Even before President Trump spoke to the nation around 4pm today, the Democrats outright dismissed his proposals. Nancy Pelosi called them a non-starter. Yet, simply by making what look like concessions, the president did the first somewhat sensible thing since the government shut down before Christmas. Some of what he offered is of value to certain Democratic constituencies. Some of the money he’s approved would go for border initiatives that the Democrats actually support. So, the Democrats need to respond with something beyond intractable rejection or the stupid speech will be a success.
There is some potential that the Democrats will begin a splinter, even if the leadership is unlikely to be moved. Mitch McConnell intends to bring a bill up for a vote based on the president’s proposals and the first test will be a cloture vote requiring sixty senators (or seven Democrats). If successful, that would only authorize the Senate to begin a debate and to vote on amendments. They would have to pass the sixty vote threshold on the backend, too.
Therefore, the Dems could allow the process to start while reserving the right to block a vote on final passage if the bill isn’t to their liking. That might be a tempting tack to take, but it would probably just needlessly string out the government shutdown.
Either way, the House would have to sign off on the bill, so they might a well let the House take the lead. Pelosi is firm on not beginning a negotiation until the government is reopened, but she can pass new proposals almost at will. That’s certainly how she will proceed. It will keep her more vulnerable members from revolting if they can continually cast votes to reopen the government, and some of those bills can incorporate things Trump just agreed to in his speech.
Trump succeeded in applying some new pressure but it is very unlikely to break the impasse or even lead to any major concessions.
He should’ve offered McDonalds.
Trump succeeded in applying some new pressure but it is very unlikely to break the impasse or even lead to any major concessions
I don’t see it, all he did was offer to temporarily give back stuff he took away
Huh.
Never take the first offer.
No deal, per @SenSchumer:
“It was the President who singled-handedly took away DACA and TPS protections in the first place – offering some protections back in exchange for the wall is not a compromise but more hostage taking,” he says in statement. https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1086754897259913222/photo/1
the donald just offered to temporarily give back what he took away two years ago. That means he will take it back again when it is of use to him. That is not a deal.
That was my first thought.
The second was— Trump is taking additional hostages (the DACA kids)
Open the government.
Then negotiate a Bill.
No Bill until the government is full reopened.
Ann Coulter is losing her nut over Orange Mussolini’s proposal. That means it’s likely there will be pressure on both the left and right to reject this offer.
It was a non-offer or at least an offer designed to appeal to no one. In any event, without a guaranteed opening government, nothing should be agreed. No ransom for hostages.
I will be curious to see what comes out of the mainstream media sausage grinder after they process all this. This speech will be very attractive catnip for the beltway media, who would really like to find some way to make it about “both sides”. Chuck Todd, no doubt, will be doing his best efforts on this come tomorrow morning.
The reality is, there were some things offered which might be attractive to some Democrats. But I don’t think we can stray from the fact that much of what he is offering is just giving back what he has taken away. And there was not a single mention of furloughed federal workers which is, of course, a strategic move on their part to try and get everyone to quickly snatch the shiny object he just dangled in front of everyone and forget that at the root of all this is the shutdown. Open the government, and we will sit down and talk. That has to be to simple bottom line for Democrats right now. We still have the spectre of Trump saying he would proudly shut down the government to get his wall. So that is what it is about, and the focus needs to stay there.
We can’t be talking about deals while hundreds of thousands of middle class people are being held hostage by Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell. I made two cross country flights this week, and every chance I got I thanked the TSA workers for showing up and doing their jobs. One co-worker of mine actually printed up Thank You cards to give to them, after he found out he couldn’t legally give them gift cards. They were remarkably appreciative of his gesture. If “deals” are made, it cannot be until these people are freed from Trump’s tyranny.
If any Democrats waiver over this weak tea, then they’re a bunch of pussies. Yes, I’m looking at you Joe Manchin.
The social purity police will be coming for you now
Take a look at the respective ratings and you’ll have a good idea of where the regulars at this website stand.
Charge, Rocinante, charge!
If Dems want to own the title of the better Party then they’ll need to come back at Trump with a smarter and more comprehensive plan. Trump started with a plan that works for him with a few kernels for the Dems. The Dems need to return with a win/win/win offer that protects DACA, spells out smart security at the border with a modernized virtual border and enhances asylum seekers’ processing.
