Senator Grassley (R-IA) had best stick to his assertions of being good physical shape, because his moral shape is, well, rather bent:
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans aren’t shy about laying out how they’d handle a nomination from Biden if they take the majority [in 2022]: They wouldn’t.
“You know what the rule is on that,” said Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “You go back to 1886 and ever since then, when the Senate’s been of one party and the president’s been of another party, you didn’t confirm.”
There is no such rule.
Senate Republicans have invoked a number of what they call “rules” in recent years to explain, for example, refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, the now-attorney general who was Obama’s choice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, or their rushing to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s choice to replace Ginsburg.
But the then-Democratic majority Senate voted to confirm President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy in 1988 and President George H.W. Bush’s nomination of David Souter in 1990 and Clarence Thomas in 1991, all while Grassley was in the Senate. Back then, the Judiciary Committee chairman was a senator from Delaware named Joe Biden.[CNN/Politics]
Senator Grassley, aged 83, is up for reelection in 2022 for another six year term. This out and out lie represents an opportunity for Democrat and Republican alike, if the latter assess that they dare, to take chunks out of the Senator’s campaign. Independent voters don’t like liars.
There’s little to stop whoever wins the Democratic nomination for the seat to use this as a weapon.
For the Republicans, this is a little more complex. If Grassley is endorsed by President Trump, and it would not be surprising if this happens, seeing that Grassley has been firmly wrapped around the former President’s knees in his sad-faced supplication to the head of the GOP, then the would-be nominee would be risking the wrath of Trump and the MAGA cult.
But the power & prestige of being a Senator might outweigh the risk, no?
And Grassley’s defense? No, it’s true, it’s true! is refuted by simple facts on the ground, as CNN provides a few. A complete statistical analysis would simply complete the unstoppable attack on him.
And I forgot and I was confused simply suggest either imminent dementia, intolerable in a Senator, or self-serving mendacity, similarly distasteful.
While the Republican candidates may be hesitant to use this spear on the old liar, I suspect the Democrats are busy, even now, planning the campaign messaging. Whether the Republican base will pay attention, I don’t know, but if Grassley survives the primary, then he should face an irate Independent segment of voters. It’s just part of the messaging.
