Mitch McConnell on Being Senate Majority Leader

On Applying the Nuclear Option and Comity

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution gives the United States Senate the prerogative to give "Advice and Consent" in confirming Executive Branch nominations, especially the judiciary. For most of the Republic, confirmations of Supreme Court justices were not voted on in a markedly partisan manner. 

The Senate, which liked to consider itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, usually operated in a manner which vetted high court nominees in a conscientiously deferential manner to the President.  For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been chief counsel of the ACLU and a noted feminist attorney, yet she garnered a 93-3 confirmation vote in 1993. 

Admittedly, this was not always the case. President George H.W. Bush's nominee of Clarence Thomas endured a contentious confirmation hearings  in 1991 which he likened to a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks".  

And  of course the vitriolic attacks on Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan's 1987 pick to fill a Supreme Court opening, resulted in the verb "to Bork" to be added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2002.  But the adamant opposition from the left stemmed, however peripherally, to nitpicking "flaws" in the nominees.

Much of the comity that the Senate enjoyed was due to Cloture Rule (Senate Rule XXII) which was instituted in 1917.  In order to end debate on a filibuster, three-fifths of Senators (today 60 votes) is required.  Applying that to judicial nominees, Presidents often picked less stridently partisan or controversial candidates, as some Senate Minority votes were needed in order to advance to the confirmation vote.  

Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) found this 3/5ths Cloture requirement to be inconvenient in his effort to aid President Barack Obama in packing the judiciary (particularly changing the balance in the 4th Circuit, a.k.a. "The Rocket Docket").  Thus, in 2013 Reid exercised "The Nuclear Option" which abrogated Senate Rule XXII for judicial confirmations save Supreme Court nominees. 

 Reid was warned on the Senate floor by then Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that you will regret using the nuclear option.   In the 115th Congress, when Senate Democrats became openly obstructionistic about any nominations made by President Donald Trump, Majority Leader McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to include Supreme Court nominees, which resulted in Neil Gorsuch being confirmed by a 54-45 vote.

After Justice Anthony Kennedy's announced retirement from the Nation's High Court, Democrats have campaigned for the Senate to delay confirmation hearings for the SCOTUS opening until after the 2018 midterm elections.  Their facile rationalization is that Republicans ought to follow the same standard used to deny Merritt Garland a confirmation hearing in 2016 because it was an election year.  Of course, this partisan plea ignores that it was a Presidential election year and had over 70 years of precedent.  In addition, Democrats are not in the majority and they set the agenda. Elections do have consequences.  

So does changing and exploiting rules.  Democrats might have some gravitas to their suggestion to stall SCOTUS confirmation hearing until after the midterms if they were not already slow walking nearly all Trump confirmations.   Senate rules allow for 30 hours of debate on each nominee.  Democrats have been routinely requiring the entire 30 hours of debate, which would mean that President Trump's picks could receive senatorial "advise and consent" in nine years. So the threat that Democrats will further slow walk Senate proceedings in retaliation or to forestall a SCOTUS confirmation vote is meaningless. 

The recalcitrant response of Democrats should be a cue to Majority Leader McConnell on how to react to the diminution of comity in the Senate.  If Democrats are going to slow walk everything in retaliation or retribution for the Senate leadership for exercising their "advice and consent" on Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner, then keep them in session.  McConnell already effectively cancelled the traditional long summer recess so they can meet their budgetary duties. So they get to spend the dog days of summer on Capital Hill and enjoy the swampy weather in the District of Calamity (sic).

But the lack of comity and the need for elected officials to do their job might mean spending more time on Capitol Hill.  Since Democrats seem to relish filibusters and slowing the process down, the Majority Leader should change how filibutsters are treated.  Instead of the failure of a cloture vote resulting in the legislation (or the nomination) being pulled, let the debate continue.  If legislators want to invoke "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and talk until they are hoarse and drop from exhaustion, that is their prerogative.  But just as the nuclear option changed things in unexpected ways, tinkering with the filibuster might have adverse effects on Senate minority rights in the future.

Moreover, so that the Senate is not simply the place where legislation goes to and dies, remain in session through October instead of taking the election break.  From an objective standpoint, they will be doing their jobs (instead of concentrating on getting re-elected).  Politically, this hurts Senate Democrats (as they have 25 of 33 seats up, including 10 in states where Mr. Trump won).  And it might make obstructionism less appealing and allow incumbents to give comity a chance.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Warns of a Blue Wave in November

Revisiting the Loyalty from the So-Called Basket of Deplorables

Social media reaction to President Donald Trump signing the 2,200 page $1.3 Trillion Omnibus spending bill for the remaining six months of FY 18 has been swift and sharp.  Many who want to Drain the Swamp lamented that Mr. Trump caved in on a spending boondoggle which made Democrat leaders like House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 11th) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quite happy.   But in the wake of this spending spree, Trump loyalists took to Twitter as “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their leader (sic)” with a tenacious and acrimonious approach.

Basically, Deplorables dictated that you are either with him or against him. No criticisms could be countenanced. Agreeing to the Omnibus may have been a bad choice, but what did you expect him to do when everything is arrayed against him. Wondering whether President Trump lost his legislative leverage was considered heresy and such nay sayers were implored to “Stop bitchin’ and get crackin!”.

Reflecting upon the irrational response of Deplorables, it was reminiscent of trepidations of a Troll Party takeover of the GOP as Mr. Trump entered the Republican run for the White House.  That analysis did not anticipate that Mr. Trump would be the last man standing after the Republican 2016 Presidential primaries, much less that he would win the White House that November .

If one were to try to characterize these voters, one would presume that they are previously dis-affected with the political process. Consequently, they seem to dismiss the present political process or are ignorant of the workings of the system.  The Trump phenomenon points to a charismatic ordinary man who is a successful non politician who is poised to shake up the system.

It is easy to appreciate Deplorables’  exasperation over how the political system is not working well, but when one dialogs with them about details of how to change, it devolves into populist platitudes or invincible ignorance about governance of our constitutional Republic.  Tellingly, one colloquy with such a Trump-eteer was summarized as: “pugnacious, smearing and ambiguous”, which seems consistent with contemporary experience. 

Sen. Rand Paul

When pressing for practical policies aside from the ambiguous “stand by your man”, there is a tendency of deflection.  It was surprising that one interlocutor tried to shut down realpolitik post Omnibus analysis by insisting one had no right to comment unless one had a PhD in Political Science.  

Rep. David Brat 

Yet a few exchanges later, the tenor had changed to insist that you have to do your own homework and you didn’t read the Omnibus bill.  Well, neither did Congress, but trusted sources like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Representative David Brat (R-VA 7th) had highlighted egregious examples, but then those pearls of wisdom were suspect because it was mouthing others’ opinions.

For a political junkie who is not part of the Establishment, it can be vexing to have what could be characterized as a dialog with the deaf.

In many ways, this voter segment was an able army in the 2016 election cycle, especially when the opposition was so antithetical. Viscerally, they were probably aligned with Steve Bannon’s “burn down the house” approach to politics.



With the benefit of hindsight, it is easier to see this nascent Troll Party (ironically nicknamed “The Basket of Deplorables) by Hillary Clinton, as being praetorian populists, who are inclined to advocate any line from their dear leader. While it would seem that Deplorables tend to be individuals previously alienated from the political process and who are oriented toward an instinct to "Drain the Swamp", this must take place with conventional politics under our rule of law system. It may be appealing for a President to rail against earmarks, but unless there is a constitutional amendment for the Line Item Veto, these obtuse budgetary battles carry the day. 

Ex Speaker John Boehner

Others who want to Drain the Swamp may well be the rump of Constitutional Conservatives who were instrumental in sweeping the GOP back into power in the House in 2011 and the Senate in 2014.  Despite their tenure on Capitol Hill, they have not successfully infiltrated Republican leadership (though they were decisive in declaring the chair vacant and ousting Speaker John Boehner from power in 2015). 

There have been other prospective rifts in the alliance between Deplorables and Tea Party types, most notably prior to the Schumer shutdown in February 2018, in which President Trump called the Democrats’ bluff about DACA and there was a brief budgetary shut down. Those of a conservative bent expressed consternation that Trump had abandoned his mantra to “Build the Wall” to regularize a large swath of illegal immigrants. Because Schumer was blamed, this did not cause a serious split among those who want to shake up the system. 

It is my supposition that President Trump’s acquiescence on the Omnibus cram down spending spree may precipitate a waning of enthusiasm among the conservative base. This six month funding of the federal government increased domestic spending by 13% while busting the sequester caps on military spending.  Fiscal conservatives wonder if the Federal government will ever really reduce its spending willingly and adding over a trillion in half a year is unsustainable and virtually indistinguishable from the Obama era.

