DB Roy wrote:It ended with Trump accepting the same deal he refused earlier (even though it was exactly the deal he asked Congress to send him earlier saying that he would sign it and decided at the last minute not to). So, really, the shutdown was over nothing and should never have happened.
True that it was a failed gamble, but the game of chicken takes two, and it is not clear that his adversaries are "winning" anything. The premise of shutdowns was always that movement conservatives did not consider much of what government does to be worth doing. So when Newtie passed a severely pared-back budget and Clinton refused to sign it, they turned to the alternative of refusing to fund anything at all. While this did not "work" politically (it alienated the center) they forced Clinton and the Democrats to designate "essential" government services, which really means, government that we can get a super-majority to agree on.
All this to say, the precedent of refusing to sign a funding bill that does not include "the President's priorities" is already established. Clinton won politically because the cuts Newtie was passing weren't really that popular. Dear Leader is on the wrong side of this one from a popular perspective - a big majority, like the one that swept the Dems into House leadership, opposes the wall. But he may very well be able to keep the Senate behind him. The fact that the brinkmanship is about symbolism, not fact, works against him with independents, but it works for him with Republicans.
If Dear Leader was smart (pigs would fly, and) he would declare victory for getting the Democrats to agree to the symbolic budget number in dealing with "the border crisis" and claim the wall was just a bargaining chip. Forget Ann Coulter, she doesn't represent anyone. But he is a narcissist, and so we are going to get a replay of this and the federal workers will continue to be demoralized until the purple state GOP senators figure out how to get around him.
DB Roy wrote: All that was accomplished is that many government employees, who missed two paychecks, have lost money, had their credit ratings damaged and some are looking for new quarters having been evicted. One woman was forced to ration her insulin. While they will receive their back pay, they will not receive any financial reprieve from penalties incurred by delayed payments or any legal reprieve from any other punitive actions that may have been launched against them.
But will the Dems succeed in turning this "let them eat cake" shutdown into a symbol of the way Dear Leader has sold the government to fat cats? I doubt it. What seems to me to be missing, if I can tap the conversation on the "Last Unicorn" thread, is a Democrat who can successfully portray themselves as acting for destiny, for the needs of the future, rather than just branding themselves with a set of rhetorical positions. Biden comes closest, but we all know he has a lot of baggage. If the fat cats keep wallowing in their privilege as publicly as possible, then a Bernie figure could manage it, but right now his negatives are still awfully high.
DB Roy wrote: Trump has to understand that he not only owns the shutdown (which he very stupidly announced he would take credit for) but that he cannot win funds for his wall. I predict he will not dare shutdown the govt a second time.
I wish I could agree with you. He can't be as dumb as he seems. But he still has Sean and da boyz backing him up, and he may be satisfied to keep picking fights on that basis. When Red State America turns off Fox News, you will know the stalemate is really broken.
DB Roy wrote:He will probably go the route of declaring a national emergency but I can't see him pulling that off.
The repubs are leery about doing that because they don't want to find a democratic president in 2020 pulling the same shit on them. It's a bad precedent set by a bad president.
Exactly right. It is easier to make a factual case for a national emergency on climate action than on illegal immigration. If Dear Leader tries this stunt, it would really put the screws to McConnell, and I have to guess McConnell would finally call "Enough" and join Pelosi in reining in this catastrophic presidency. Impeachment? Probably not, unless Dear Leader tries to use military force to impose his will. Something with different symbolic optics and more specific application, like declaring it to be the sense of Congress that there is no emergency and Dear Leader was violating his constitutional role.
DB Roy wrote:While Mitch McConnell could have ended the shutdown much earlier, he chose not to but I think people may have misinterpreted his actions. McConnell is not a fan of shutdowns. He has, in the past, counseled congressional republicans from resorting to them. He allowed them to shutdown the govt during Obama's administration not because he thought they would get what they wanted but so that they would understand the futility of resorting to such measures. It worked, they didn't try it again. So, it seems to me, he refused to end the shutdown in order to let Trump twist in the wind for a while. I think Trump may have consulted Turtle-face on the matter and McConnell may have told him not to shutdown the govt. Trump, believing himself a political genius greater than any other, ignored him and initiated a shutdown anyway to show McConnell how a master does it. Instead, it backfired spectacularly and McConnell just sat back and let Trump understand what his actions brought down on the nation because Trump clearly had no idea what he was doing to the country and didn't care.
