A lot of people will read the following excerpt and take away from it more confirmation that Donald Trump doesn’t know or care about policy, and that’s a legitimate takeaway. But I think, ultimately, any Republican president would eventually get to the same place with the Freedom Caucus on health care or many other issues, regardless of the underlying merits of what they were discussing. So, I’d like to offer a limited defense of how Trump reacted:
Donald Trump had heard enough about policy and process. It was Thursday afternoon and members of the House Freedom Caucus were peppering the president with wonkish concerns about the American Health Care Act—the language that would leave Obamacare’s “essential health benefits” in place, the community rating provision that limited what insurers could charge certain patients, and whether the next two steps of Speaker Paul Ryan’s master plan were even feasible—when Trump decided to cut them off.
“Forget about the little shit,” Trump said, according to multiple sources in the room. “Let’s focus on the big picture here.”
The group of roughly 30 House conservatives, gathered around a mammoth, oval-shaped conference table in the Cabinet Room of the White House, exchanged disapproving looks. Trump wanted to emphasize the political ramifications of the bill’s defeat; specifically, he said, it would derail his first-term agenda and imperil his prospects for reelection in 2020. The lawmakers nodded and said they understood. And yet they were disturbed by his dismissiveness. For many of the members, the “little shit” meant the policy details that could make or break their support for the bill—and have far-reaching implications for their constituents and the country.
“We’re talking about one-fifth of our economy,” a member told me afterward.
Personally, I think Trump should have taken a different route with them by explaining in no uncertain terms that he didn’t run on creating a health care system anything like what was in the bill, and that he was already going to take a massive amount of heat for dispossessing tens of millions of people of their health care. He should have threatened that if he couldn’t rely on the Freedom Caucus on this most important first test, he’d be forced to cut them out of negotiations on pretty much everything else and go to the Democrats for his votes for infrastructure, trade, and tax reform, which would result in a major defeat for conservative ideology.
If it were me, I would have had a staffer ready to explain just how extreme the change would be, because entering into a governing coalition with the Democrats would force him to curtail his aggressiveness across the board in order to create room for the Democrats to work with him.
But Trump doesn’t have that kind of political imagination. Maybe that’s a fortunate thing, or maybe it’s a shortcoming that is going to bring the country to ruin. It’s hard to separate a president’s failure from the failure of the country, after all.
What’s important, though, is that reality has a way of asserting itself, and if there are limited paths for achieving basic minimal governance, those pathways will become better marked with every week that passes without progress on Trump’s legislative agenda.
On the Breitbart front, it’s getting hard to tell when the organization is acting at Steve Bannon’s instruction and when they are running independently from him, but they’re going very hard against Paul Ryan. Their article looks to me like it contains concocted anonymous quotes. They just read less like how people actually talk and more like how a bad scriptwriter would create dialogue. The intent is clear enough, though, which is to try to foment a coup against the Speaker so that a Freedom Caucus member can take his place.
This is actually an important thing to try to understand because insofar as Trump’s agenda is Bannon’s agenda and Bannon’s agenda is Breitbart’s agenda, the president is going to keep running, over and over, into the problem that he didn’t run as a far right Freedom Caucus ideologue.
To be sure, Trump’s immigration and trade policies align with Breitbart’s vision, as does his foreign policy broadly speaking. But outside of those areas, Trump ran as much more of a supporter of big government. His desire to do big deficit spending, to protect entitlements, to put a trillion dollars into infrastructure, are all going to run afoul of anti-Obama positions that were clearly staked out over the last eight years. These things divide Republicans to a degree that they can’t be done without some Democratic support, and nothing can be done with Democratic support unless Trump’s softens his positions on most of the things that unite the Republicans.
To put it in the simplest of terms, Trump has an agenda that cannot win majority support in Congress, and that means he has to adjust his agenda in fundamental ways.
Based on his personality and character, as well as his accumulated record, he does not seem capable of moving in the Democrats’ direction. Yet, there are no other paths. He just failed at the one gambit he had, which was to create a credible threat that he’d run to the Democrats in order to scare the Freedom Caucus into line.
Of course, so far I’ve been ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the federal and congressional investigations of his campaign’s connections to the Russians. He needs the Republicans to be united enough behind him to create a line of defense that can hold. Having insulted so many key congressional Republicans, and running a foreign policy that is not trusted by the Republican establishment, and having made enemies of the Intelligence Community and the media, Trump can ill afford to give Republicans a reason to abandon him. That effectively cuts him off from running to Schumer and Pelosi and asking them to help him enact new tax reforms, infrastructure investment, and trade policies.
I do not feel sorry for him. But I also can’t see how he can navigate out of the prison he’s constructed for himself. He’s barely been in office for two months and he’s already cut off every possibility for success.
Not hard to see why, but there’s no shortage of voices here saying this is precisely what you should be doing, that the Russian connections are:
a.) non-existent,
b.) unproven or factitious,
c.) benign,
d.) a distraction, and perhaps even a deliberate one.
And because it’s a distraction, it will prevent us from focusing on important issues…like health care. Oh wait.
Gee Davis, when the President supports a policy that has support of 17% of the American People, maybe these people “here” have a fucking point.
I know, only someone who wants the great proletarian revolution would dream of thinking that argument is the one to make.
The President has just fucked up. He has been cornered supporting something no one supports. He is going to next move on tax reform and propose tax cuts that will be as popular.