Big “Build the Wall” backers will be chagrined at how President Trump’s primary election promise has been thwarted.  Sure, the Trump Administration brags that $1.6 Billion has been allocated and work will start the next business day.  But if one looks at the specifics, it’s half that amount and there are provisions that the funds can not be spent on any of the Wall prototypes that President Trump traveled to California to inspect. Of course, building the wall is currently estimated to cost $26 Billion, so the allocation is a drop in the bucket.  Maybe Mexico will pick up the rest of the tab. Moreover, despite the pugilistic rhetoric about fighting jurisdictions which thwart immigration laws, Sanctuary Cities received full funding in the Omnibus.

If the conservative base is less than enthused about supporting the Administration, things may become bleak for Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.  In the Senate, the 2018 cycle should be challenging for Democrats to achieve a majority, as they have to defend 25 of 33 seats up for election. But Republicans hold a slim one vote majority, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has spent lots of time back in his home state convalescing from acute cancer.

In the House of Representatives , a shift of two dozen seats will bring Democrats back to power. Considering the court imposed redrawing of districts in Pennsylvania, the GOP is likely to lose up to five seats. If Democrats take over the House, they are more likely to impeach President Trump on nearly any grounds rather than work with him.

Despite the apparent depressing of conservative enthusiasm because of President Trump signing the Omnibus bill, the Democrat National Committee and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee are dead broke whereas the RNC and the RNCC are flush with cash. Perhaps the smart money is voting with campaign contributions.  However, as the 2016 cycle showed, money is not everything, otherwise it would be Madam President Hillary Clinton.

Some Deplorables are insisting on social media that President Trump has more cards up his sleeve about the budget, and proffer a prediction that Omnibus language is only a suggestion and that the Chief Executive will do what he wants, such as using the military to build the border wall.  If this novel approach was actually pursued, it would be enjoined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a nanosecond and would give substance to Democrats filing new articles of impeachment. But it would gladden the heart of the Basket of Deplorables for a bit. 

About Senator Joe Manchin and a Victory for the Swamp

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has been representing West Virginia in the Senate since the death of Senator Robert Byrd in 2010.  Manchin ran on a pledge protect Second Amendment rights as well as to to take dead aim of Barack Obama's Cap and Trade policy, which severely threatened the coal industry.  

While he may call himself a centrist or perhaps a conservative Democrat, in modern terms he ran as a Republican.  But now Mountain State voters may well wonder if Manchin was just blowing smoke around election season.

As Manchin vies for a second full term, he is considered the most vulnerable Senate incumbent for Election 20118.  Manchin's refusal to drift to the left endangers himself with the progressive drift of Democrats, yet he is chary about crossing the aisle to the Republican side.

So in a bid to save his seat, Senator Manchin took the the Senate floor to promote a pledge of bipartisan cooperation and agreement.  While that sounds noble and constructive, the reality is that Manchin was coercing his colleagues not to campaign against him or raise money against him.

 An incumbent wants to ensure that notable opposition can not criticize him on the hustings because of a supposed pledge of bipartisan cooperation.  How convenient! No wonder pundits and comedians are so critical of anything labeled bipartisan. 

Radio commentator Larry O'Connor surmises that Manchin is trying to obscure the fact that he votes with Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) regarding the tax reform. Manchin also campaigned hard for Hillary Clinton in 2016, which proved quite out of step with his West Virginia constituents.  

The Republican National Committee used Twitter to expose Senator Manchin's Janus faced campaigning, as the supposed maverick conservative Democrat posed with both Planned Parenthood as well as Pro Life activists.  

Manchin laughed off this apparent hypocrisy saying that he'd pose for pictures with anyone.  Larry O'Connor laments that this was one more victory for the swamp co-opting a maverick.  

 It may be better to think of this as  sort of a pyrrhic victory which salts the swamp and causes the District of Calamity to be drained of unviable swamp creatures and Congress critters.

H/T: Washington Times

Luis Gutierrez on Democrats' Priorities

Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL 4th) allegedly was so incensed that Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th) is willing to de-link DACA from budget negotiations that he has threatened to walk out of the Democrat Caucus.  Mainstream media pundits presume that Republicans will have trouble retaining control of Congress because of disgruntled members exposing fractures in party unity.   Gutierrez's threat indicates that trouble in getting out the vote and maintaining party unity also is applicable for Democrats. 

Wags wonder if this threat is as believable as Gutierrez excuse for walking out of President Trump's State of the Union to be positioned for post SOTU standups rather than reacting to the chamber resounding in chants of "USA". 