This makes sense to me. One thing we have learned about Dear Leader is that he eventually lets the adults talk him down from his follies. The trick is to do it in a non-confrontational way, without engaging his narcissism. Best is if you convince him the solution is his own genius idea.
DB Roy wrote:But the big lesson to take from all this is just how weak, ignorant and clueless Trump really is. He bossed Congress around as long it was majority republican but with a democratic House, he is totally out of his league.
Did he boss Congress around? Then where is the wall? He just wants a conflict so he can pretend he won it.
DB Roy wrote: Nancy Pelosi has completely schooled him.
She has shown the world she is not to be trifled with and she's more than enough to handle a jerk like Trump.
Too soon to tell, in my opinion. Yes, she has successfully conveyed that the majority will not give in to temper tantrums, but as any parent knows, this is a long game with no winners. What she has on her side is the grown-up awareness that compromise is how things get done, but it is hard to tap that when the only available means is to refuse compromise.
DB Roy wrote:It was public relations coup for the dems and utterly ruinous for the republicans.
I disagree. I call it a stalemate. If you held the 2020 elections today, yes, the Dems would take back the Senate. But a week is a long time in politics.
DB Roy wrote:The public is both angry and frightened. The emperor's new clothes syndrome. We voted a 72 yo child as the most powerful man in the world. What were we thinking???? Trump made himself the villain and Pelosi looked like the knight who slew the dragon. It was a public communications disaster for Trump.
There is something to this. When the Red States see him as a vehicle to overturn Roe v Wade they like him and his bluster. But when it is more about wondering if their loss of income from a trade war amounts to anything of substance, then their public support begins to look more like a facade with not much to hold it up.
DB Roy wrote: He was just bluffing the whole time.
That's our Dear Leader alright. As it sinks in that he never expected or wanted to win, that he is clueless from his orange top to his stubby toes, an awful lot of MAGA types are going to turn away in disgust.
DB Roy wrote:To make matter worse, Mueller is getting uncomfortably close to Trump now by having Roger Stone arrested.
He has vowed not to testify against Trump but he will. Once he confers with his lawyers and they spell out to him what he's looking at, he'll spill beans and a lot of them.
Yes, but I think the declaration by Whitaker that the Mueller investigation is coming to a close was wishful thinking and a clumsy attempt to put pressure on him. Unless Mueller has had to give up on the money laundering angles and was just hoping to nail down details on collusion, I have to believe the info they wanted from Stone's hard drives will open up new lines of investigation.
The story looks like this: Trump was angling for commercial favors from Moscow, including ability to toss money laundering opportunities to his family and friends. So he lied about the negotiations even while putting in place key concessions on the Republican position on Ukraine and driving wedges into NATO. The Russians got some active collusion in their effort to divide the country and, if possible, get their boy elected. But none of it looks like the kind of quid pro quo that would force McConnell's hand, where Trump agrees to take orders from Moscow in exchange for getting him elected. Our Dear Leader is probably not too smart for that, but Putin probably is.
I think the way to play it, if I am right that there is no smoking gun waiting out there, is to continue investigating so that the public can't consign their knowledge of his character to amnesia. There are lots of trails the public has a right to know about, which can be explored with a straight face and a concern for the long-term health of the constitution, without needing impeachable offenses to emerge.
DB Roy wrote:I said some months ago the wheels were slowing coming off and they are. Slowly and surely.
I'm beginning to wonder if there ever were any wheels. We are looking at an administration staffed by third-string novices, if at all, who can't seem to accomplish anything. The Huawei investigation is the closest they have come to successful policy, and that was thanks to the Justice Department, which Dear Leader has denigrated at every opportunity.