60 votes is a Senate rule, not the law. As best I can tell it’s a convenient excuse for both sides to not accomplish anything.allisji wrote:I am curious as well. Here are some things that I have questions on about him.rotor wrote:What specific things are people critical of? 1 vote senate majority and takes 60 to pass something. What do you expect Cornyn to pass? I see no better candidate out there.
1. he voiced support of a bump-stock ban
2. he separated fix NICs from National Reciprocity to pass fix NICs because he knew he couldn't pass Reciprocity.
3. Has he ever tried to reduce government spending?
4. Has he ever pushed to end US involvement in a foreign war?
5. Has he ever voted to defund Planned Parenthood?
6. Has he ever taken serious actions to stop illegal immigration and reduce US residency for refugees/asylum seekers/etc.
If the answers to the last 4 points are all "No" then he definitely needs to go. Though it is wise to weigh the cost of defeating him in a primary against the likelihood of losing the senate seat to a democrat.
The Republicans in Washington are, for the most part with a few exceptions, spineless weasels looking out for their bank accounts and re-election chances. Remember what they said, “we need the House,” and nothing got done. Then they said “we need the Senate,” and nothing got done. Finally they said “we have to have the White House too,” and what’s getting done? Oh yeah, they now say they have to have 60 Senate seats in order to get anything done. See yet where this is going? Let me tell you, give the Republicans 60 seats in November and you’ll have some of them voting with the Democrats all the time instead of only when it least affects them (see: McCain, Graham and Flake). Then they’ll be saying that they have to have 65 seats to accomplish anything, as America continues to swirl around the bowl.