Republicans went with the least horrible option? That's out of character for them.
Strategically this isn't ideal for us because Thune strikes me as someone who will be competent at the job. It's better for our country though, so I prefer it.
Republicans went with the least horrible option? That's out of character for them.
Strategically this isn't ideal for us because Thune strikes me as someone who will be competent at the job. It's better for our country though, so I prefer it.
As long as the sociopathic wing* of the party keeps grumbling and picking fights with him, it may work out better for us after all. It'll still be bad, don't get me wrong (Thune will never be a friend to us), but that was decided when the Senate flipped.
*Yeah, I know... the obvious question is "which one?"
That would be nice. My expectation is that he'll do a better job keeping their senate caucus focused on what they need to get done, but will curb the worst ~5-10% things to be merely "really bad" instead of "incredibly, truly horrific." Cornyn would have done that half as much, and Scott would have insisted on making things even worse.
Republicans went with the least horrible option? That's out of character for them.
Strategically this isn't ideal for us because Thune strikes me as someone who will be competent at the job. It's better for our country though, so I prefer it.
As long as the sociopathic wing* of the party keeps grumbling and picking fights with him, it may work out better for us after all. It'll still be bad, don't get me wrong (Thune will never be a friend to us), but that was decided when the Senate flipped.
*Yeah, I know... the obvious question is "which one?"
That would be nice. My expectation is that he'll do a better job keeping their senate caucus focused on what they need to get done, but will curb the worst ~5-10% things to be merely "really bad" instead of "incredibly, truly horrific." Cornyn would have done that half as much, and Scott would have insisted on making things even worse.