One stupid son of a Mitch

Ok so as an elected politician one of the unofficial parts of the job is usually going on TV/Radio ect  doing interviews. And clearly if your on TV all the time, your liable to say one or two stupid things....just as any politician elected in the last 40 years.

That said, on CNN's State of the Union this morning (3/15/15 for those reading the blog after it was posted) Mitch McConnell gave one of the worst interviews I have ever seen, and managed to exceed the number of allowable stupid comments a politician can have in a career in a single interview.

As usual, when I do something like this, I'm going to give the quotes first, my comments/explanations as to why they are stupid second.  Since I cant find short vidoes of McConnell individual comments I'm pulling from the CNN transcript, which does have a disclaimer it might be edited later, however based on what I saw and read it seems accurate.

Starting from the top:


"DANA BASH: Let's just talk first about the timing of this.
There's a lot of discussion about the fact that this was done in a rushed way, signed quickly, before senators wanted to get out of town for the snowstorm.

When did Senator Cotton come to you with this letter? Explain the process.

MCCONNELL: Well, Dana, first, let me just say, I think this is a good case of selective outrage.

I remember reading about Senator Robert Byrd when he was the majority leader flying to Moscow during the negotiations over the SALT II treaty explaining to the Russians the Senate's role in treaty ratification. And John Kerry, when he was a senator, flew to Managua and met with a communist dictator there, Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of engaging in terrorism.

So, look, members of Congress expressing themselves about important matters, not only at home, but around the world, is not unprecedented.

So, the main point here I think everybody needs to understand is the president is about to make what we believe will be a very bad deal. He clearly doesn't want Congress involved it at all. And we're worried about it. We don't think he ought to make a bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world.


I signed the letter. I don't think it was a mistake. It's no more unusual than Robert Byrd going to Moscow or John Kerry going to Managua."

Alright, actually have to give some credit to McConnell for pulling up some similar examples. Of course all of those examples were of 1 individual, and all generated massive controversy. But still not a bad defense.

However then we leap directly into the stupid, when he starts taking about how this is a "bad deal."

Based on WHAT exactly? We dont know anything about the deal, other than one is happening.

Therefore I must assume that the bad part of the deal is its existence in the first place. Now of course it exists to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, so if your against that premise, your kinda pro Iranian nuke/anti peace.

Or in otherwords EXACTLY what your critics are saying about you.

So much for a good defense. And it keeps going down hill from there  

"BASH: Did you go -- did you go over it? Did you look at it, suggest...

MCCONNELL: Yes, I read it. I read it.

BASH: Make suggestions?

MCCONNELL: I thought it was entirely appropriate to explain that the process is going to include Congress at some point."

Except as your own damn website states, this process probably wouldnt include congress.

If you dont take my word for it, lets skip ahead a couple of minutes in this interview

"MCCONNELL: I think what we need to talk about here is the substance of the issue.

Apparently, the administration is on the cusp of entering into a very bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world that would allow them to continue to have their nuclear infrastructure. We're alarmed about it. A number of Democrats are alarmed about it. We will be acting. We will either be voting on a bill that would require the deal to come to Congress. The president says he would veto that. "

Ok so first, not sure how McConnell knows the details of the deal, cause as I said the public knows nothing. But thats not really the point here.

The point is the last two sentences. Congress is voting on a bill requiring the deal to come to congress.

But you also just said the fact the deal was ALREADY going to involve congress is the reason why the letter is appropriate.

So then why would you need to vote on bringing something to congress that is already on its way to congress hence why your letter was a-ok?

Don't worry its a rhetorical question....you we lying the first time, because even you know there is no good excuse in telling Iran not to trust our government as you did.

Of course, probibly due to the several minute interval between contradictions there was no follow up beyond "so you dont think this letter hurt you?" "no" and they moved on the next subject.........at which point McConnell proceeded to put his foot in his mouth AGAIN.

"BASH: OK. Let's move on to human trafficking.
It's a bill that has -- talk about bipartisan support -- broad bipartisan support to stop human trafficking.

MCCONNELL: Yes.

BASH: It stalled in the Senate this past week. Democrats say that they are holding it up now because they discovered what they call an anti-abortion provision in there. And they are demanding that you take it out.

Just sort of big picture, this is the kind of thing that you said you wanted to stop. It was sort of the gridlock of the old Senate happening again.

MCCONNELL: Yes. I'm glad you brought this up.

The Democrats are acting the same way in the minority they did in the majority. They don't seem to like to vote. Here are the facts. This is -- was a noncontroversial bill. It came out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. The language that they now profess to find offensive was in there from the beginning. "

On if the wording was changed or not, I have no idea. So for the moment I'm willing to concede that point to McConnell. Mostly because my focus was really on the first two sentences of the last paragraph.