And you want to talk about Russia?
Gosh, I guess you must have glossed over this part of what Booman said:
And whoever said the Russian ties are “the” argument to make? Hit him on multiple fronts, again and again, don’t give him any breathing room, keep him backfooted, furious and defensive, with every weapon at hand.
You don’t have to choose one issue to peel away his support and bring him down. Different supporters will respond to different issues, and every damn one needs to be pursued.
Yes you do. And it has to be the right one issue, too.
Or people will be pissed.
At this point Davis, you have reached maximum self-parody.
Hysterical that the people who were wrong about Russian hacking from minute one have resorted to concern trolling that it’s impossible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Speaking of yourself? I recall you pushing that nonsense.
Maybe it was the Ukranians, amirite?
Maybe someone sitting on their bed that weighed 400 lbs?
Wait, I know. Aliens. It was aliens.
Had to rec that. You made me smile.
It’s not enough to be progressive.
It’s important to be progressive in the right way.
And above all, be seen being progressive in the right way.
Performative politics is non-partisan. Few things are, any more, so I suppose this should be a source of happiness.
Its important to win.
Your way lost.
Well, your way lost in the primary, Davis’ way lost in the general (by +3 million votes) so which way is the right way? The way that lost by 4 million or the one that lost by plus 3 million? I’m guessing that neither way can seriously claim that their way is the only way. The one try way, if you will.
The one TRUE way if you will. Damn, lack of edit button.
This isn’t about Clinton versus Sanders.
No matter how much you want to make it about that.
I believe you are the one who stated “your way lost.”
Ya, but that was like 3 whole hours before. No fair going that far into the past.
.
In a dairy about the Trump’s loss – a loss of enormous proportions – your FIRST thought was to attack other Democrats silly snark.
What exactly is the performance you are engaging in.
It’s like you have ZERO self awareness.
Look to the comments of your own diaries before commenting on ‘attack other democrats’. You and your cohort have made a hobby of it.
.
It all you ever do
I was responding to Davis not to Booman.
But make no mistake, Trump has cornered himself. When he ran he avoided throwing his lot in with the right wing agenda on entitlement issues. He was against Obamacare, without any proposed solution.
Obamacare was the organizing principle behind the Tea Party movement. It was THE issue the GOP used to retake the House and Senate.
The conservative base is coming apart at the seams over this.
We have our foot on their throats.
Yes, I absolutely think Russia is a distraction from as large a failure as a recent President has had.
I see you point, but my take is somewhat different. Yes, absolutely, health care is a major issue and a major defeat and we need to press hard on this and keep pressing. But we need to continue to weaken Trump in all possible ways as well, to build on this catastrophe for him.
One way of weakening him is to hamstring his appointees and his inner circle, the few people he trusts and relies on. Look at Michael Flynn — put into a position of great power and already brought down by the Russia thing. He’s had to toss aside people like Paul Manafort along the way. The Russian connections have the potential to whittle away further at his core support group. Hell, he doesn’t even have Melania around to prop up his ego.
Also, too, with health care down in flames, the administration, Congress, the media, the punditry will all turn to the Next Big Thing — tax reform, it appears — and while, yes, we do need to make this the next major focus of our efforts, the more isolated, hamstrung, and impotent we can make Trump, by whatever means necessary, the more effectively we can exploit his weakness here, too.
I also suspect it’s not just John McCain among the Republicans who is disturbed by the Russian electoral interference and apparent ties to Trump’s campaign; they may not be willing to admit it publicly, but it’s likely to be one more reason for GOP reps and senators to feel reluctant to help Trump. Anything that pushes another wedge into the GOP is good!
Even if I were cynical about this, which I absolutely am not, it’s pretty obvious that failure-and-scandal-everywhere-you-look is stronger than failure-everywhere-you-look.
Not when one message drowns out the other.
And it absolutely is among some.
“All this scandal is really helping Trump by drowning out the failure!”
Just try listening to yourself.
Try reading yourself from last june
How many diaries have you written about health care and how many about Russia
Our movement, the Democratic Party and its Congressional representatives just shitcanned ACA repeal in a couple of weeks. We have also stalled his Muslim ban for quite a while now. Trump and Congress have literally no major legislative accomplishments. It seems to me you’re trying to fix a nonexistent problem.
We have shown we can successfully fight for a strong independent investigation of the 2016 Presidential campaign while fighting successfully to defeat their horrible regulatory and legislative agenda. In fact, the first can help us with the second. If Trump and Congressional Republicans have less credibility, they can’t defend themselves from attacks as successfully.
President Bush’s incompetent responses to the Iraq insurgents and Hurricane Katrina helped us defeat his Social Security privatization scheme. It would have been poor political practice to not talk about the first two just because the third was in play.
Even more importantly, our democracy is at stake. We need to discover more about the Russians’ broad efforts to create the political outcome they preferred in 2016. While it has not been proven that there was direct or indirect collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, circumstantial evidence is beginning to stack up like cordwood, and it certainly hasn’t been proven that there wasn’t direct or indirect collusion. It would be irresponsible to let Trump, Sessions and Republicans spike or undermine this investigation. The despicable post-Inaugural actions of the Intelligence Committee Chairmen have shown that the investigation will be spiked or undermined if we and the Democrats don’t pitch a fit.
It’s not about Trump, its about the Democratic Base. As long as it is engaged, the Democrats stay united.
A unified Democratic Caucus is the single most important thing that can stop Trump.
So its about real things that matter to people.
The right to their own body
The right to marry who they want
The right to healthcare
Stopping giveways to the rich.
There is very little disagreement among the base about any of that, and if the base keeps its voice heard we can:
*Force Trump into another problem over the debt ceiling
*Make clear who he is appointing the Court, and why it goes against what about 60% of of the American People want.
*Stop the tax plan
These are not difficult fights: these are 60-40 or 70-30 fights in polling.
Davis’s silliness aside (and he is being silly), they aren’t even Clinton versus Sanders arguments.
Isn’t that what Democrats ran on 2010-2016? Yeah sure, Republicans pledge to take all the gains away. But a couple of points from the perspective of electoral politics:
The election wasn’t decided on Russia and the next one likely won’t be either. However, a narrative is important and you can’t deny that Trump’s Russia connections and clear benefit from Russian interference has helped galvanize the left along with a number of other issues.
You aren’t going to convince anyone to let go of that bone, try as you might.
I’m impressed by the degree to which ppl have become involved and [some] congresscritters are really stepping up to the plate. the russia thing on blogs becomes an excuse to refight the primary and election, to that extent it should be avoided. also too, whatever there is there is in good hands with the likes of Whitehouse, Schiff, and Comey (yes). but the degree to which the T family is enmeshed in global financial affairs to which great stench is attached, is a current and future problem. other anti-democratic changes in us gov, aside from destroying the state dept, may be on his agenda, and that is a problem.
We are fools to let up on Russia. It is the biggest presidential scandal in history– whether you call it treason or espionage. That doesn’t mean you let up on domestic issues. If Democrats are the only ones pressing for the truth, and the truth comes out, this has the potential to mortally wound the republican party. Their patriotism is revealed to be completely empty.
So yes hit them on the issues they are wrong on (all of them) but press the criminality and the aiding and abetting. Trump the traitor should be tied to every republican’s neck until the end of time.
BENGHAZI!!!
How well did that work? It’s the same BS.
The completely imaginary Benghazi scandal was hugely effective at mobilizing right-wing opinion. And that one never even made narrative sense, let alone the lack of any factual basis whatsoever.
And you think this is an argument against perusing an actual scandal that’s already brought down campaign officials and cabinet appointees?
The “scandal” is “fake news” just like Benghazi. The Benghazi screaming never changed a single vote and may have lost them some independents due to the stupidity. I hear people worrying about losing healthcare. I hear Postal employees worrying about postal “reform”. I hear no one, no one at all even my crazed Hillaryite sister that believes Russians changed a single vote or were in league with Sanders or Trump. It’s all nonsense to get the fanatical Democrats to froth at the mouth and not notice that their representatives in Congress are making absolutely no counter-proposals. I got a newsletter from my DNC anointed Congressman. It’s full of crap about Trump. Nothing about what they are doing about it or would do different. Because they wouldn’t do anything different. Just slicker.
I came here years before you to discuss policy, not to join a cheerleading squad. I’d look horrible in a short skirt. Sort of like Max Klinger,
I tend to think Benghazi was highly damaging over time, although I have no firm proof of this. What proof do you have that it didn’t change a single vote?
Because the only people that I heard say anything about it were rabid Teabaggers. And they were as rabid as “TRUMP IS A COMMIE!”
The reich wing had to be mobilized to not vote for Hillary? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I just want to take a moment to congratulate you for managing to comment in a way that was at least somewhat constructive.
Aren’t you the guy that voted third party because someone was mean to you on Booman Tribune?
.
I think he was one of the guys who voted third party because the Democrat’s nominee was a corrupt psychopath.
No, that was Trump. Do try to keep up.
I wonder how addled someone’s brain must be to compare Clinton and Trump and think she’s the corrupt psychopath.
I wonder how addled someone’s brain must be to think that any Clinton is sane. Don’t leave your kid alone with any of them.
Do you read your posts before you hit send?
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, straight-up. Which one is the pussy-grabber?
Who cares? You want to talk about sexcapedes look at Bill Clinton.
Try thinking instead of repeating slogans.
You’re the one obsessed with Bill Clinton, Voice. I could give two shits about him or any of the others.
Just be honest about your bias for the Clintons. You’re going to have irrational hatred for them until the day you die.
They will live lavish, comfortable care-free lives and you will continue to stew in your anger and bitterness. The misery they cause you amuses me.
It’s a cruel world.
That’s the attitude that lost you the election.
We all lost the election. But, yeah… the fact that I think you wallow in misery and bitterness is definitely why Trump won and not at all based on the content and tone of your posts.
Try to enjoy your Sunday. Let’s keep the BP low.
yeah, what you said.
There was a corrupt psychopath and a megalomaniac psychopath running which is why many either didn’t vote or voted third party.
I’ll agree you need a scorecard to determine which major party candidate was more corrupt and which was megalomaniac. It was close, but Trump won megalomaniac by a nose.
Denial put into pixels, here or anywhere, ever.
You very almost never nasty to me personally.
Where is your post on how Ryan is probably doomed whether Trump or Hillary wins? You seemed to see this coming a long time ago.
Heh. Wouldn’t this be kind of a defeat for Democratic ideology, such as it is, as well?
He (Trump) forgot that hardball is part of the art of the deal.
I know that Booman is fond of the idea of a governing coalition involving Democrats, but what’s the historical precedent? I don’t recall one. Reagan had to deal mostly with a GOP controlled Senate and Dem controlled House; that was in the days of many Blue Dogs and before the GOP had purged its “moderate”, rational members. Legislation had to to “bipartisan”, but wasn’t that mostly a matter of Blue Dogs supporting the GOP position in the House? Since the purge and since 1994, when many Blue Dogs moved to the GOP, not a lot of bipartisan anything except involving residual Blue Dogs.
Trump would effectively have to eat humble pie to ever get Democrats to work with him. I don’t see any scope for that. It’s going to be a long 4 years of pitched battles and continuing resolutions.
“The era of Big Government is over”
Bill Clinton, 1995.
If we hand the GOP their asses in ’18, the goal would be to get him to say something similar. It is possible that Trump, who believes I suspect in nothing, may tack left out of political desperation.
As long as the Democratic Caucus is united in opposition Trump is going to find it hard to do anything. Keeping the Caucus united means keeping the base engaged, as it clearly was over health care.
He would probably splinter the Dem base quite a bit if he rolled with real economic populism AND white identity, not unlike Marine LePen.
What an extraordinary turn of events it would be if Trump did as Booman suggests – work with the Dems and ultimately be thought of as the “The Uniter”.
Trump cares more about his legacy and his ego than conservative ideology and policy. He could find common ground across the aisle on infrastructure, trade, Glass-Steagal and few others.
Sure he’d piss off the Freedom Caucus but the FC’s policies f*ck over his base anyway. It would be easy for him to sell his base on an a la carte approach.
Would the Dems go for it? Why wouldn’t they?
Why would the Dems allow Trump to look like “The Uniter”? First, he would take all the credit. Secondly, how does this help Dems gain back seats in Congress? The typical person isn’t paying attention to these political machinations and will just continue to vote for the incumbent, since all is well. After the extreme obstruction Repubs exhibited during the Obama years, all is fair in love and war. Repubs are in control of all levers, so let them show their stuff to the American people. After the pukefest, maybe things will change.
That makes sense. The dems have to get back in power and they won’t get there polishing this turd. Leaving our futures up to the narcissistic machinations of this person and making nice with the republicans just doesn’t cut it for me. They certainly never helped out progressives.
Because Democrats are shitty at politics.
Only since they embraced a “third way” without simplistically articulating it for a few decades until 2016.
A win here and a win there encouraged them to believe that they had a winning formula. They still believe after being decimated at the federal, state, and local level and now without even a bench to draw from for the next round.
Eh, how decimated can they be? They still have more than enough power to crush the Bernie wing internally.
Also, you talk about “only since” but remember, I am several decades younger than you. My youngest political memory is 1994 bloodbath and even then I was still quite a small child. In my lifetime democrats have ALWAYS beens shitty at politics except in 1) 2006 when the netroots told them how to best campaign and 2) when it comes to Obama’s personal political ability. That is the only experience a lot of us have with Democrats.
It doesn’t. In recent times, I can only recall two instances when a President held the majority in Congress with a balky intra-party faction. (FDR wisely sidelined a potential for balky Democratic faction by putting John Nance Garner in the ’32 and ’36 VP slot.)
1993-94 — except the majority intra-party faction was a majority. The GOP ignored the factional split and demonized Democratic members of Congress as Clinton stooges. After gaining the majority in ’94, then they could work with Clinton as long as it advanced the GOP agenda. And he delivered, often as good as or better than a GOP POTUS could have. But it was important to continue demonizing Clinton to keep both GOP and Democratic voters in line.
1964-1967 — domestic policy. A difference, even by then, was that the GOP brand still retained the Lincoln-Teddy Roosevelt legacy. An alliance between progressives in both parties was feasible. The Democratic regressives either changed (Bobby Byrd and Al Gore, Sr.) or became Republicans and infected that party and slowly squeezed out the GOP progressives. (Lincoln Chafee was the last one to go and by then he was more progressive than half the congressional Democratic caucus.)
DP elites appear to be attempting to replicate Newt’s ’93-94 revolution. However, the Newt faction wasn’t running to restore the Bush/Reagan regime and his gang was from the right of the party and not obstructed by the less extreme Republicans.
No one has any reason to trust Donny, to be loyal to him or to take any political risk for him. With his ignorance, his incompetence, his Russian entanglements and his other corrupt activities, past and present, becoming more obvious every day, most Republicans have to be concluding that they will do better running against him in 2018 than touting their support of him.
“reality has a way of asserting itself”
The government has been paralyzed for so long that paralysis has become our reality. The Hastert rule is the unwritten law of the land, and it cannot be reexamined now, certainly not by Der Trumper and his Reichsfuhrer Bannon.
Team Conservative has, since the days of Boss Rushbo and Newt Turdrich’s successful rebellion, demonized the Dem party and the hated demographic groups that make it up. We have all seen the polls of the attitudes of Repubs and Trumpites (to the extent they diverge): they despise any attempts at compromise as pathetic, loathsome weakness. They despise the Dems with the white hot hatred of a thousand suns. Thus, the supposed “genius” of the American system has long ago been thrown into the sewage pond by the “conservative” movement.