Does Fire and Fury Signify Nothing?

Author Michael Wolff bragged to BBC Radio that  his book "Fire and Fury" will help the public to see that Trump is the Emperor who has no clothes and that realization will end his presidency.  While that is great copy designed to stoke book sales, it does not jibe with reality.

Speaking of reality, consider "Fire and Fury"'s prologue, which admits that Wolff included contradicting narratives and many may be boldly untrue.  Including, it would seem, Wolff's supposed "interviews" with President Trump.  When a prologue basically states that he is just printing lies "in a Trumpian fashion" with no editorial discretion nor effort to ferret out the truth, it makes the narrative quite dubious.

Wolff has intimated that he has some of the interviews on tape.  If so, release them as the publisher Henry Holt takes two weeks to rush print a second edition.  Ex Trump White House strategist Steve Bannon had profane prognostications about Russiagate and scathing assessments of the First Family.  This sounds plausible considering the persona of "Sloppy Steve",and Bannon never really denied the quotes. It would be interesting, however, to hear his state of sobriety as well as put his charges on a time line.  Civic minded journalists anxious to impeach might want to facilitate testimony for Special Counsel Mueller.

Wolff thinks that books flying off the shelves at tony District of Calamity bookstores is a bellweather for the end of the Trump presidency.  But away from the talking heads circuit on the Eastern seaboard, it is unlikely that "Fire and Fury" is electrifying the public or changing minds.

On the one hand, those suffering from progressive Trump Derangement Syndrome will eat up the Wolff accusations, and other politicos will presumably buy books which soon after will be repurposed as door stops.  But they are willing to buy anything which comports with their confirmation bias.  

For example, a Twitter wag circulated a post about President Trump demanding "The Gorilla Channel" be available for watching in the residence on his first night at the White House.  



Even after it was disclosed that many Trump haters had been taken for a joke posting, MSNBC's Joy Reid insisted that it still rang true.  





And there was also the Los Angeles Times Op/Ed columnist who contended: "Why we believe Michael Wolff? Because, for now, it is too good not to". 

On the other hand, Trump's so called Basket of Deplorables will brush off any accusations against the 45th President.   And many Republicans who were not keen on Trump will see the liberal media campaign against him and have a "rally around the flag" effect.

It would seem that the major effect of the "Fire and Fury" rollout is the self-immolation of Steve Bannon.  At the 2017 Values Voters Summit, Bannon re-emerged after his ouster from the West Wing of the White House with a strategy of declaring war against the GOP Establishment.  That would be in alignment with the Trump "Drain the Swamp" rallying cry.  

[L] Steve Bannon [R] Judge Roy Moore

To that end, Bannon championed failed Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. But Bannon's caustic comments in "Fire and Fury" towards his boss and the Trump operation at the campaign and in the White House exemplifies his "burn the whole system down" reputation, thus alienating him from Trump devotees.  Now Bannon is without obvious political allies and he may well lose his bully stick platform with Breitbart News. 

Even some scrupulous left-of-center friends wonder why Wolff's tome has drawn so much attention, considering his sloppy journalism.  It seems like the most plausible answer is that "Fire and Fury" is another means to feed the beast to stoke hatred against Trump. 

In order for "The Resistance" to prosper, it needs to maintain the Orwellian "Two Minute Hate" that inspired a half million women gather on the National Mall on January 21st 2017 to protest President Trump's inauguration as 45th U.S. President wearing "pussy hats". 

Women [Who Hate Trump] March, January 21, 2017, Washington, DC

But when that failed to engender follow-up identity politics mass protests, the emphasis shifted to Russiagate.  But after a yearlong barrage of "Russia, Russia, Russia" negative news against Trump, it seems that Hillary! 2016 campaign and Democrat operatives were the ones colluding with the Russian Federation.  The emphasis on sexual harassment did not turn towards Trump but instead implicated many liberal media and entertainment figures.  So now, it seems that the modus operandi is highlighting Trump Administrative infighting, cementing the man-child meme of the Commander in Chief and perpetuating the myth that Trump's end is near. 

"Fire and Fury" may not signify nothing, but the implosion of Steve Bannon might not have been the outcome which the Trump-hating industry would desire in the long run.

Bob Corker Celebrates Democrats Winning Alabama Senate Special Election

To What End Does The Mooch Diss Bannon Some Moore (sic)?