Its one of those things that I'm sure sounds great.....assuming you dont understand english. I honestly could almost write a blog about the breakdown of internal logic just in those two sentences along.

For example. lets accept McConnell premise, that the Democrats just dont like to vote. Now while they were in the majority that certainly would have been a problem since the majority controls what bill. But since they are now in the minority, that shouldnt matter right?

Well not unless the minority could somehow control what comes to the floor...via this process we call a filibuster. Of course if the minority can filibuster maybe its not the democrats fault nothing got passed in the last two years?
 
Except of course, oddly McConnell didnt say the word "filibuster" (probably because he knows his is the first name that comes to mind when people hear it). Which might draw people to a different conclusion, that Mitch McConnell is to inept at his job to do it unless he can get the minority party to do it for him.

Yea....no matter how you slice it there is no way that sentence does good things for McConnell. Which I imagine will be a repeated problem for him if he really cant bring himself to say the word "Filibuster" when trying to explain to his voters why he couldnt do "X"

Anyways back to the interview. I actually cut the final paragraph of McConnell's previous point because I wanted to deal with it separately so here we go:

"And this will have an impact on the timing of considering the new attorney general. Now, I had hoped to turn to her next week, but, if we can't finish the trafficking bill, she will be put off again. They need to come to grips with this. I offered them a simple up-or-down vote if they wanted to take out language that they all voted -- that they all voted for three months ago."

Wait....so because the Dem's wont give you your abortion bill you wont give them an attorney general?

Thats not really a great idea for 2 reasons

1) the current attorney general eric holder is hated by republicans possibly more than Obama. You do realize he cant leave until you confirm his replacement right? So the longer that takes the longer your stuck with an AG your voters think should be removed from office ASAP.....

Democrats meanwhile love Holder, and many are sad to see him go. So threatening to not let him leave really isnt going to get democrats to cave to your demands. As long as they hold the line the Dem's get 100% of what they want, and you get nothing.

Great job convincing them to negotiate.......

2)  if confirmed Loretta Lynch would be the first black female AG in history.
And black folks are one of those groups the GOP keeps trying to reach out to....you think they will take kindly to seeing this delayed? I dont.

To make matters worse, Mitch McConnell should be at least in his 3rd, possibly 5th year as majority leader. Except in both 2010 and 2012 the GOP blew a what appeared to be a sure thing by focusing on 1 issue. Abortion/birth control.

So coming up on a presidential election, and a year numbers dont favor the GOP in the senate, you really want to focus attention on abortion by making it a bigger deal via linking it to something else?

More to the point, you really want to link your parties poison bill to the confirmation of a historic AG, so that you cant also shoot yourself in the foot on minority outreach at the same time?

Well I mean....what could possibly go wrong?

Unless maybe, just maybe, these two are linked in a way I dont see. Lets find out:

"BASH: So, it sounds like you are threatening to hold up Loretta Lynch, who has been in limbo for months and months...

MCCONNELL: It's not a threat. We need to finish this human trafficking bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. That's the next item.

BASH: Right.

MCCONNELL: It's on -- it's on the Senate floor right now.

BASH: Right.

MCCONNELL: We need to finish that, so we have time to turn to the attorney general, because, the next week, we will be doing the budget, and two weeks -- and the next two weeks after that, Congress is not in session.

BASH: So, unless Democrats give in, Loretta Lynch's nomination will not be on the Senate floor next week?

MCCONNELL: We have to finish the human trafficking bill. The Loretta Lynch nomination comes next. And as soon as we finish the human trafficking bill, we will turn to the attorney general.

Oh. I get it. It turns out the two ARE linked, via the incompetency of Mitch McConnell's senate, which it seems can only do 1 thing at a time.

Just like McConnell's senate....except they wouldnt have managed the gum

 Which raises another question.....assuming the bill to bring the Iran deal to congress actually passes.....when exactly would you get around to voting on it?

Cause you seem kinda busy in the the next month or so....so I would assume maybe by may you would have found some time to vote on that bill.

And note that's just the bill.....presumably the deal itself would have to wait its turn in line until everything else got taken care of.....1 at a time of course.

Of course, at that rate none of this matters since I'm sure the deal will be done in less than a month.....so in less time then you need to bring the bill to the floor.

So what was your justification for the Iran letter again? since by your own admission the Senate is really really busy, so probably couldnt take on doing a second thing at once.....it might hurt your little teeny tiny brains.....

Mercifully for McConnell, other than some speculation on who might be the GOP nominee in 2016, that was the end of his interview, so he managed to get away without saying anything else stupid......this time anyways, at the rate he's going I'm sure he will have plenty of chances in the future.