Once you've decided to vote no, a hearing is pointless. Hearings are not for the nominee, they're for the Senators.https://twitter.com/kkondik/status/1144651071819800576 …
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
I made that point over & our again though. Give him a hearing and a vote. There was no way Dems had the votes to break cloture. None. And all the outrage & feeling that the seat was stolen would’ve dissipated.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
-
(and I say that as someone who usually agrees with you to at least some degree). But there is no way that seat stays open through the election and Democrats see Trump filling it as legit. I'd even go further and say the whole "he didn't get a hearing" is a red herring.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
“Didn’t get a hearing” is just recognizing that MM realized Rs would look terrible in that event. Obama called Hatch’s bluff and nominated whim Hatch described as a perfect moderate, Garland. Best not to let country see that.
4 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Garland was never going to say anything in a hearing that would be different from what the most far-left nominee would say.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
He would have looked and sounded moderate and thoughtful, if bland—yes, exactly. McConnell did not want the country to see what Hatch had understood to be true. This is obviously politically true, so why deny it?
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank and
The advantage of not having a hearing is that the blame all falls on McConnell (who doesn’t care), rather than Pat Toomey or Mark Kirk.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes
Kirk was the one guy to break ranks. But yes, I suspect that Mitch knew that making himself the bogeyman made it easier to keep others in line.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.