"The Mooch's" animus against Steve Bannon and sticking the Establishment in the eye is nothing new. During his ten day tenure in the White House communication shop, Anthony Scaramucci angled to distance President Trump from the likes of Steve Bannon.

After the GOP defeat in the Alabama Senate Special Election, and with Republicans holding a slim one seat majority in the Senate for the remainder of the 115th Congress, perhaps "The Mooch" is trying to guide the Trump Administration to work work cooperatively with Wall Street Democrats to get things done. 

Lindsey Graham on the Gift That Keeps On Giving

Senator Al Franken on Allegations of Inappropriateness

The national attention was drawn to the Senate floor for remarks by Senator Al Franken (D-MN).  After the eight woman accused Franken of inappropriate sexual misconduct, with a damning photo from a 2005 USO tour, much of the Senate Democrat caucus urged him to resign. 

Al Franken on 2005 USO Tour

Yet during Franken's speech, he neither sounded contrite nor did he really resign

Franken's joke resignation was promised to be in a few weeks. Franken then proceeded to cudgel Republican President Donald Trump and Roy Moore over unproven allegations of sexual misconduct as well as as touting his progressive feminist political stances. 

Perhaps Franken's decision depends on whether Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R-AL) wins the December 12th special election and is seated in the Senate.  When the heat is off, Franken may choose not to hurl himself into the fire. 

Franken's resignation was intended to give Democrats the high ground and to echo Fox News' Brit Hume: "Make Roy Moore into a Republican hood ornament".   But will offering a scrappy defense and not immediately resigning accomplish that political objective? 

Franken insisted that he would be vindicated of wrongdoing during his service in the Senate by the Senate Ethics Committee.  That is a good bet because that body never expels members. It is a place to bury allegations of wrongdoing. 

Time will tell if the delayed departure will accomplish the Democrat political objectives or it will cloud their campaigns against their electoral opponents. 

On a Rock Star #ParasiteRodeoClown

The anti-Trump controversy of the week seems to be alleged insensitivity of President Trump when he called a Gold Star spouse of a Special Force soldier killed in Niger.  

Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-FL 24th) claims to have listened to the call and insists that Mr. Trump was cruel when he told the widow of Sgt. Johnson that "he knew what he was volunteering for". 

Trump Administration Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly (USMC, ret.) spoke with authority before the White House Press Corps to share how Mr. Trump echoed his words about expressing the bravery of the fallen soldier, and that it was extraordinary for the Commander-in-Chief to make such a phone call.  When Rep. Wilson learned that the White House had focused its attention on her allegations, Wilson laughed and claimed that she was a Rock Star.  When later questioned about Gen. Kelly's characterization of her being an "empty barrel that makes the most noise",  the flamboyant Florida Congresswoman claimed that he used a racist term.

It is not surprising that Frederica Wilson is all in on Trump hatred.  She reflects the Congressional Black Caucus' predisposition to call everything they oppose racist and actively invoke Impeachment of the 45th President.  Since Rep. Wilson was on the air within ten minutes of this phone call, Bill O'Reilly opined that the alleged indignation was a set up. 

What is notable is how former 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman came out with such sharp elbows towards Gen. Kelly in defense of Frederica Wilson.  

Cynics might wonder if some of "The Resistance" is shifting away from the Russian narrative because of the Clinton connections to the Uranium One scandal.  If so, it is an odd choice to champion a Rock Star Parasite Rodeo Clown.  No wonder why politically active conservative entertainer James Woods calls Frederica Wilson God's gift to Republicans.

Stephen Bannon Declares War Against Republican Establishment

Although he opened his 2017 Value Voters Summit speech by echoing Ecclesiastes about the time of the season, former Trump Senior Adviser Stephen K. Bannon kept true to his street fighting instincts by declaring political war in a bombastic address to Evangelical voters in Washington DC.

Bannon voiced frustration that many Republicans in the Senate were either Janus faced or openly hostile to their President Donald Trump.  Bannon particularly took aim at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Foreign Policy Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN).



To wit, Bannon declared war on the GOP Establishment.  As Bannon is no longer shackled as a White House West Wing advisor, Bannon is free to support the Trump nationalist populist agenda from the outside.  Bannon intimated that he is working hard to primary many RINOs who do not support the Trump agenda.

Bannon claimed that there is time for Establishment sinners to repent, but otherwise he insisted that Deplorables will come after those not supporting Trump during the 2018 primaries.  

