Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reacted angrily to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) on the floor of the Senate on March 15. (C-SPAN)
Stop me if youve heard this before: Two Washington politicians disagree with each other. Then they call each other names.
Except this time, the name-calling got out of hand really quickly. And now, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are just the latest example of the sorrystate of our political discourse.
Let's start from the beginning.
Wednesday afternoon,McCain was working with two Democratic senators to request a Senate vote on allowing Montenegro, a small Balkan nation, into NATO. The Senate vote is one small but important step in Montenegros nearly decade-long process to be allowed into the treaty group, which includes much of North America and Europe.
McCain spoke passionately on the Senate floor in favor of letting Montenegro in, most especially because it would serve as a direct rebuke to Russia. Russia, McCain said, wanted to kill the prime minister and overthrow the government in order to keep Montenegro from becoming part of NATO.
McCain and his two Democratic colleaguespushed for unanimous consent to approve the treaty ascension. Unanimous consent isa procedure senators can deploywhen there'shardly any opposition to their proposal. If no senatoropenly objects to it, the issue at hand will automatically pass without all 100 senators having to take a vote.
Then Paul walked in, offered his objection and walked away.
McCain was dumbfounded. And visibly angry. Here are his comments in full:
That is really remarkable. That a senator blocking a treaty that is supported by the overwhelming number, perhaps 98 at least, of his colleagues, would come to the floor and object and walk away. And walk away. The only conclusion you can draw when he walks away is he has no argument to be made. He has no justification for his objection to having a small nation be part of NATO that is under assault from the Russians. So I repeat again: The senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin.
A United States senator is now working for the Russian president.Thats a striking thing to say on the Senate floor ever, let alone at a moment in time when Congress is investigating Russias meddling in the U.S. election and the FBI is looking into the presidents ties to Russia.
The next morning, Paul was on MSNBCs Morning Joe, where he was asked by host Willie Geist aboutMcCains comment.
Paul said:You know, I think he makes a really, really strong case for term limits. I think maybe hes past his prime; I think maybe hes gotten a little bit unhinged.
Not that anyones innocent in this, but Paul could have answered the question on the policy merits alone and avoided calling an 80-year-old senator unhinged. Something like, You know, the senator is entitled to his opinion. But heres why I oppose letting Montenegro into NATO would have worked.
Now Paul isin the position of escalating a name-calling battle. It undercuts Pauls argument that McCain went too far (and that two people who disagree can have a rational discussion on NATO). Andfrom McCains perspective, his quote about Paul and Putin being in cahoots overshadows the reason he said it.
(McCains office explained in a statement to The Fix on Thursday: Senator McCain believes that the person who benefits the most from Congresss failure to ratify Montenegros ascension to NATO is Vladimir Putin.")
Paul did go on to explain on MSNBC why he objected to allowing Montenegro into NATO. It would make the United States more vulnerable to situations where it might have to use force, said Paul. He and McCain exist on opposite ends of the spectrum of foreign policy views within their party. Where McCain believes military force abroad can be a tool for good, Paul isvery, very skeptical of its power and any circumstance that might lead the United States to have get involved in other nations affairs.
We get it.When two people disagree about important things, passions can run high, and sometimes you say stuff you regret.
But this Paul-McCain back-and-forth doesnt feel like an isolated personality-driven quarrel.
Rather, it feels like yet another marker in howour political discourse that thing that allows people to have civil disagreements without attacking each other personally. Last week it was a senator accusing the president of shamelessly lying. This week its two senators declaring each other unhinged and working for Vladimir Putin. Next week, it'll be something else, Im sure.
Read the rest here:
Rand Paul calls John McCain unhinged after McCain says Paul ...