Every effective American politician has a consigliere — a wise man, or perhaps a wise woman — who’ll tell them the unvarnished truth.
JFK had Bobby; George H.W. Bush had Jim Baker; Ronald Reagan had Nancy.
I’m wondering this morning who in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s inner circle fills that role. Hmm. It might be his wife, Elaine Chao, a former labor secretary during W’s administration.
Whoever it is, are they having a serious, candid and frank discussion with the boss? Are they hunkered down in some ante room in his spacious office in the Senate wing of the U.S. Capitol Building?
Here’s a thought, offered from the Flyover Country Peanut Gallery, on how that talk might proceed:
McConnell: OK, I sense we have a problem with this Supreme Court pick. I’ve declared my intention to block whoever Barack Obama nominates. I’m trying to stand on some sort of principle but my knees are buckling just a little.
Wise Man: And they should, Mitch. You’ve boxed yourself into a corner. Did you think Obama was going to pick some flaming, judicial activist liberal? He didn’t. He went with this Merrick Garland fellow. Everyone loves the guy. You love the guy. Hell, Mitch, you voted to confirm him to the D.C. court nearly 20 years ago.
McC: True. But that was then. The stakes this time are gigantic. They’re y-u-u-u-u-ge! (Laughter). I hope you don’t mind my saying it that way. Antonin Scalia’s death upset everything. He was one of our guys. Now Obama has picked one of their guys to replace Scalia. The balance of the court will change.
WM: So, what’s your point? Did you think Obama was going to select an archconservative like Scalia? We all knew this would happen if one of our guys died. But hey, he didn’t pick a flamer, Mitch. He picked a mainstream moderate judge. Hasn’t he done well on the D.C. court?
McC: Yeah, he has. He’s been the kind of judge I said he was when I spoke in his favor in 1997. I get that he’ll be that kind of justice on the Supreme Court, too. But it’s different now. I’ve got those TEA Party yahoos who want me to dig in. They insist — in that way of theirs — that Barack Obama’s re-election doesn’t really count. And you don’t need to remind me of what I said early in Obama’s presidency about making him a “one-term president” being my top priority. I get that it didn’t work out.
WM: So, consider this, too. We’re about to nominate Donald Trump as our candidate for president. The Democrats are going to nominate Hillary as their candidate. Trump vs. Clinton. One of them will get to pick the next Supreme Court justice if we continue to obstruct this selection. Who between them do you want? Trump, who you’ve criticized before for the outrageous accusations he has made along the campaign trail? Or Clinton, who the TEA Party wing hates nearly as much as it hates Obama? Don’t you think maybe that Merrick Garland is going to be the best choice we’re going to get?
McC: I get your point. But what about the principle we’re standing on here? What about giving in to the Democrats? I’m going to get fried if I cave in.
WM: Well, Mitch, a lot worse is going to happen to you if we obstruct this nomination, Hillary makes a huge campaign issue of it, wins in a landslide and the Democrats retake the Senate.
McC: How do you propose I back off? How do I justify this to my base — our base?
WM: Look, Mitch. I might be a wise man. But I’m not a magician. You figure it out.
