Senate Majority Leader Thune is deliberately sabotaging the SAVE America Act to protect RINO colleagues
Source: M.D. Kittle. "Thune Covers For RINO Pals As He Does His Screw America Act." March 11, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Senate leader John Thune is deliberately killing important voting reform legislation in a way that protects other Republican senators from having to publicly oppose it. Instead of using available tactics to force a vote, Thune is setting up the bill to fail quietly so nobody gets blamed.
Conclusion
Senate Majority Leader John Thune is intentionally undermining the SAVE America Act not just to kill it, but to protect establishment Republican senators from having to publicly vote against popular election integrity legislation
Premises
- Thune refuses to use the talking filibuster strategy that could bypass the 60-vote threshold and force a simple majority vote
- Thune plans to hold a standard 60-vote threshold vote where the bill will predictably fail, avoiding accountability for individual senators
- Several establishment Republican senators (Tillis, Curtis, McConnell, Murkowski) would likely vote against the SAVE Act if forced to take a public position
- The SAVE America Act has overwhelming public support (described as an '85-15 issue'), making opposition votes politically toxic
- Republicans control the Senate, House, and presidency, creating a rare opportunity to pass conservative legislation that Thune is wasting
- Thune's claims of having 'examined all options' are contradicted by his outright rejection of viable parliamentary strategies
Assumptions
- The talking filibuster is a viable and legitimate parliamentary strategy that could work
- Public pressure during extended debate would eventually force Democrats to relent
- The mentioned Republican senators would indeed vote against the SAVE Act if required to vote publicly
- Election integrity legislation should be a top priority for Republican leadership
- Thune's motivations are primarily about protecting colleagues rather than genuine procedural concerns