In other words, per usual, the Dems will need to do the work for us, the ineffectual Rep’s and whatever it is that Trump is.
I haven’t understood why the Dems haven’t been making an offer. Sure, $5 billion in wall funding for <insert list of positions supported by a majority of Americans, opposed by Republicans>. Gun control. Higher federal minimum wage. Voters rights. Add a new tax bracket. Etc.
I’ll go with the explanation that $5 billion doesn’t come close to covering the costs of the wall and so if the Dems give in for this $5 billion, they’ll see a replay every single time any budgetary issue comes to the floor. They’ll have zero leverage.
But why isn’t that a good thing for us? The next time, we get M4A. Then a Green New Deal. The leverage is, we get things too.
M4A ?
Medicare for All.
Negotiating with a known double-dealing liar requires a different strategy.
Sure. You need legal assurances in place.
Er, you need assurances in place to -get- things, as always. But just to negotiate you just need to ask for popular things and make the Rs say, “No! Just the wall” which increase their political pain.
Not unless you have the time & energy for lots of court, which is its own crap shoot. You will give up something to the other party, who takes it & runs. The other party simply reneges on their part of the deal – in this case, this is his MO, & to himself & his worshippers, it shows his strength.
Other than not bothering to negotiate at all, it might be a better use of your own time & energy to insist that the lying cheater other party give up something material of value. In advance. As a show of good faith.
I think that’s what the Democrats are trying to do.
An honest other party in this situation would try to work something out (maybe not exactly what was demanded), and a dishonest one (like we know he is) would try to bend the rules & give up nothing, so he could once again score one of his tactical victories.
The Democrat’s offer is “we will reopen the government right now today, no strings attached, and if you want to hold the American people hostage to extort some policy you don’t have the votes for while folks are waiting for their paychecks you can go piss up a rope.”
Exactly. He wants a conservative policy and our offer is “we want the status quo!” Why? Is that what we stand for? Why not, “And we want to ban assault weapons and an end to all voter suppression?
We’re not making new demands because we don’t hold the country hostage for leverage. Negotiations with competing demands happen once the hostages are free.
Why? I’m not sure who we’re trying to impress with this Principled Stand–imaginary referees, I guess?
I mean, we’re already negotiating: we’re demanding a return to the status quo. Why not use this opportunity to stand for something other than ‘business as usual?’
I genuinely don’t understand. We’re afraid that the media will blame us for the shut-down?
. . . the status quo”!
It’s we want the government functioning — a core responsibility of all parties/branches, completely independent of “border security” matters — i.e., we want the hostages released. Then we can talk about the latter.
The only reason the #TrumpMcConnellShutdown links shutting down government to funding Trump’s stupid, wasteful, ecologically devastating and indefensible “Wall” is for that hostage-taking. It cannot be allowed to succeed. I’m pleasantly surprised to see Dems (especially Schumer) getting this and holding together cohesively with “[Our] offer is this. Nothing.”
Dems also need to keep pounding home the message (especially in the face of the WtUCMǂ routinely mis-characterizing the #TrumpMcConnellShutdown as a “standoff” between Pelosi/Dems and Trump, thereby ludicrously absolving McConnell) that
so we’re not saddling American taxpayers with the cost of massaging his ego. We support sane, rational, effective border security measures, and if the president* ever comes around to sharing that view, we can easily get such measures passed and onto his desk. But we won’t be bullied into billing Americans for his vanity project by the #TrumpMcConnellShutdown hostage-taking.
ǂWorse-than-Useless Corporate Media
I don’t understand how ‘the government functioning as previously’ isn’t ‘the status quo’.
And moreso, I don’t understand why a more effective way to stop future shut-downs isn’t to use them to push an affirmative message with demands for popular liberal legislation.
We agree that the TrumpMcConnellShutdown cannot be allowed to succeed. But which is a bigger failure for them?
A) the government reopens after they cause tremendous damage, though they achieve no policy aims, and everyone understand even more clearly that the Republican Party is against a functioning government and the Democrats are for it.
B) the government reopens after they cause tremendous damage, though they achieve no policy aims, and everyone understand even more clearly that the Republican Party is against the government and the Democrats are for, say, Medicare for All, or a Green New Deal, or gun control.
. . . not functioning and nearly a million fed workers + contractors (been there, done that) not getting paid.
