The United States Senate is a tricky tricky thing, and a Senate leader has a very difficult task - no matter the party, no matter the party’s status as a majority or a minority.  That’s why conservative commentators need to be very careful before blasting off kneejerk reactions to daily statements made by the Senators.  

Today, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is in a hell of a spot.  He has barely enough Senators to hold back the worst legislation the 111th Congress will see, but if the groundwork for holding those lines is not appropriately laid now terrible legislation like card check and nationalized health care may slip through.  Once a program is created, you know how difficult it is to amputate it.  The Senate Republicans will have to utilize incredible scrutiny and strategy to navigate this Congress and come out in a respectable position, especially considering the expanded majority of Democrats in both houses and the incoming Obama administration which is sure to start off with 70% approval.  Hell, if he hasn’t done anything yet, it’s hard to disapprove of the job he’s done, right?  I’d probably even approve of him the first couple weeks.  Democrats will try to use the approval numbers, the media, the unions, and the nutroots to generate activist support for the aforementioned legislation.

I understand that some folks simply are not big fans of Senator McConnell.  Some think he is too accepting of deficits and pork.  I suspect he would inform you otherwise, but that’s actually not even at issue right now.  Some others just prefer a different leadership style.  McConnell isn’t glitzy and he is not an angry leader vehemently opposed to everything the other party wants.  McConnell’s view of the Senate is rooted in history and deep respect of its design.  McConnell knows the roles of the House and the Senate in initiating and guarding against chaos.  He thought about today months ago, and today is thinking about what will happen in the coming months.  He will constantly try to determine what is possible and when, what his side wants to do and when, and what his side will likely be forced to deal with and when.  Like Henry Clay, he will seek compromise where possible.  On some things, he will not compromise.  

Really, to appropriately criticize McConnell, you have to base your comments on who he is and not who he is not.  Has he compromised too soon?  Given the majority/minority status, what percentage of items do you want your side to win in the session?  If you can’t win them all, will McConnell secure a win on the most important things?  Has he done everything procedurally possible to help pass/block various bills?  Has he wrangled the votes successfully when important?  Has he been blindsided or surprised any time recently?  Has he anticipated accurately?  Has he allowed his fellow Senators to maintain their unique personalities on matters important to them, while still pulling everyone together when it mattered the most?  Did he make it appear as though he was singlehandedly leading the Republicans, or as if it were a team effort?  

Erick Erickson of Red State recently wrote a scathing rebuke of recent maneuvers/statements/actions taken by Mitch McConnell.  While he’s probably not 100% incorrect in his criticism, some of it strikes me as shortsighted and/or maybe just incorrect.  I admire Erickson greatly and think he does really good work, but I’m just not sure that such vehement criticism is appropriate at this juncture.  Erickson:

Example 1:
McConnell has today allowed Harry Reid to move forward with the Lands Bill despite Tom Coburn’s hold on it.
Example 2:
McConnell will not fight for hunters rights on public land with regard to the Lands Bill.
Example 3:
McConnell will not even show up on Sunday to vote on the Lands Bill.

The thing is, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used Rule XIV process to get this bill on the calendar, which means holds and filibusters are worthless.  Since Senator Tom Coburn objected, Reid went on with this weird Sunday vote thing, which was, no, not at all a shot at Coburn.  So, while I am by no means a Senate procedure expert, I think Erickson is just wrong on this point.  

McConnell is going to fight for hunter’s rights for as long as he is in the U.S. Senate.  

As for voting or not voting, I guess that’s up for debate.  Would you rather lose by a couple votes and create a high profile loss for yourself right before Saint Obama’s inauguration or let it go and put up a good fight on other important bills?  Maybe it’s not an either/or situation, but in any case I suspect that if McConnell was certain he could put 41 points on the board, he would have made everybody show up.  The Yeas were 66.  Do you think McConnell could have peeled off 7 of these?  But look at all the Republicans who didn’t vote:

1. Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting
2. Bond (R-MO), Not Voting
3. Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting 
4. Burr (R-NC), Not Voting 
5. Chambliss (R-GA), Not Voting  
6. Cornyn (R-TX), Not Voting 
7. Ensign (R-NV), Not Voting 
8. Graham (R-SC), Not Voting
9. Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting 
10. Hutchison (R-TX), Not Voting
11. Kyl (R-AZ), Not Voting 
12. Martinez (R-FL), Not Voting
13. McConnell (R-KY), Not Voting 
14. Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting 
15. Specter (R-PA), Not Voting 
16. Vitter (R-LA), Not Voting 
17. Voinovich (R-OH), Not Voting

That’s not exactly a band of idiots.  Erickson’s own Senator Saxby Chambliss didn’t vote.  Look, to be honest, I’m more of a voter.  I lean towards voting every time, taking risks, explaining why I’m doing what I’m doing, and doing whatever I can to make a point and hopefully prevail on the issue.  However, I am not in the United States Senate.  I probably couldn’t even win an election if I were unopposed.  Take for granted a hostile media and you have to at least consider that unconventional and perhaps even unpleasant maneuvers may be the moves which best serve your cause.  

Example 11:
The GOP was enraged about ACORN getting funds in the bailout, but McConnell did absolutely nothing to stop it. And its not like anyone in GOP was unaware that ACORN was a corrupt, radical liberal organization. The House GOP leaders and conservative Senators had to push to block ACORN.

There were no new funds for ACORN in the bailout and that’s because the Republican negotiator knew it was unacceptable.  Who do you think selected Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire as the negotiator and made sure he knew funds for ACORN was unacceptable?  I think the Republican Leader probably had something to do with that.  

Some of Erickson’s other criticisms, in my opinion, are just kneejerk reactions to day to day posturing that is taking place in DC and in the media.  There is a lot of transition now and I think we’re still at a point where the long view needs to be emphasized more regularly than demands on day to day technicalities.  Some of McConnell’s messaging may disturb Republicans, but he has also played a role in helping to irritate the left re: “Obama’s tax cut proposals.”  The whole point is, today’s vote was the first vote of the 111th Congress.  There are, unfortunately, plenty more to come.  That said, there probably is something to some of what Erickson has to say.  He’s a solid conservative with good instincts and working knowledge and there is no reason to think that he would repeatedly reach erroneous conclusions about any particular current political topic.  However, we still need to think long and hard about what we want out of the 111th Congress and try to agree about how to do it.  If we do, I suspect that McConnell’s approach will encounter significantly less second-guessing.