Thom Tillis Opposes Mike Lee's Plans for Senate "Power-Sharing"

What follows is so inside-DeeCee that it will likely be excruciating. So you're forewarned.

Fox News
Sen. Mike Lee on left, Thom Tillis, right

Mitch McConnell, Republican Majority Leader for eons in the U.S. Senate, and now Minority Leader, is retiring in the nick of time. He won't have to deal with poor blood flow or President Donald J. Trump (again) -- should he squeak in -- or the Freedom Caucus (if Trump goes down like a fizzled Roman candle, because the purity-of-MAGA caucus will still exist in Congress). 

So goodbye, Mitch McConnell! Republican senators in a few scant months will be picking (they hope) their next Majority Leader. Three gentlemen think they deserve it: Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla. Scott seems most likely to draw the Freedom Caucus vote, but getting a majority? Not likely. Scott's a long shot (even if he survives his current reelection challenge from Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell). So some of the ultra conservative senators, led by Mike Lee of Utah, want to pass new rules for their majority, a sort of anticipatory "democratizing" of the conference so that a handful of hard-liners can stop dead any new leader’s authority in backing “Democrat priorities.” Like Mitch McConnell very occasionally did. McConnell to Mike Lee had shown signs of a dangerous moderation. In a second Trump presidency, Lee warned in a public letter a few days ago, the McConnell old establishment type Republican (of which John Thune is a prime example) “will be tempted to join Democrats to pass funding bills that tie Trump’s hands.” 

Lee and his conservative allies therefore and thereby want power sharing to make sure a moderate majority, led by a Leader willing to cut deals with Chuck Shumer, will never sell out conservatives' wildest dreams.

Thom Tillis Speaks Up

In opposition to Sen. Lee's push to "democratize" Senate leadership, arose this past week Sen. Thom Tillis of NC, who wrote his own public letter taking apart with astrounding logic the Mike Lee argument. Why make a future Leader deliberately and unnecessarily weak? Tillis wanted to know. In a war of ideas, strong, no backbiting, united action is required. Sniping from within the tribe looks weak. Is weak:

“The debate among members really boils down to whether you favor a weak or strong leader model. Mike has laid out proposals that would substantially weaken the Republican leader and further empower Schumer, and I believe it would be unwise to go down that path,” Tillis wrote.

“I suspect many Americans would be shocked to know that any one member can [bring action to a grinding halt] while attempting to advance an amendment that a supermajority of our conference is against.”

These appearances of Contrary Thom are becoming more frequent. They're fascinating grist for any mill processing his future in a Party defined by obeisance to a dictator. And I see the irony of praising Tillis for standing up to Mike Lee's brand of rump tyranny, whilst simultanously advocating for Leadership tyranny. One man's tyrant is another man's bunkmate.