So the “reality” is that the people who voted for Der Trumper would never countenance any actual attempt by Trumper to use Dems to obtain legislative “compromise”. That is heresy, to be punished by death. Nor in this environment is it conceivable that many of the (mythical?) “moderate Repubs” (an oxymoron in my view) would be willing to join such a “coalition”. Most who did would be crucified by their braindead base.
And if Der Trumper was not going to govern as a rightwing extremist, then what in God’s name are horrendous rightwing nutjobs like Bannon and Miller doing in critical positions? Trumper is too stupid to know their (actual) politics? And how does one explain our Crackpot Cabinet of extremists and rightwing goofs? It’s more likely that Trumper’s supposed “moderate” positions on campaign were the usual “conservative” shell game, like the risible disinformation that Gorsuch is really just a sensible judicial “centrist”.
On the Dem side, Trumper long ago made himself radioactive and it is quite difficult for me to see how the base would accept the slightest level of compromise with this monster, who exists solely via the malfunction of our failed constitution, and who will be joyfully cramming one atrocity down our throats after another. The sooner the Trump admin and Repub Congress catastrophically fails, the better—especially after they destroyed a (legitimately elected) two term Dem prez.
I guess the conventional wisdom now is that Repubs will fail to coalesce on any part of their “agenda”, ala the Trumpcare fiasco. This calls the question yet again of whether these “conservative” imbeciles believe their horseshit or not. They certainly come across on the teevee as believing the claptrap and delusions they blather. So there should be an ocean of policy prescriptions that they can agree on without raising the preposterous specter of working with Dems or otherwise violating the Hastert rule. The idea that they will fail as a majority to pass a major tax cut (“tax reform” in Repubspeak) seems especially precious. The only question on environmental destruction is simply how far they are willing to go. Just a couple examples.
There is no practical way out of the cesspool that the “conservative” movement has led us into. The “system” has been wrecked and simply can no longer function. These are the wages of “conservatism”. Not every disease can be cured…
Excellent post.
Trump statements on the campaign trail included: re-establishing Glass Steagal, raising the minimum wage, creating a massive infrastructure program, reigning in big pharma, curbing free trade agreements, protecting Medicare and Social Security, mandating paid maternity leave and raising taxes on the rich.
Trump won because he made promises like this not despite of them.
A few more failures like this last one, a few more unpopular decisions and when those crowds at the rallies start to dwindle, I think he starts to govern like he campaigned.
I think his base sticks with him and gives the finger to congress.
Trump would not be compromising because those are all his ideas.
Karl p. from above doesn’t think the Dems would work with him and I understand that line of thought and he may be right. Only one way to find out and it starts with Trump.
>>Karl p. from above doesn’t think the Dems would work with him and I understand that line of thought and he may be right. Only one way to find out and it starts with Trump.
I think Karl’s point was the Dem’s shouldn’t work with Trump more than wouldn’t.
The issue I see is that it’s not just Trump that would have to work with Democrats, it’s half of house Republicans. How do you convince Ryan to go that way? I don’t see the Dems ever having to make this choice.
“A few more failures like this last one, a few more unpopular decisions and when those crowds at the rallies start to dwindle, I think he starts to govern like he campaigned.”
How, exactly? Where are the congressional Republicans that would support that? As has already been explained on this thread, if the Democrats even make noises like they would work with him, Republicans in Congress would be even less likely to.
In fact, I believe that”s what both Sanders AND Schumer (who are closely aligned on this) have already done — said they’d be willing to work with Trump. That doesn’t mean they really think that will happen. But it does make Sanders and Schumer look bipartisan, at the same time making Republicans nervous. The translation of Sanders and Schumer’s statements is, if Trump governs like a Democrat, we’ll support him.
But he won’t, and he can’t. And they know that.
“Some on this thread talk about “the right”, even “the far right” as if it is monolithic. It is actually a bunch of warring factions.”
Trump won, when very few people thought he could win.
We can argue about why he won but he certainly won by running against the conventional GOP. He defeated all of their top people and they fell one by one.
The unique coalition of Trump voters are his leverage.
All he has to do is start targeting vulnerable congressmen as he did his GOP primary challengers. This is something he knows how to do and is good at. We’ve all witnessed it.
There’s enough competency on his team to figure out which ones to start with.
This time out he got burned. He will look for revenge. This fascinating Vox article explains why he did not have time to use this approach for the Health Care bill:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/24/15016918/trump-why-health-reform-failed
I don’t think they make the same mistake again. If he takes his time and peels them off one by one I think he can find enough congressmen on both sides to get what he wants done.
I believe Trump’s ego would allow him to do this, the question in my mind is whether Bannon will let him.
My question is not whether Bannon will let him. Of course he will, because Bannon does Trump’s political thinking for him. (Since Trump hasn’t got a clue.)
My question is whether Bannon, who compared to Trump appears to be a political genius, is really anything more than a anger-crazed crackpot. In other words, whether his strategy is politically viable. Because I don’t think it is. The only thing he can really accomplish is create chaos — in the Republican PArty. That he can do very well.
Here’s a must-read on the topic from Ursulafaw:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/25/1647295/-Steve-Bannon-Is-Cleaning-House-He-Posted-A-S-it-L
ist-In-WH-War-Room-And-Paul-Ryan-Is-Toast
Enjoyed the article. Thank you for sharing it.
If Bannon does have a coherent nationalist “workers’ party” agenda he will need the Dems. His list does not fall neatly into our Red/Blue script. He will need to go back and forth playing the different factions against each other depending on the topic. What better way to start than to splinter the GOP?
He’s not going to get the Dems either. The Dixiecrats are all in the republican Party.
I know, I know. “Infrastructure”. But what Trump means by “infrastructure” is things like the Keystone Pipeline. What Dems mean, or at least wht they should mean, is things like affordable housing, repairing bridges, building public schools, etc.
So, we talk about eliminating the filibuster for this that or the other thing, whether executive appointments or district and appeals courts, or the SCOTUS.
All or some of those things have or could happen, but the filibuster itself, for actual legislation, is not something that the Senate can get rid of without destroying the Senate’s whole way of operating, which is by unanimous consent.
It is not likely that the filibuster will be gutted for legislation, and their whole first year plan to use the budget reconciliation process to ram home changes with a simple majority lies in ruins.
If Trump wants an infrastructure plan or tax reform or a pretty much anything else, he will need 8 Democrats and a united caucus of Senate Republicans.
As you’ve said, he’s made himself so toxic that even people like Manchin feel comfortable opposing him on many things. He has to repair his relationship with the Democrats or he’s dead in the water.
No, that wouldn’t be easy in the best of circumstances, and he’s pretty much made it impossible.
But, still, he could go to Schumer tomorrow and say that he wants an infrastructure plan and that he’ll take whatever Schumer can come up with that won’t lose him all the Republicans and fail.
To get that to work in the House, though, he’d need a new Speaker elected by moderate Republicans and many if not most Republicans.
These are very hard things to pull off, and he’s not the one to do it.
But he can’t get anything through the Senate right now if it’s going to need 60 votes, and he’s going to have a hard time passing things through the House at all with just GOP votes, and those things will be DOA with Democrats in the Senate.
He can face a stalemate or he show some imagination.
Unfortunately for him, he cannot afford the congressional oversight that would come with the kind of deal I’m describing, which is why he can’t do it even if he realizes the need to do it.
Meanwhile, Marcy is writing that the repubs are fixing to come after Hillary on Russian ties. Best we flush this whole Russian thing out before we talk about partnership with these devils.
You mean this?
“https:/www.emptywheel.net/2017/03/24/republicans-prepare-to-accuse-hillary-of-russian-ties
But she also says: “I’d say this is all ridiculous, and within the counterintelligence department it probably is … ” She concludes the sentence with a qualification, but I think I’ll take it straight. Yes it is ridiculous.
Amazing that professional nutcase and disinfo specialist Jerome Corsi is back in action.
The thing is, it’s Trump and his team that are under investigation, and whatever they might find or not find about Hillary doesn’t change that. And Hillary’s not president. At least in part, thanks to the Russians. So I’d say it’s a bit of a Hail Mary pass.
Thanks to both Booman and Racer for the observations.
I can’t disagree with the recitation of the more “populist” items Trumper said he was running on during the campaign. Or that he could have reached out to Dems from the start (assuming he hadn’t been so stupid and treacherous to play cootchie-coo with Putin as an election strategy). I just note that Trumper hit the ground “governing” as an even more vicious extremist than Cheney, and that’s saying something. From the Muslim ban(s) to the ICE raids to the “In-your-fucking-face-Dems!” Crackpot Cabinet to the “Repeal Obamacare on Day One!” (RIP). So far nary a mention of the various moderate positions, such as Glass-Steagal repeal or trade deal changes. The problem (as always) is Repubs lie.
It’s not incredible to say that the events of the past week have likely shown “Trump the Legislator” to have fizzled, which is hardly a shock as he is completely unfit for his position. He’s flat on his back on that front. And he surely can’t try to regroup and pass his agenda via the Dems for all the reasons mentioned.
But Ryan and McConnell can still try to pass THEIR Repub agenda, with Der Trumper being a mechanical signing machine. They are the ones who have to decide whether to risk (or curry) Dem involvement at this point or whether they can cram items through with just their majorities, working around the filibuster. Trump is already persona non grata on Capitol Hill. Ryan/McConnell are the ones who need to show some “imagination” at this point. They must have known Trump was a know-nothing imbecile from Day One.
But Repubs don’t have “Party Over Country” as a motto for nothing, and I think we can safely say imagination by our ruling class elites is in pretty short supply.
Perhaps at some point you could write some thoughts on what exactly Dems should do if Der Trumper DID try to have Congress function again–i.e. acted as though the Dems were actual members of Congress controlling actual votes. I mean, I presume Dems would be willing to work on and pass the legislation needed to fix many of the developing issues with Obamacare IF Ryan would flush the Freedumb Caucus down the shitter permanently and accept defeat on repealing Obamacare. But sh/would there be any additional demands made to obtain Dem aid? Doesn’t allowing Trumper to break the paralysis Repubs willfully created always redound to his benefit?
I think the rethugs will try to pass their own agenda with Trump as the signer in chief. And I think they will be quite willing to blow up the filibuster rules if needed, especially around tax issues. But then I bet the dems would join right in or some would. I worry about SS and medicare and what Ryan and the Freedom Caucus has in mind. And we know they will appoint as many Scalias to the court as you give them a chance.
The trouble with your first sentence is that Bannon hates Ryan. I mean really hates him — wants to destroy him.
Some on this thread talk about “the right”, even “the far right” as if it is monolithic. It is actually a bunch of warring factions.
Most see today as a defeat for Trump, and indeed it was from a certain perspective. But I don’t think Trump is going to lose any sleep over it, because it was a much bigger defeat for Ryan than it was for Trump. And Bannon has to be very happy about that. Which means that Trump must be too.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/bannon-health-care-bill.html
So we have to keep following the rule of an admitted child molester? A child molester who was a school coach and as such in a position of trust?
That’s up to the Repub majority, it’s a Repub rule, essential to their paralysis regime.
And Wrestler Denny was one of their beloved figures (and likely still is.) Shame isn’t part of their makeup…
Because his child molestation has nothing to do with the rule.
Two points to add to this high quality response.
Seems more direct to understand that Bannon’s loyalty is not to Breitbart but to Mercer. Breitbart is only a tool for them. Likewise, KellyAnne lays her loyalty at Mercer’s feet. That the Koch brothers got involved and were against the RIP, Bannon is screaming that he wants the list of ‘no voters’, that the TParty/Freedom caucus is under the Koch umbrella and Trump was clueless and uncaring what the Bill entailed can translate into this has the undercurrents of a war of the billionaires.
And did anyone else see on Joy Reid this morning the chat about how Nunes’ has a partnership interest in a winery in CA where the main distributor is a Russian with connections into Krelin?
It is a sad commentary on our democracy that the Kochs just bought the no vote on health care. Maybe there really is some war among the billionaires, like Mercer v Koch. Tell me again why I should support the turd. Let the games begin.
And did anyone else see on Joy Reid this morning the chat about how Nunes’ has a partnership interest in a winery in CA where the main distributor is a Russian with connections into Kremlin?
Any Russian with millions in is bank account is likely friendly with Putin. But it just goes to show the problem with Capitalism. Cheeto doesn’t give a shit who buys condos or apartments in his buildings as long as the check clears. He doesn’t give a shit if it’s Russians or Chinese trying to launder money. Frankly, as mentioned above, Americans should be more concerned about scum like the Mercer family and Wilbur Ross. To quote Springsteen in Badlands:
Poor man wanna be rich
Rich man wanna be king
And a king ain’t satisfied
Till he rules everything
But put that on overdrive.
I’d argue that in these Trumpian times a Russian connection has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with Putin’s war of influence. The winery connection shines a light on an open door for Nunes to walk through.
Then Adam Shiff’s relationship with Igor Pasternak is an open door to the Ukrainian fascists. (To name just one such relationship with a Democratic politician.)
Nunes is the one with the relationship and the questionable behavior.
also, he lists a net worth of $52,000. and I didn’t omit any zeros there except the cents.
I was kind of shocked to see his declared net assets so low. Just for starters, doesn’t he own a house? People don’t get independently wealthy as Congressmen, but they do get an excellent salary – 179,000/year, which is about 97th percentile. His entire declared assets fall short of the six month salary of liquid assets financial advisors recommend everybody have. Yeah, most people can’t do that in this age of the squeezed middle class, but somebody at the 97th percentile has no excuse.
something I ran across said he has everything in his wife’s name [why?]. There was a bizarro item about Nunes trying to get an intel base relocated from UK to the Azores, where he has relatives. could not find that item, will paste in when found
something interesting – the tweet quotes an account of who was at the meeting Flynn, Turkish foreign minister and Devin Nunes – but can’t get the quoted text to copy
https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/845712917764845568
T. R. Ramachandran @yottapoint 7 hHace 7 horas
Más
46) Look who else was in that very meeting w/ Flynn & Turkish officials – Devin Nunes! h/t @EmmaLee05733408
With tweet open in twitter, click the down arrow at upper right, click “embed tweet”, then copy and paste the embed code that pops up. Like this:
thanks, solves embed problem: was misunderstanding the spanish phrase google uses for “embed” it insists on giving twitter in spanish for some reason)
When do we start talking about where all the expropriated wealth of Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs have ended up? Pretty much where western wealth ends up, propping up banks, stocks, real estate, and trophy prize prices. Has the flow of such money to the west slowed down of late? Not getting as big a piece of the pie as they’d become accustomed to? Whatever are the money centers to do?
When do we start talking about where all the expropriated wealth of Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs have ended up?
London?
I think this is a good post (as usual) and BooMan’s tactical framework is canny and seems accurate (as usual), but, nevertheless, it makes the same mistake I keep objecting to in every context: imbuing Trump with more vision/smarts etc. than are his.
I mean, the whole idea that Trump ever understood on a conceptual level that there are these different coalitions in the congress or that bills get sent from one chamber to the other, followed by a veto vote (or not); that you have to solicit support through compromise…I don’t think he knew any of that.
I think Trump believed that he would become President and then start telling everyone what to do. It’s in his language, even this week: There “will be no new legislation” if this bill fails; the business about how “We learned” about getting votes, etc.
He doesn’t understand any of it. His and Bannon’s agendae might correspond accidentally or coincidentally with some other entities or groups at some particular moment (which is what everyone’s banking on) but he’s not even at a “Mad King” level because even the maddest of kings understands his own power; Trump does not.
I get your criticism and I was trying to impose that own kind of censorship on myself as I wrote this.
I attempted to do it in three ways.
So, in the end, he was already trapped before the health care bill came up, and he didn’t have the option of following my advice, nor does he have that option now.
Thus, my conclusion that he’s cut off every avenue for success.
You did put in those caveats, but you didn’t include the caveat Jordan added, which is that Trump doesn’t even understand what’s going on. He doesn’t understand that members of Congress are independent agents and can’t simply be ordered about, and he doesn’t understand that they are representatives of their districts and have to pay attention to real-world concerns of at least a large sub-group of their districts’ residents. Trump is clueless in a way your post and caveats don’t address.
I think he’s so clueless that your caveats become almost irrelevant. Yes, he lacks the temperament for the complex negotiations to get substantial legislation through, but that’s irrelevant for somebody who doesn’t even understand that legislation needs complex negotiations. He’s just an actor playing at being President, and unlike Reagan he’s used to acting without a script so his handlers can’t control him. Real-world constraints on what he should do just don’t matter – only on what he actually can do.
agree with both you and Jordan. playing with the truck while AHCA was in process was telling to me – and what one of the articles about the process that day stated – that he calls ppl and tells anecdotes and etc etc – a kind of personal bullying but he has no grasp of government and the process.
Well, the dynamics I’m describing are things that I’ve been talking about for about five years now. I don’t know how you run for president and not understand them at all. But he didn’t understand them and no one around him cared about him enough (as opposed to whatever they hoped to get out of him) to explain it.
So, he went headlong into a series of moves that crippled him before he could even get started.
So, yes, I agree with you but I also think that what you’re pointing out is strongly implicit in what I wrote.
It’s important because it comes pretty close to completely preceding him from acting on what he might learn or benefiting from what he might be taught.
He burned his ships when he went with Bannon and a Muslim Ban and cabinet picks who want to shutter their departments and denied the GOP the spoils of victory by imposing a loyalty test for appointments, and so on.
Add in his Russia problem, and he has very few allies, and those allies are unreliable. Getting back to a point where he can work with the Dems without them using the opening to force his resignation will be close to impossible.
Jordan and Curt are right, but I believe you understand this too. The problem is, it must be very difficult for a serious political commentator to write about a guy who has no understanding of how politics actually work.
The problem is not so much what you know but how you write about it. You just have to be very clear that your political analysis is how a normal politician would see it, but not how Trump sees it.
This would be easier to carry off if you could explain how Trump probably does see it. You’d need to pay more attention to abnormal psychology as well as to Trump’s bio, and to Bannon’s actual views on things, to the pretentious but mediocre thinkers who have influenced him, like the fascist pseudo-traditionalists Julius Evola and Alexander Dugin.
He doesn’t understand that a President is not a CEO. He can’t order the moon then fire everyone when they don’t deliver. If he had legal training he would know that “the little shit” does matter. If he had any legal background at all he wouldn’t have gotten into trouble on his executive orders. he would have put in enough weasel words to pass muster before a judge, at least a conservative judge.
Disclosure: I have no legal training, but I’ve been screwed enough by the fine print in my life.
doesn’t even take a legal background. if Trump had been a good CEO he’d have had smart lawyers tell him what he could get away with, and listened to them.
Then Trump would be a smart CEO rather than a good CEO. Trump may be cunning (maybe) but not smart. I don’t even think he’s cunning. He’s a con man and a bully. He knows what to say to con the marks. Then he bullies any opposition. it worked in New York, but it won’t work in DC. Just as Bill Clinton found that what worked in Little Rock won’t work in DC.
. . . you and a few tens/hundreds of thousands of people in just the wrong geographic distribution put him where he is today.
Good job!
No, I didn’t vote for him. Or do you just hate everyone in the MidWest?
“Aiding and abetting” the outcome you’re now whining about (with no standing to do so) pretty well covers it.
Trump has had smart lawyers his whole life. The problem is that he pays them to do what he wants them to do, then to clean up the mess afterwards. He doesn’t ask for advice.
It’s Trump that’s not smart.
Putting a few more bars on that prison is a worthy effort:
The Hill — Dems introduce MAR-A-LAGO Act to publish visitor logs
Probably won’t go anywhere in Congress, but handled properly, it’s gold in electoral politics.
Faulty premise. Trump’s mission was accomplished on Election Day. He has no actual governing goals besides the wall, and that’s aligned with all the little evil shits’ goals.
He’s in total control of the grift and he can call a rally in any red state any time he needs ego gratification.
The only thing that will motivate him to work with Democrats is if any of his grifts are imperiled. Since his Russian corruption is his main threat right now he needs the Republicans much more.
He won’t get clear of the Russian stuff until after the mid-terms at the earliest – then he’s either a lame duck or the Republicans get their filibuster proof majority in the Senate and working with the Democrats is pointless.
The actual problem isn’t Trump, it’s the morans, those little evil shits in the Senate and the Freedom caucus. They’re great at guerrilla tactics as the opposition when their audience is just the morans and evil little shits who are registered Republicans.
Trump can’t be any smarter or more effective than they are, although he’s clearly demonstrated he can be stupider and even less effective.
Looks like a Pivot is being floated!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/reince-priebus-time-for-gop-to-start-governing-repeal-failure
LOL — so much Fantasy Football in that from Mr. Rinse it all away, eh?