As A Body, The Senate Understood That Matt Gaetz Would've Been A Harbinger Of A Fascist Takeover

But Which Republicans Would Be Willing To Stand Up To Trump?

With the exception of the die-hard Trump fluffers and out-and-out fascists— from Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Ted Budd (R-NC) and Rick Scott (R-FL) to Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Stephen Schmitt (R-MO)— most Republican senators understood just how problematic to the country— and their party— an Attorney General Gaetz would have been. Yeah, far worse than A. Mitchell Palmer, Harry Daugherty, John Mitchell, Edwin Meese, John Ashcroft or William Barr. The pressure seems to have worked.

So… who in the GOP conference, other than Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), has the balls to take the heat for blocking the nomination, and, perhaps, some of the other dangerous nominations, from Hegseth and Gabbard to RFK Jr, Kristi Noem and Linda McMahon? When they were talking off the record to the media, there are over a dozen Republicans who said they wouldn’t vote to confirm Gaetz. (Keep in mind that Trump could have been using Gaetz as a sacrificial lamb in order to make it easier to get his other horrendous nominees through a Republican Senate that doesn’t want to completely undermine its party’s own transgressive president.)

John Kennedy (R-LA), a former Democrat, told Punchbowl not to rely too much on huffing and puffing from his colleagues about how they won’t vote to confirm Gates. “The sight of the gallows concentrates the mind,” he said. “I’ve listened to a lot of people talk, and grunt, and rant, and rave, and give speeches, and go right down there and vote differently.”

Maybe you were buoyed a bit by Rand Paul’s interview on Newsmax Tuesday about mass deportations, when he said he’s “not in favor of sending the Army in uniforms into our cities to collect people. I think it’s a terrible image and that’s not what we use our military for, we never have and it’s actually been illegal for over 100 years to bring the Army into our cities… I will not support an emergency [declaration] to put the Army into our cities— I think that’s a huge mistake… I really think us as conservatives who are supportive of Trump need to caution him about sending the Army into our cities… I don’t see the military putting [a housekeeper] in handcuffs and marching her down the street to an encampment. I don’t really want to see that.” Does that mean we can count on Paul stop stand up to any of Trump’s worst nominees?

Yesterday Jonathan Martin put together a list of Republican senators to watch, the ones best-positioned to take on Señor T. “While much of the GOP has become a Trump subsidiary,” he opined, “there are still some Senate Republicans who consider themselves members of a co-equal branch of government and take their Advise and Consent duty seriously. Most of the 53 Republican lawmakers in the incoming Senate want to support their party’s president, who just won a decisive victory and enjoys die-hard support from the bulk of their voters.” Let me stop him there for one second. Trump won the puniest victory of any president in modern times and the media— like Martin— has been gaslit into repeating Trump’s bogus claim that it was a landslide. It’s probably not even a majority and the last candidate to do as poorly while winning the popular vote was Al Gore, who was denied the presidency by a GOP Supreme Court. Sorry for the interruption; I’m sick off letting that corporate media bullshit go by. He was certainly right though in reporting that the GOP senators would “much rather air their concerns about Trump’s picks privately and avoid having to cast a vote in opposition to any of them. No need to do any Mr. Smith Goes to Washington impressions on the Senate floor when the oppo research can work its will.”

He says it’s what he calls a “lame duck caucus,” Republicans who won’t be facing MAGAts in a future primary (“therefore immune from Trump’s greatest power — his control of the GOP base”), who can rescue the country— “lawmakers for which freedom— to borrow from the great and recently departed Kris Kristofferson— is just another word for nothing left to lose.”

Here’s his list, starting with the GOP senators who won’t be running in 2026:

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)— most likely work to defeat Gabbard and Hegseth

• John Cornyn (R-TX)— say’s he’s running but… 

• Susan Collins (R-ME)— needs blue-leaning voters to be reelected in 2026 and she is definitely running

• Bill Cassidy (R-LA)— voted to convict Trump in 2020 and isn’t going to win a primary anyway; might as well go out with a bang

• Thom Tillis (R-NC)— “Tillis is staring at the prospect of more conservative Republicans eager to pounce should he break from Trump. And Tillis could have one of the most hard-fought general elections in the country should outgoing Gov. Roy Cooper be tempted to run… More than the hassle of an expensive primary and general election two years on may be the more immediate question of whether a dealmaker like Tillis can find satisfaction in the Senate during another time of Trump. Will he make his peace with MAGA, as he did under Trump I? Or will he follow the course of his neighbor to the west, former Sen. Bob Corker, and decide after two terms he’s had quite enough of the ‘adult day care center’ that is the Trump White House.”

Up in 2028, when Trump won’t be on the ballot:

• Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)— not afraid of Trump

• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)— in his 90s with senile “episodes,” is he really going to run again?

• Todd Young (R-IN)— didn’t endorse Trump this year

• Jerry Moran (R-KS)— “may not want to remain in the Senate until he’s 80” goes against Senate tradition, so I’m less optimistic than Martin is about him standing up to Trump

• Whomever Trump-hater Mike DeWine appoints to replace Vance.

And there’s this… Musk the enforcer. I’m sure Republican senators just loved this kind of threat: