump to avoid earning a legacy as a "bootlicker," according to a new Politico profile.

Thune beat out Trump loyalist Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who, at 83 and in precarious health, announced his retirement in February.

Thune has openly criticized Trump in the past, but has remained "mostly mum" on Trump's rapid dismantling of the government since becoming president, "questioning here and there but generally signaling at least partial or tacit consent," according to the article.

Democratic operative Steve Jarding told writer Michael Kruse, “He’s going to have to pick. If I’m John Thune, OK, I want the title — but I want a legacy and I don’t want my legacy to be that I was a bootlicker for Donald Trump.”

ALSO READ: ‘I miss lynch mobs’: The secretary of retribution's followers are getting impatient

Mark Salter, a longtime adviser to the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said of Thune, “I would hope there’s a little inner turmoil. You are watching the executive branch usurp all the power and authorities given Congress under Article I. Maybe he thinks, ‘I’ll preserve my influence, and down the road, when something worse comes along, I’ll be able to stop him from doing it’ — but it’s going to get harder to oppose him, not easier.”

According to CNN, Trump and Thune have forged a "productive working relationship," with Trump thanking him on Truth Social for steering the Senate to fund the "Trump-Border Agenda." And Thune hasn't overtly criticized the president since Trump took office.

In the aftermath of the Oval Office blowup with Volodymyr Zelensky, when many Republicans expressed their dismay that Trump seemed to back Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine's president, "Thune did what he does," Kruse wrote, recounting how Thune told South Dakota’s Mitchell Republic, “No question in my mind that Russia is the aggressor."

"But," Kruse wrote, "he didn’t clearly criticize the interaction or Trump’s part, calling the meeting 'spirited' and pointing to the future."

Read the Politico article here.

Senate Majority Leader Thune threatens Dems over Trump nominees: Doing this 'the hard way'

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) had a warning for Democrats he contends are delaying confirmations for President Donald Trump's cabinet nominees: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."

Thune echoed on social media what he said Tuesday evening on the Senate floor after John Ratcliffe's confirmation for CIA director was blocked.

Ratcliffe had been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee in a bipartisan vote, and Thune indicated that getting him confirmed "shouldn't be hard."

"Democrats and Republicans, in a very big bipartisan fashion, agree that he is very qualified for this job," Thune said. "Do we want a vote on these folks on Tuesday or vote on them on Friday, Saturday and Sunday? Because that's what we're going to do. This can be easy or this can be hard," Thune said. "This is about America's national security interests, and we're stalling, so that's not going to happen."

ALSO READ: Inside the parade of right-wing world leaders flocking to D.C. for Trump's inauguration

Ratcliffe's confirmation was blocked by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who said Democrats had "serious concerns" about the nomination because Ratcliffe "repeatedly politicized intelligence" when he briefly served as National Intelligence director in 2020. Murphy added, "I don't think it's too much to ask to make sure that we have a full, real debate that lasts two days on the Senate floor."

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) also claimed the Democrats were gunning for getting things done "the hard way."

"We should especially get back to that practice when it is a highly accomplished, well-qualified nominee of integrity, like John Ratcliffe," Cotton said. "Now we're going to spin our wheels for two days. But, as I said, don't make plans for the weekend. Don't have any dinner dates scheduled starting on Thursday night because we're going to get these nominees done the easy, collegial way. Or apparently the hard way."

Only one of President Trump's nominees has been confirmed thus far: former Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was voted in unanimously on Monday as the new Secretary of State.

We asked 10 Republican senators: ‘Is Kamala Harris Black?’ Things got weird fast.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans weren’t ready for former President Donald Trump to wade into the realm of Vice President Kamala Harris’ race and ethnicity while speaking Wednesday to a room of Black journalists.

But Trump did. And now the GOP is dealing with the fallout.

In Chicago, Trump told attendees of a National Association of Black Journalists convention that Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was "Indian all the way" until “she became a Black person” in recent years. (Harris’ mother is Indian and originally from India, her father is Black and originally from Jamaica.)

So Raw Story took Trump’s claim to 10 Senate Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

‘What?’

“Is Kamala Harris Black?” Raw Story asked Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) about Harris, who served in the U.S. Senate from 2017 to 2021.

“What?” Tuberville exclaimed.

“That came up for debate yesterday by the head of your party,” Raw Story explained.

ALSO READ: 'That's a lie': The 10 quotes Trump said to Black journalists that led to outbursts

“I don’t get in those debates,” Tuberville said. “Is she an American — that's what I don’t know. Is Trump an American? If they’re both Americans, naturalized citizens, hey, they get an opportunity to run for president.”

“Are you convinced that she is?”

“A citizen?” Tuberville asked. “Yeah, yeah.”

“Some people are saying Trump's comments yesterday are a throwback to birtherism under Obama.”

“I don't get in that debate. Come on,” Tuberville said. “We need to talk about policies.”

“Curious — is Kamala Harris Black?” Raw Story then asked Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) after he voted in the Capitol on Thursday.

