But if you’re McConnell…wouldn’t you want Reid to nuke you? It helps you raise money with the base, it means you don’t have to negotiate these nominations that your base doesn’t like, and it leaves the door wide open to nuke us back – and worse – if they take over.I don't know whether McConnell actively wants it or not. Today the Minority Leader suggested that the voters are there for the EPA and Labor nominees, which suggests at least some Republicans are willing to pull back from the confrontation that's on it's way soon.
As for McConnell planning to go nuclear himself in the future...well, we're still two election cycles away at least from a GOP president and GOP Senate, and I'm not sure McConnell would set the odds for that combo at better than 50% in 2017. I'm also not at all convinced that McConnell places all that much value on having the precedent of a Democratic exec branch nuclear past to refer to when (and if) he goes nuclear on judicial nominations and legislation. I sort of think he'll do it if he wants to (and gets the chance), regardless of either precedent or what he's said in the past.
But the rest of it? Yup -- I've argued that the minority party is better off if they can flat-out oppose executive branch nominations without having to worry about actually defeating them by filibuster.
Which gets to what I said once again over at PP today: there's just no good reason for 60 on executive branch nominations.
For that matter -- is there an argument out there for 60 on executive branch nominations? Anyone aware of one?