John Thune Makes a Last Establishment GOP Stand Against Trump

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), it is probably fair to say, is currently the least popular Republican on Capitol Hill – at least among President Donald Trump’s allies and supporters. The reason for that, any of those people would likely say, is that Sen. Thune doesn’t just appear unwilling or unable to get anything done, but he almost seems to be working against the president.

By President Trump’s own standards, that may even be a somewhat charitable way of describing the Senate leader’s obstructionist attitude.

Most recently, Thune indicated that he wasn’t on board with Trump tapping MAGA loyalist Bill Pulte for acting director of national intelligence. Sounding more like a Democrat than a Republican, the Senate leader said, “We don’t need a weaponized DNI, we need professionals there.”

The senator also balked at a proposed $1.78 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that would have been used to compensate victims of past federal government abuses of power. “I don’t see a purpose for it,” John Thune said. So, on the one hand, he implies the president is trying to “weaponize” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and, on the other, he appears to suggest that, in the past, federal government agencies were not weaponized – against the considerable evidence that says otherwise.

When his fellow establishment Republican, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, was primaried by the Lone Star State’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, John Thune was not happy about Trump’s endorsement of the latter. Paxton ultimately thrashed Cornyn in that recent primary.

John Thune Slow Walks Trump Agenda

Funding for immigration enforcement has been held up since the recent shutdown, and Senate Republicans are only now moving a bill forward – using the reconciliation process to overcome Democrat objections – that will resolve the issue.

It was the SAVE Act, though, or the SAVE America Act, that revealed Thune’s real loyalties – which appear to lie with his Senate colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, rather than with either the president or the American people.

Thune initially pledged to force a vote on the bill, which, among other things, would require voters to produce photo IDs when casting ballots. Just weeks later, when nothing had been done with the bill, Thune effectively shelved it, claiming the votes weren’t there to get it passed. Such a statement causes one to wonder what purpose Congress serves. The American people send representatives and senators to Washington to represent them and to legislate according to their will. The overwhelming majority of Americans favor a voter ID requirement – including most black voters.

If Republicans cannot find enough votes to pass such a popular bill, then something is broken on Capitol Hill.

Of course, eliminating the filibuster would have solved the problem of insufficient votes, allowing Republicans to pass bills with a simple 51-vote majority. Most agree that taking out the filibuster is bad politics, but the Democrats have made it clear that they will do just that when they are next in control of the Senate. They tried once before and were thwarted by two of their own – both of whom are no longer senators.

As things stand today, there is probably only one Democrat senator, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who would stand against this move.

Thus, bad idea or not, “nuking” the filibuster while they still control the Senate is, for Republicans, the best option for moving their agenda forward, assuming they have an agenda.

The old guard Republicans have always had a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, which is one of many reasons why Trump-endorsed candidates almost always replace GOP establishment candidates. Judging by his words and actions, John Thune appears to be mostly concerned with preserving a status quo that no longer exists. President Trump may value loyalty, but most American conservatives are more concerned that members of Congress demonstrate loyalty to them. Sen. Thune isn’t exactly convincing anyone that either of those loyalties concerns him.