Kind of astonishing to me that you think caving in any manner to this hostage taking — i.e., paying any ransom — could be a “more effective way to stop future shut-downs”, when it looks to me like the more effective way to guarantee them!
But sure, obviously, of course Dems should be routinely messaging that we “are for, say, Medicare for All, or a Green New Deal, or gun control.” Just not as a bargaining chip or condition for releasing the hostages (which include the entire country, not just those furloughed fed workers and de-employed contractors).
I honestly don’t see how ‘making demands of our own’ = caving or paying ransom.
Hostage taker: Give us a million dollars for MAGA hats and we’ll open the gov’t!
Us: No.
versus
Hostage taker: Give us a million dollars for MAGA hats and we’ll open the gov’t!
Us: Sure, as long as you give us two million dollars for ‘Still With Her’ posters. Deal?
We KNOW that saying no won’t stop future shut-downs, because we’ve said ‘no’ in the past, and we’re in the middle of another shut-down. So that’s absolutely known to us.
Except clearly on I’m my own with this, so I should probably just chalk it up to my own bind spot. Thanks for trying to walk me through it …
But Steggies…you write:
The question remains…at least for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal…are they?
Really?
If so, how many and whom?
Not campaign promises…successful actions!!!
Always remember…the most powerful Dems take massive amounts of money from Big Insurance, Big Med, Big Pharma and Big Oil/Coal/Energy etc.
Medicare for All and a Green New Deal…both not so drastically altered that they lose their originally intended functions and instead become just another talking point aimed at getting votes…would mean massive profit losses for those corporate interests.
The history of the last 50+ years suggests that the Democratic Party indeed regularly carries a big stick in areas like this, but mostly only uses that stick to scratch its own back.
Will this change considering the new breed Dems who are currently making waves in the party?
We shall see.
Soon enough.
Won’t we.
Biden in 2020? Or someone else who has proven to be a loyal neoliberal/neocentrist?
Not.
Watch.
Later…
AG
The way this is being reported makes me want to tear my hair out.
At any point over the past two years, Donald could have urged the Republicans to pass wall funding. He chose to not do so; Paul and Mitch had other priorities and Donald was apparently OK with this.
Donald (and his GOP enablers) shouldn’t be able to pretend that an imaginary “border crisis” started the day after Pelosi gained the Speaker’s gavel without every single reporter on the Hill asking them why they didn’t pass a budget with wall funding over the past two years.
Don’s preferred solution, the BRIDGE Act, now temporarily gives back protections that Trump took away.
And on top of that- the federal government is shut down.
Donald is in the middle of a self-imposed crisis; he’s using the entire federal workforce as a bargaining chip; and now he wants to use some of the most vulnerable members of society as further bargaining chips. It’s all bullshit; Democrats can’t enable this crap. Giving Trump anything, no matter how small, teaches Donald that these tactics work. GOP members in the Senate and the White House are failing at basic governance; Democrats must not reward them for serial bad-faith actions and hostage-taking.
Absolutely correct. Yet the WAPO (not gonna link) has yet another editorial calling on the Dems to “compromise” with a turd lacking even a shred of dignity or a passing regard for honesty…. WAPO, don’t you keep a tally of his mendacious lying? Even if he was offering a worthwhile deal, he obviously can’t be trusted to keep his end.
To the mainstream press Dems must always, always compromise. If the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans would be showing “conservative resolve” and would be “holding true to their principles.” If the shoe were on the other foot….. what am I even talking about? Dems actually care about their constituents and wouldn’t hold them hostage for a vanity project that they weren’t able to fund during 2 years of complete executive and legislative dominance.
The WAPO editorial board must’ve went to Trump University.
Comments on that WaPo editorial were overwhelmingly negative.
I love the White House openly admitting in advance of the speech that the “compromise proposal” was crafted by Pence, Kushner and McConnell. That’s showing open contempt for the idea of true compromise. More like the three got together and tried to come up with an absolute bare minimum offer which theoretically might peel off seven Senators from the Democratic Caucus. Like Pelosi and her caucus would sweat the faceoff even if they manage to scrape up 60 Senators for this offal.
Fuck Jared Kushner with 57 rusty saws. Guys like him have had such broad room for error their entire lives; he, like Trump, has buried past challenges with Scrooge McDuck bags of money. He doesn’t have the skills to negotiate well when he’s dealing with people whose power is equal to his own.