Bill Straub: Mitch McConnell has erased all doubt that he places party over country — in his own words

And then there are the personal attacks, with Trump characterizing McConnell as a “dumb son-of-a-bitch,” blaming him for the loss of what were two Republican-held Senate seats in 2020 and searching for an internal Senate candidate to oust McConnell from his leadership position.

Despite all that, and the other unpardonable sins committed by Trump during his four-year tenure, McConnell said he would proudly pull the ex-president’s lever if he is once again the party’s candidate.

“Well as the Republican leader of the Senate it should not be a front-page headline that I will support the Republican nominee for president,” McConnell said, adding that “I think I have an obligation to support the nominee of my party.”

But Swan, understandably, wasn’t buying.

“After you’ve said that about him I think it’s astonishing,” Swan said.

But what really befuddled McConnell was Swan’s inquiry about establishing a moral red line in carrying out his duties. In other words, he was asked if there is a point in McConnell world where enough is enough? Is it possible to reach a stage where he could no longer support Trump, who endeavored to overturn a legitimate election and spark a riot just so he can retain power?

Obviously flustered, McConnell sputtered, “Do you want to spend more time on this as well?”

Swan, to his undying credit, did, indeed, want to spend more time on the subject, saying he simply sought to unearth McConnell’s thinking.

“I think many things I’m sure people don’t understand,” McConnell said.

By being so obsequious, Addison Mitchell McConnell managed to answer Swan – there is no red line, there is nothing Trump can do to violate the standards of decency, to undermine the republic, that would stop McConnell from supporting the party’s nominee or abandon his clench on the only thing that matters – power.

Some may consider that immoral.

Remember, after delivering his remarks criticizing Trump, which were duly applauded, McConnell turned around and blocked the creation of an investigatory panel to look into the Jan. 6 act of sedition. He not only blocked it, for reasons he has never really explained, he lobbied fellow GOP lawmakers who were disposed toward initiating the probe to vote against it as “a personal favor” for him.

Some may consider this two-faced.

At any rate, McConnell answered the question by not answering the question. His recalcitrance establishes there is no ceiling on his lust for power, both personal, and on behalf of his chosen party. There is no other way to read the map he has provided. The whole world should now realize just what a destructive figure he is.

It’s not always been this way, although there are some who might try to convince you otherwise. Passions often run hot on Capitol Hill and there certainly are times when otherwise steadfast lawmakers step over the line.

Take the case of Hugh Scott, of Pennsylvania, who served in McConnell’s position of Senate Republican leader for eight years ending in 1977. Scott displayed the ability to establish a red line – hesitantly, perhaps, and very slowly. But finally established nonetheless.

Scott was no saint – in 1976 the Senate instigated an ethics inquiry into claims that he received payments from Gulf Oil Corp. lobbyists. Scott said the $45,000 in question was a campaign contribution. The Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct voted 5 to 1 not to take action against him.

And he was late to the party on former President Richard Nixon. Scott had the misfortune of serving as GOP leader in the midst of the Watergate Scandal involving a president of his own party who faced potential impeachment for covering up a politically-motivated burglary of Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in DC on June 17, 1972.

Like McConnell and Trump, Scott didn’t get along all-that-well with Nixon, although the relationship wasn’t nearly as volatile. According to Dr. Dean J. Kotlowski, a history professor at Salisbury University, “The Nixon-Scott relationship brought together two men of the same party, but with different public personas, political interests, and institutional duties. The result was both tension and dependency. Although Nixon and Scott were politically yoked, their stances on domestic and foreign issues showed that it was not always an unhappy tethering. Nixon and Scott forged an uneasy partnership.”

In his paper “Unhappily yoked? Hugh Scott and Richard Nixon,” Kotlowski noted, “Relations between presidents and Senate leaders historically have involved a delicate balance. Presidents prefer to work with leaders of their own party, forgetting that such leaders must tend to constituent pressures and often resent executive-branch encroachments.”

In 1974 the Watergate probe was reaching its climax. Scott had, at least to that point, publicly defended Nixon, leading Kotlowski to note that, “Partisan considerations prevailed over constitutional duty.” Scott nonetheless privately expressed doubts about the scandal, noting in one letter “someone is not telling the truth,” while acknowledging “the dilemma I face” as “party leader.” He promised not to “prejudge this horrible situation, until all the facts are out.”

Scott continued to publicly support Nixon, a position that subsequently, according to one commentator, left him with “egg on his face.” The beginning of the end didn’t come until after Scott read transcripts of taped White House conversations that established the cover-up. Once Republican National Committee chairman and future president George H.W. Bush pleaded for Scott to handle the “situation” in a way “best for the country” the senator finally began checking into rules for an impeachment trial.

On Aug. 9, 1974, Scott, along with Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-AZ, and House Republican Leader John Rhodes, of Arizona, told Nixon his position was no longer tenable. He resigned the next day.

Scott’s actions, inaction at times, bring to mind the old Churchill saying, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” Scott teetered on the tightrope at times but he eventually arrived at the right spot, effectively telling Nixon the jig was up.

McConnell, meanwhile, has disproved the Churchill theorem. His position is significantly more troublesome than the one assumed by Scott – McConnell blocked an investigation and then said he will support Trump if he is the nominee.

Talk about partisan considerations prevailing over constitutional duty. And he remains unwilling to do the right thing. Someone has to tell Trump no. Who better than the nation’s highest Republican official? But he won’t.

Some may consider that cowardice.

According to Koslowski, “In an unpublished paper on Senate leadership, Scott ranked voting his conscience as his highest priority. Serving the Keystone State came second, leading Republican senators third, and pushing administration programs last.”

“I cannot subordinate my own conscience nor the welfare of Pennsylvania for what some feel is the tradition of complete, unbending support for the executive department’s viewpoints,” Scott wrote.

Mitch might want to take up reading.