“Yes, we know what her ancestry is. She's half Indian, half Jamaican,” Johnson replied.

“Do you need to educate the former president on that?” Raw Story asked of Trump. “Or do you think he knows that?”

“He's just pointing out that she's kind of claimed different heritages at different times in her political career. That's true, isn't it? He's pointing out the truth,” Johnson said. “You can question whether that was the smart thing to point out, but he's just pointing out what the truth is.”

Trump made GOP leaders — present and next gen — squirm

“Senator McConnell, is Kamala Harris Black?” Raw Story asked the Senate minority leader and he and his security detail made their way to the Senate floor. “It seems to be up for debate in your party.”

McConnell — who’s announced he’s stepping down as the Republican Senate leader after the November elections — smiled and, per the leader’s usual, said nothing as he walked onto the Senate floor.

The next generation of Republican leaders weren’t so stoic.

“Is Kamala Harris Black?” Raw Story asked McConnell’s former right hand man, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who’s vying to replace him.

“I can assume we're all a combination of different genetic gene pools, so I don't know,” Cornyn told Raw Story. “I think we're all sort of a mixture.”

McConnell’s current number two appeared annoyed by the question.

“As far as I know,” Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-SD) — who’s also running to replace McConnell — told Raw Story. “I'm focused on the issues.”

The third Senate Republican running to replace McConnell came with a proverbial doctor’s note.

“Is Kamala Harris Black?” Raw Story asked as an elevator took Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) up to the Senate floor for a vote.

“I didn't hear the comments,” Scott told Raw Story.

“He said ‘she turned Black recently,’” Raw Story noted.

“I’m always talking about issues,” Scott said.

Another reporter interjected: “Do comments like that make you feel uncomfortable in any way?”

“I didn't see the comment,” Scott replied.

“Do you avoid TV and the paper just to not have to talk about Trump?” Raw Story pressed.

“Actually, I don’t watch enough TV,” Scott said as he laughed. “Actually at the time I was giving a speech on the Senate floor.”

“Yeah?”

“I really was,” Scott said.

“Saved by the bell.”

GOP war on Democrats’ identities

But Democrats fear this bell has only begun to ring as Harris and Trump — and their revved up bases — now sprint toward the election.

“I assume so. She says so,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Raw Story while walking to his office after voting. “I think she's Jamaican-American, right? And Indian.”

“What’d you make of that exchange yesterday?” Raw Story pressed.

“Here's what I think. My issue is not how she describes herself or her heritage — that’s totally up to her — my issue is what she says she’s going to do as president," Hawley said. “It's with her policies, which I think are insane.”

“Some people say it’s Trump stoking Charlottesville — ‘they will replace us’?” Raw Story said, referencing the racist Unite the Right demonstrations of 2017 that left one woman dead.

“Well, you will never convince me that Donald Trump is racist,” Hawley — who infamously revved protestors up by raising his clenched fist on Jan. 6, 2021 — said. “I don't think he's racist at all.”

Hawley continued: “I thought he was needling her a little bit and that racial identity politics are just inherently malleable. And, frankly, absurd. I mean, yes, she's an Indian-American. She's a Jamaican-American. Most Americans are multiple — something-American. And, you know, they've got ‘White Dudes for Kamala’ and ‘Asian Pacific Islanders for Kamala.’ I mean, the whole thing is just, most people look at this, like, ‘this is ridiculous.’”

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) — who views the entire exchange as “careless politics” — let out a squeak of laughter when asked, “Is Kamala Harris Black?”

ALSO READ: Texas sheriffs engage conspiracy theorist who created Trump enemies 'target list'

“Well, she's a woman of color,” Cramer replied. “And she said — and she's a — from what I know and what I read — she's a Black. Part Black. She's part Indian. And both are wonderful.”

Cramer continued by offering that “when identity politics play a role — or racial identity — plays a role in hiring practices or nominating, you can hardly complain about it if that's the credential that got you the job. In her case, I think what … President Trump's intent was, she's the one that wasn't Black in her own mind —- not in anybody else's — and then when it's convenient, she becomes Black. That's his point.”

Cramer added: “I've seen interviews of some other people of color that were really good, because what I think happens is … I think, it's already baked in to those people. To other people who don't want color to be the reason that people look at them as successful, they're offended by her,” Cramer said. “But again, it's not that he's necessarily wrong. As entertaining as it is, there's no need to do it.”

As for Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), she, too, said she wasn’t that familiar with Trump’s take on Harris’ race.

“I didn't really see it. Obviously, it's been in the news,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) told Raw Story. “I think sticking to the policies is the better strategy here. And so I'll leave it at that.”

Outside the Senate chambers Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) trashed Harris’ record as vice president and highlighted her connection with Biden.

“She and Joe Biden have spent four years undermining our friends and allies and showing weakness and appeasement to our enemies, which has led to endless wars and chaos abroad,” Cruz said.

“Is she Black?” Raw Story asked Cruz of Harris.

Cruz didn’t reply as he walked away onto the Senate floor to vote.