FRC President Tony Perkins at VVS17

This message was well received by the Values Voters Summit crowd.  A constant theme during the three day conference of politically active Evangelicals was "Drain to Swamp."  To underline that sentiment, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins honored his Louisiana roots and jocularly dressed in muck wear to open the Value Voters Summit. 

Rep. Trey Gowdy Galled by "Dutch Uncle" Chuck Schumer's Modest Proposals

The Resistance plan for Democrats in the District of Calamity seems to be the Soros inspired discredit your opponents to dictate the political agenda.  

While talk about the impeachment of President Trump has temporarily waned among most elected officials, there is a full court press to besmirch Trump advisers and allies in Washington by implicating them as untrustworthy due to the supposed Russian interference with the 2012 General Election of Mr. Trump.  Currently, this is culminating on a call for and independent counsel to investigate the charges which intelligence chiefs have already dismissed.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took the lead in casting doubt about House Intelligence Select Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA 22), who went to the White House to brief the Administration there was incidental surveillance of the Trump family and Trump transition staff and American names had been improperly unmasked and leaked.  Schumer was upset that Intelligence Chairman Nunes did not go to his Democrat Intelligence Minority Leader Adam Schiff (D-CA 28th) first, thus the accusation that Nunes is in the pocket of President Trump and must step aside.

Congressman Trey Gowdy  dismissed the disparagement of Chairman Nunes by "Dutch Uncle Chuck Schumer with prejudice. 

Of course, Senator Schumer has not been subtle about being an obstructionist to the Trump Administration unless the President totally accedes to Democrat druthers. 

DNC Chair Tom Perez on Health Care

Chuck Woolery on Republicans

GOP Party Favors?

Even before he enters the Senate Club, Senator-elect Joe Manchin (D-WV) is being courted by Republican insiders to switch parties.  Manchin will be sworn in during the lame-duck session next week since it was a special election caused by the death of long-time Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV).

Aside from dangling choice Committee assignments (like Environmental and Natural Resources) to the new Senator for switching caucuses, the pot might be sweetened by funding pet projects.  There is talk that Republicans would back a plant that converts coal into bio-diesel fuel, which has been stalled in the 111th Congress.   This coal conversion scheme is a $1 billion pet project of the erstwhile Governor of West Virginia and would certainly show that he knows how to bring home the bacon.

Manchins aides are demur about party switching.  While Team Manchin claims, "He was elected as a Democrat and he has to go to Washington as a Democrat to try, in good faith, to make the changes in the party he campaigned on.”  But the same Manchin insider also said, "Now, if that doesn't work and Democrats aren't receptive, I don't know what possibilities that leaves open." That was such a great political answer that manages to converse out of both sides of his mouth.

These party favor forays seem to indicate that Republican leadership in the Senate does not appreciate the Tea Party premises.  Funding a billion dollar earmark for political favor in a backroom deal seems tone deaf to the good governance grievances of Tea Party types.   Moreover, this move would essentially be meaningless.

In the 112th Congress, the Democrat Caucus is 53 to 47.  The increase in Republican Senators will prevent the Obama Administration from steamrolling liberal legislation and picking off a couple of RINO defectors to overcome cloture votes. Certainly the thinking is that Manchin could be the vanguard to stampede conservative Democrat Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and liberal hawk Joe Lieberman (I-CN) to caucus with the Republicans.  But It would take four defections in the Senate to shift party control, which is highly unlikely.

Manchin was elected on a conservative campaign although he was elected as a Democrat.  He is going to have to face that constituency in two years.   If Senator Ben Nelson wants to be re-elected, he will have to vote more conservatively and not be swayed by things like the Cornhusker kickback on Health Care. Both Manchin and Ben Nelson would be unlikely to stray far from the conservative fold even if they do not strictly caucus with the Republicans.  In the 2012 cycle, Democrats will have to defend 22 seats, some of which were marginal wins in 2006.  Combine that with the changing electoral map due to redistricting, Democrats will have their hands full trying to keep control of the Senate.

It seems like former Senator Trent Lott’s statement about co-opting new members still has some resonance amongst the Cocktail Party and (by some extension ) Senate cloakrooms where there is the expectation that it can be politics as usual.  The Midterm Elections should have shown that the voters prefer a different cup of tea for party functions.

UPDATE 11/10  Considering the day after this rumor broke, the RNSC started a campaign directed AGAINST Senator-elect Manchin, it makes more sense that the party switching rumblings may have stemmed from Manchin's staff to seem to augment his position by playing coy.