Wait...Corey Lewandowski is married with four children? Since when? There were several reports of his dating Hope Hicks during the Trump administration. . Didn't realize he was married, with children, at the time. Joy Villa, the singer, filed a police report against Corey for, allegedly, slapping her ass at a party. Then he supposedly groped Trashelle at a dinner. (Fortunately Trashelle's twin sister, Garbagella was not there.) According to Wikipedia, Corey is Catholic. Wow, the Church has really gotten lax on what constitutes a sin. By the way, BEST MORNING SHOTS EVER!
As long as she herself wasn't a victim Trashelle apparently had no problem donating to a guy who had been credibly accused of sexually assaulting over 20 women, screwed a porn star shortly after his wife had had his child and carried on an affair with a former playboy bunny.
The same people who wanted people like John Kelly to resign on principal in the face of Trump's immigration policy are now defending Milley for refusing to buck Biden on the Afghan withdrawal plan. Imagine their reactions to a Trump 2025 ordering nukes fired at Iran and Milley's replacement complying. THEN all of a sudden the military not stepping up and stopping something is going to look really popular in the rearview mirror.
Regarding the game of chicken, Jonathan Chait at NY Mag had a different take on this (link: https://nym.ag/2Y3Pi34). To wit:
"The truth of the situation at hand is almost precisely the opposite. The people who are willing to compromise and accept half a loaf are the progressives. The ones who refuse to negotiate are the centrists.
"Just listen to what the progressives are saying:
“What we have said is that if there is an agreement that the president strikes on this Build Back Better agenda, we will vote for the bipartisan bill, we’re willing to negotiate,” Representative Ro Khanna said on CNN. “The president keeps begging [Senator Kyrsten Sinema], ‘Tell us what you want. Put a proposal forward’ … How do you compromise when Sinema isn’t saying anything?”
"Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal: “They need to tell us what they don’t agree with. And we need to be able to actually negotiate it.”
"Jayapal, again: “If they don’t tell us what they want to do, which was the president’s message, and if they don’t actually negotiate on the entire bill, then we’re not going to get too close.”
"Representative Jim McGovern: “I think a lot of us want to make sure we have an assurance that, in fact, there’s going to be a reconciliation bill.”
"They are not making implacable demands. They are begging the centrists to simply negotiate."
yeah, it's one thing to say it can only be 1.5 trillion, you have to also be willing to say which programs should be cut and why. Manchin and Sinema are much happier bloviating about how 3.5 trillion is just too damn high than actually saying what Manchin really wants to say which is that he would like to cut anything that might hurt his corporate oil backers.
The only reason to tie the reconciliation bill to the infrastructure bill is that the progressives know the reconciliation bill is too expensive and too unpopular to stand on its own. For that, progressives deserve the criticism they are getting.
I get that the bill is unsellable because it's too big, but is it actually pad policy. I can see a solid argument for bad politics, but it seems, at least from what I've seen, to be good policy
Trashelle? Okay, there are lots of odd names these days and it usually isn't nice to make fun of people for them, but seriously, what were her parents thinking?
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who finds Khatiri's polemics about Biden/Afghanistan tiresome. Reading different viewpoints is great, and it's one of the reasons I love The Bulwark, but Khatiri gets a little old and shrill on this subject.
In response to the Angry Staffer tweet, Dems actually have the ability to put out the fire without help from the GOP. But they don't want to because that would mean they'd have to use reconciliation, which they are saving for their 3.5T spending bill. I hate what the GOP has become, but blaming this on them isn't fair. They're playing the same game the Dems play every time there a debt ceiling crisis. Both parties play it. The majority party gives the minority party a policy concession for their cooperation. This time the Dems haven't given the GOP any incentive so, surprise, surprise, they aren't going to help them. The Dems want their cake and they want to eat it too.
House Dems may or may not vote today on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. But they seem intent on continuing their game of political chicken."
I recognize the accepted frame for this is that Progressives are just being greedy and stupid but, at least for me, that is an incorrect characterization. I see this as the last chance to address the circumstances that has lead to the strong current of ethno-nationalism in this country and climate change which I think is equally dangerous to our political order. I don't see the point of getting an infra bill passed but not addressing those other issues. We'll end up going off the cliff eventually anyway unless the plan is to manage to win every election in perpetuity and hope the science is wrong and that climate change won't cause massive economic and social disruption. I also don't trust they will be addressed once what little leverage the Progressives have is given away. Conservative Dems are sending pretty clear signals they plan to scuttle it once the infra bill goes through. The normal rejoinder to that is, "Trump is worse." Sure but we're already driving off a cliff. Sure conservative Dems won't mash the gas but they also aren't willing to hit the brakes or turn so....who cares? May as well disengage and prepare for the inevitable fall if those are the only options.
The bills that will strengthen our system of government's ability to resist a cohesive, motivated minority bent on destroying it from within are also required but obviously not included in the reconciliation bill.
Maybe making an obvious point here, but any election/gerrymandering/voting rights law cannot be passed through reconciliation. They can't just tack it on to a budgetary bill. The parliamentarian has already rejected this as well. It must be a stand alone bill, subject to filibuster. So basically not happening. I never thought I would say this (because it would serve the GOP too well) but abolish the filibuster, get these election and voting laws thru like our lives depend on it. Because they do. We won't have anything left to save otherwise.
Yeah, I assumed he was talking about the reluctance of Manchin/Sinema to abolish the filibuster. At the very least, it needs to be reformed. Despite what a lot of progressives seem to think, it has a long history of being used both for good and for ill (there actually used to be House filibusters as well). One of the big problems with it now is that it has become so cheap that it has effectively turned a simple majority vote requirement for regular legislation into a 60-vote requirement. In the past, filibusters weren't free - they had an associated cost, which discouraged their use as a matter of regular order. And they at least *encouraged* debate, even if some of the debate was just disingenuous babbling. It's easy to forget that the 60-vote cloture is actually supposed to be a requirement to *end* debate. Now, it's the opposite, as they don't even bother *beginning* debate without an assurance that it will end at some point.
So yeah, it needs reform, but under the current circumstances, there doesn't seem to be time to do much besides eliminate it. This is part of the reason I was hoping we could just pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, with the hope that this would have created enough good will to push through Manchin's voting reform bill. Maybe that's naive, but without giving bipartisanship every chance, there's no way to convince Manchin and Sinema to even think about eliminating the filibuster, and I worry that the current bull-headedness by the House progressive caucus is only making them more resistant to the idea of enabling rule by bare majority.
Your last paragraph is one that is worth emphasizing. Look, I'm admittedly a moderate-leaning progressive. I don't doubt that there are a lot of worthy causes being advanced in the reconciliation package. But right now, progressives are picking the wrong fight at the wrong time. When the house is on fire, it's not time to start installing a fancy new sprinkler system. Especially when you've got a hose connected to a hydrant that you're not willing to use because it won't solve your long-term problems of living in a fire-hazard of a house.
There are good reasons to be wary of such a huge spending package - not the least of which is the potential for massive inflation. It deserves time to debate and negotiate, and I do not think anyone with a D next to their name has any intention of outright killing it. Meanwhile, time to save our democracy is running out. If we can't get an anti-gerrimandering bill in place before the end of the year, we'll be locked in to another decade of Republican-tilted house races. We are not prioritizing.
I'd like to hone in on your bit about the risk of inflation from passing the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. Over the same period we will spend $7.6 trillion on defense. Where were the howls about inflation when that spending bill was sailing its way through congress?
The $3.5 trillion bill is mostly paid for unless the conservative democrats get their way and most of the revenue portion gets stripped out. So it's not $3.5 trillion of new money getting dumped into the economy. It's $3.5 trillion getting added over 10 years and let's guess about $2 trillion getting removed through taxation for a net effect of about $1.5 trillion new money over 10 years.
The entire US economy will generate over $214 trillion over the same period. That means new cash injected into the system will be about 0.7% of the economy. I'm sorry, but I doubt even Milton Friedman would argue that adding 0.7% of government spending into the economy over 10 years would generate an appreciable amount of inflation, never mind enough inflation to actually worry about.
I truly hope you are right about this. I'm no economist, and it's certainly possible that I've been listening too much to the inflation hawks on this lately. And true, since it's a reconciliation package it's supposed to be budget neutral, in theory.
Still, it feels like they're rushing something that most of us haven't really had time to digest. Inflation can be industry-specific (such as what generous college loans did to the cost of higher education), which is why spending so much on defense doesn't affect the economy as a whole. It would be nice to have time to look at the package to make sure the money is being spent wisely and not just dumped onto the demand side of things so that we don't end up contributing to certain rising costs (like healthcare, for example).
"I do not think anyone with a D next to their name has any intention of outright killing it."
I honestly don't have enough trust left to believe this but if one does have trust I can see decoupling the bills not being a big deal.
"Meanwhile, time to save our democracy is running out. If we can't get an anti-gerrimandering bill in place before the end of the year, we'll be locked in to another decade of Republican-tilted house races. We are not prioritizing."
That goes right to that trust issue. I agree we aren't prioritizing well. Our democracy is the bedrock upon which everything else including the infra bill rests, so why didn't we do that first. Oh right, conservative Dems scuttled that idea too.
I would probably feel different about this if it didn't seem that they are overplaying their hand. It isn't like they're bargaining with something only the other side wants. They will be hurt by the scuttling of the bipartisan bill, and coming away with nothing feels like it would hurt worse for the people who want the most. Of course, these are people who come from safe districts, so maybe I'm undervaluing their bargaining position.
Still, this couldn't come at a worse time for the Biden administration, and that's what irritates me the most. Because right now, as we seem to agree, the Biden administration really needs some good press, and this is making the Democrats seem as dysfunctional as the Republicans when they controlled Congress. Granted, it's better to do this now than a year from now. Maybe in the end we'll get good legislation out of this that the Democrats can run on, but so far they don't seem to be getting credit for what they already did with the American Rescue bill, so I'm skeptical about that. And when politically, we so clearly need the support of moderate conservatives to stave off the threat of Trump, making it seem as though the Democrats are captive to the whims of their left wing seems to imperil our political future.
Regarding that pony, Tim Miller recently suggested that progressives simply have higher priorities than, er, averting Trumpy Orbanism. Sure enough, just read Bernie's Tuesday tweet which mentioned the existential threat of climate change but zilch about obvious trivia like saving Biden's presidency and the Dem Congressional majority, ongoing GOP subversion or the Electoral Count Act. Hey, if the planet is burning down, nobody gets a pony anyway, amiright? 🐴
While its pretty clear you're mocking the position, you nonetheless get it right. What I don't understand is why its so hard to accept both averting Trumpy Orbanism and addressing is current and future causes (inequality, climate change, flaws in our system of government), or even why that latter part is controversial.
I like to call them Thälmann progressives, after Ernst Thälmann, the German Communist leader who spent the better part of Hitler's rise vilifying the Social Democrats instead of the Nazis. The "near enemy" is often hated more than the "far" one (cf. the special Trumpy loathing of "RINOs" and TFG's latest shout out to Stacey Abrams).
The progressive fury at Manchin and Sinema is hotter than a thousand fire hoses could extinguish.
But again, if the goal is averting Trumpy Orbanism how can that be done without addressing its root causes? Do conservative Dems still just think this is a fad that will blow itself out if they somehow manage block Trumpists from power for a decade or so? Even if that is true how do that plan to hold the coalition together without giving a key partner any of the things they feel they need and are part of the coalition to get?
I agree with the second part of your comment, but not that the root causes of Trumpism are climate change, inequality, etc. Trumpism was latent in the GOP for 30 years and can arguably be traced even further back to the Goldwater candidacy and Nixon's Southern Strategy. The Republicans have spent generations switching out their former suburban constituency for, ironically, half of the FDR era Democratic coalition, ie Dixiecrats and the white working class. Many of the latter even voted for Obama rather than McCain and Romney before switching over to Trump.
It's true that inequality in particular has accelerated since the Reagan Revolution, but it's pretty clear that as it circles the wagons the Trump base is far more susceptible to culture war propaganda than to economic policy arguments, let alone lectures on global warming. That's their story and they're sticking to it.
Well the threat from global warming, as it relates to mollifying the Trump base, is that it creates large migrant flows over the next few decades at least which will create even more fertile ground for culture war propaganda.
Beyond that, if cultural differences are the bedrock issue here, then why would conservative Dems whose goal it is to prevent Trumpy Orbanism antagonize Progressives? Do they think they can appease enough Republicans culturally when Trump and his cronies are there offering them uncut lib ownership to mainline that they can weather the erosion of the Dem base that strategy will cause? What is the play here when we already know just about every single person in the anti-Trump, conservative Dem, Progressive coalition is needed to overcome the current pro-Republican tilt in our system of government?
I would say that Manchin is a special case because W.Va. is Trumpier than Mar a Lago; but the rest of them aren't trying to appease the RW culture warriors, they're going for the suburban swing vote. And swing voters are queasy about that $3.5 trillion. They're also worried about crime, which is presumably why McAuliffe flipped on qualified immunity in Virginia and now supports it. Historically, it has rarely paid to bet on voters' progressive instincts outside of safe lefty enclaves.
Personally I hope Manchin and Sinema et al. are open to a reconciliation bill compromise whether the BIF passes this week or not, if only because it looks increasingly like progressives will tank everything if they aren't. But I doubt they have any illusions about reclaiming MAGA World. Though I can't say the same for Biden.
I would also like to point out that Shay's piece this morning is ridiculous. If you want to call Biden a liar about Afghanistan, go ahead. If you dislike his policies so much that you go forward and further add to the "senile" Biden myth then we have problems. Whoever edited this piece should think about what they are doing. I like to hear opposite sides of the issues, that is why I am here on Bulwark and added Bulwark+, but that is not shooting it straight - it is manipulative and straight-up lying.
Charlie--I know you are reading the comments--GET CRACKING ON THAT SHIRT!! Daddy needs some Sykes Swag...
Ahem. Turns out Manchin did give a top line number 2 months ago. And Sinema claims she was in the loop too. https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2021/09/30/well-well-looks-like-joe-manchin-did-name-his-price-on-reconciliation-months-ago-in-fact-n419448
Ah, Noem?
Wait...Corey Lewandowski is married with four children? Since when? There were several reports of his dating Hope Hicks during the Trump administration. . Didn't realize he was married, with children, at the time. Joy Villa, the singer, filed a police report against Corey for, allegedly, slapping her ass at a party. Then he supposedly groped Trashelle at a dinner. (Fortunately Trashelle's twin sister, Garbagella was not there.) According to Wikipedia, Corey is Catholic. Wow, the Church has really gotten lax on what constitutes a sin. By the way, BEST MORNING SHOTS EVER!
I pretty much hate myself for laughing at a person's name but I just couldn't help it when Garbagella was introduced.
Best laugh of the day! "Garbagebella!" Thanks.
There better be an email blast when that shirt is ready.
As long as she herself wasn't a victim Trashelle apparently had no problem donating to a guy who had been credibly accused of sexually assaulting over 20 women, screwed a porn star shortly after his wife had had his child and carried on an affair with a former playboy bunny.
Not sure how I missed this obvious point! Excellent.
The same people who wanted people like John Kelly to resign on principal in the face of Trump's immigration policy are now defending Milley for refusing to buck Biden on the Afghan withdrawal plan. Imagine their reactions to a Trump 2025 ordering nukes fired at Iran and Milley's replacement complying. THEN all of a sudden the military not stepping up and stopping something is going to look really popular in the rearview mirror.
I think the difference that Milley highlighted is that he's in uniform, right? Kelly was serving in a political role at the time.
Now do the second part where Trump 2025 tells Milley's replacement to nuke Iran, and then breaks out the biscuit codes and the football.
Regarding the game of chicken, Jonathan Chait at NY Mag had a different take on this (link: https://nym.ag/2Y3Pi34). To wit:
"The truth of the situation at hand is almost precisely the opposite. The people who are willing to compromise and accept half a loaf are the progressives. The ones who refuse to negotiate are the centrists.
"Just listen to what the progressives are saying:
“What we have said is that if there is an agreement that the president strikes on this Build Back Better agenda, we will vote for the bipartisan bill, we’re willing to negotiate,” Representative Ro Khanna said on CNN. “The president keeps begging [Senator Kyrsten Sinema], ‘Tell us what you want. Put a proposal forward’ … How do you compromise when Sinema isn’t saying anything?”
"Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal: “They need to tell us what they don’t agree with. And we need to be able to actually negotiate it.”
"Jayapal, again: “If they don’t tell us what they want to do, which was the president’s message, and if they don’t actually negotiate on the entire bill, then we’re not going to get too close.”
"Representative Jim McGovern: “I think a lot of us want to make sure we have an assurance that, in fact, there’s going to be a reconciliation bill.”
"They are not making implacable demands. They are begging the centrists to simply negotiate."
yeah, it's one thing to say it can only be 1.5 trillion, you have to also be willing to say which programs should be cut and why. Manchin and Sinema are much happier bloviating about how 3.5 trillion is just too damn high than actually saying what Manchin really wants to say which is that he would like to cut anything that might hurt his corporate oil backers.
The only reason to tie the reconciliation bill to the infrastructure bill is that the progressives know the reconciliation bill is too expensive and too unpopular to stand on its own. For that, progressives deserve the criticism they are getting.
I get that the bill is unsellable because it's too big, but is it actually pad policy. I can see a solid argument for bad politics, but it seems, at least from what I've seen, to be good policy
While I'm at it, here's today's Chait column -- also interesting. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/joe-manchin-plan-democrats-child-tax-credit-trump-taxes-plan-congress-biden.html
Trashelle? Okay, there are lots of odd names these days and it usually isn't nice to make fun of people for them, but seriously, what were her parents thinking?
I was thinking the same...
Can't believe you left my favorite Trump remora - Brad Parscale - off of the hall of fame list.
You just made me re-watch Brad's notorious video -- shirtless, can of beer, body-slammed by cops...So beautiful I could cry.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who finds Khatiri's polemics about Biden/Afghanistan tiresome. Reading different viewpoints is great, and it's one of the reasons I love The Bulwark, but Khatiri gets a little old and shrill on this subject.
In response to the Angry Staffer tweet, Dems actually have the ability to put out the fire without help from the GOP. But they don't want to because that would mean they'd have to use reconciliation, which they are saving for their 3.5T spending bill. I hate what the GOP has become, but blaming this on them isn't fair. They're playing the same game the Dems play every time there a debt ceiling crisis. Both parties play it. The majority party gives the minority party a policy concession for their cooperation. This time the Dems haven't given the GOP any incentive so, surprise, surprise, they aren't going to help them. The Dems want their cake and they want to eat it too.
"Killing the Pony.
House Dems may or may not vote today on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. But they seem intent on continuing their game of political chicken."
I recognize the accepted frame for this is that Progressives are just being greedy and stupid but, at least for me, that is an incorrect characterization. I see this as the last chance to address the circumstances that has lead to the strong current of ethno-nationalism in this country and climate change which I think is equally dangerous to our political order. I don't see the point of getting an infra bill passed but not addressing those other issues. We'll end up going off the cliff eventually anyway unless the plan is to manage to win every election in perpetuity and hope the science is wrong and that climate change won't cause massive economic and social disruption. I also don't trust they will be addressed once what little leverage the Progressives have is given away. Conservative Dems are sending pretty clear signals they plan to scuttle it once the infra bill goes through. The normal rejoinder to that is, "Trump is worse." Sure but we're already driving off a cliff. Sure conservative Dems won't mash the gas but they also aren't willing to hit the brakes or turn so....who cares? May as well disengage and prepare for the inevitable fall if those are the only options.
The bills that will strengthen our system of government's ability to resist a cohesive, motivated minority bent on destroying it from within are also required but obviously not included in the reconciliation bill.
Maybe making an obvious point here, but any election/gerrymandering/voting rights law cannot be passed through reconciliation. They can't just tack it on to a budgetary bill. The parliamentarian has already rejected this as well. It must be a stand alone bill, subject to filibuster. So basically not happening. I never thought I would say this (because it would serve the GOP too well) but abolish the filibuster, get these election and voting laws thru like our lives depend on it. Because they do. We won't have anything left to save otherwise.
Yeah, I assumed he was talking about the reluctance of Manchin/Sinema to abolish the filibuster. At the very least, it needs to be reformed. Despite what a lot of progressives seem to think, it has a long history of being used both for good and for ill (there actually used to be House filibusters as well). One of the big problems with it now is that it has become so cheap that it has effectively turned a simple majority vote requirement for regular legislation into a 60-vote requirement. In the past, filibusters weren't free - they had an associated cost, which discouraged their use as a matter of regular order. And they at least *encouraged* debate, even if some of the debate was just disingenuous babbling. It's easy to forget that the 60-vote cloture is actually supposed to be a requirement to *end* debate. Now, it's the opposite, as they don't even bother *beginning* debate without an assurance that it will end at some point.
So yeah, it needs reform, but under the current circumstances, there doesn't seem to be time to do much besides eliminate it. This is part of the reason I was hoping we could just pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, with the hope that this would have created enough good will to push through Manchin's voting reform bill. Maybe that's naive, but without giving bipartisanship every chance, there's no way to convince Manchin and Sinema to even think about eliminating the filibuster, and I worry that the current bull-headedness by the House progressive caucus is only making them more resistant to the idea of enabling rule by bare majority.
Your last paragraph is one that is worth emphasizing. Look, I'm admittedly a moderate-leaning progressive. I don't doubt that there are a lot of worthy causes being advanced in the reconciliation package. But right now, progressives are picking the wrong fight at the wrong time. When the house is on fire, it's not time to start installing a fancy new sprinkler system. Especially when you've got a hose connected to a hydrant that you're not willing to use because it won't solve your long-term problems of living in a fire-hazard of a house.
There are good reasons to be wary of such a huge spending package - not the least of which is the potential for massive inflation. It deserves time to debate and negotiate, and I do not think anyone with a D next to their name has any intention of outright killing it. Meanwhile, time to save our democracy is running out. If we can't get an anti-gerrimandering bill in place before the end of the year, we'll be locked in to another decade of Republican-tilted house races. We are not prioritizing.
I'd like to hone in on your bit about the risk of inflation from passing the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. Over the same period we will spend $7.6 trillion on defense. Where were the howls about inflation when that spending bill was sailing its way through congress?
The $3.5 trillion bill is mostly paid for unless the conservative democrats get their way and most of the revenue portion gets stripped out. So it's not $3.5 trillion of new money getting dumped into the economy. It's $3.5 trillion getting added over 10 years and let's guess about $2 trillion getting removed through taxation for a net effect of about $1.5 trillion new money over 10 years.
The entire US economy will generate over $214 trillion over the same period. That means new cash injected into the system will be about 0.7% of the economy. I'm sorry, but I doubt even Milton Friedman would argue that adding 0.7% of government spending into the economy over 10 years would generate an appreciable amount of inflation, never mind enough inflation to actually worry about.
I truly hope you are right about this. I'm no economist, and it's certainly possible that I've been listening too much to the inflation hawks on this lately. And true, since it's a reconciliation package it's supposed to be budget neutral, in theory.
Still, it feels like they're rushing something that most of us haven't really had time to digest. Inflation can be industry-specific (such as what generous college loans did to the cost of higher education), which is why spending so much on defense doesn't affect the economy as a whole. It would be nice to have time to look at the package to make sure the money is being spent wisely and not just dumped onto the demand side of things so that we don't end up contributing to certain rising costs (like healthcare, for example).
"I do not think anyone with a D next to their name has any intention of outright killing it."
I honestly don't have enough trust left to believe this but if one does have trust I can see decoupling the bills not being a big deal.
"Meanwhile, time to save our democracy is running out. If we can't get an anti-gerrimandering bill in place before the end of the year, we'll be locked in to another decade of Republican-tilted house races. We are not prioritizing."
That goes right to that trust issue. I agree we aren't prioritizing well. Our democracy is the bedrock upon which everything else including the infra bill rests, so why didn't we do that first. Oh right, conservative Dems scuttled that idea too.
I would probably feel different about this if it didn't seem that they are overplaying their hand. It isn't like they're bargaining with something only the other side wants. They will be hurt by the scuttling of the bipartisan bill, and coming away with nothing feels like it would hurt worse for the people who want the most. Of course, these are people who come from safe districts, so maybe I'm undervaluing their bargaining position.
Still, this couldn't come at a worse time for the Biden administration, and that's what irritates me the most. Because right now, as we seem to agree, the Biden administration really needs some good press, and this is making the Democrats seem as dysfunctional as the Republicans when they controlled Congress. Granted, it's better to do this now than a year from now. Maybe in the end we'll get good legislation out of this that the Democrats can run on, but so far they don't seem to be getting credit for what they already did with the American Rescue bill, so I'm skeptical about that. And when politically, we so clearly need the support of moderate conservatives to stave off the threat of Trump, making it seem as though the Democrats are captive to the whims of their left wing seems to imperil our political future.
Regarding that pony, Tim Miller recently suggested that progressives simply have higher priorities than, er, averting Trumpy Orbanism. Sure enough, just read Bernie's Tuesday tweet which mentioned the existential threat of climate change but zilch about obvious trivia like saving Biden's presidency and the Dem Congressional majority, ongoing GOP subversion or the Electoral Count Act. Hey, if the planet is burning down, nobody gets a pony anyway, amiright? 🐴
While its pretty clear you're mocking the position, you nonetheless get it right. What I don't understand is why its so hard to accept both averting Trumpy Orbanism and addressing is current and future causes (inequality, climate change, flaws in our system of government), or even why that latter part is controversial.
I like to call them Thälmann progressives, after Ernst Thälmann, the German Communist leader who spent the better part of Hitler's rise vilifying the Social Democrats instead of the Nazis. The "near enemy" is often hated more than the "far" one (cf. the special Trumpy loathing of "RINOs" and TFG's latest shout out to Stacey Abrams).
The progressive fury at Manchin and Sinema is hotter than a thousand fire hoses could extinguish.
But again, if the goal is averting Trumpy Orbanism how can that be done without addressing its root causes? Do conservative Dems still just think this is a fad that will blow itself out if they somehow manage block Trumpists from power for a decade or so? Even if that is true how do that plan to hold the coalition together without giving a key partner any of the things they feel they need and are part of the coalition to get?
I agree with the second part of your comment, but not that the root causes of Trumpism are climate change, inequality, etc. Trumpism was latent in the GOP for 30 years and can arguably be traced even further back to the Goldwater candidacy and Nixon's Southern Strategy. The Republicans have spent generations switching out their former suburban constituency for, ironically, half of the FDR era Democratic coalition, ie Dixiecrats and the white working class. Many of the latter even voted for Obama rather than McCain and Romney before switching over to Trump.
It's true that inequality in particular has accelerated since the Reagan Revolution, but it's pretty clear that as it circles the wagons the Trump base is far more susceptible to culture war propaganda than to economic policy arguments, let alone lectures on global warming. That's their story and they're sticking to it.
Well the threat from global warming, as it relates to mollifying the Trump base, is that it creates large migrant flows over the next few decades at least which will create even more fertile ground for culture war propaganda.
Beyond that, if cultural differences are the bedrock issue here, then why would conservative Dems whose goal it is to prevent Trumpy Orbanism antagonize Progressives? Do they think they can appease enough Republicans culturally when Trump and his cronies are there offering them uncut lib ownership to mainline that they can weather the erosion of the Dem base that strategy will cause? What is the play here when we already know just about every single person in the anti-Trump, conservative Dem, Progressive coalition is needed to overcome the current pro-Republican tilt in our system of government?
I would say that Manchin is a special case because W.Va. is Trumpier than Mar a Lago; but the rest of them aren't trying to appease the RW culture warriors, they're going for the suburban swing vote. And swing voters are queasy about that $3.5 trillion. They're also worried about crime, which is presumably why McAuliffe flipped on qualified immunity in Virginia and now supports it. Historically, it has rarely paid to bet on voters' progressive instincts outside of safe lefty enclaves.
Personally I hope Manchin and Sinema et al. are open to a reconciliation bill compromise whether the BIF passes this week or not, if only because it looks increasingly like progressives will tank everything if they aren't. But I doubt they have any illusions about reclaiming MAGA World. Though I can't say the same for Biden.
I would also like to point out that Shay's piece this morning is ridiculous. If you want to call Biden a liar about Afghanistan, go ahead. If you dislike his policies so much that you go forward and further add to the "senile" Biden myth then we have problems. Whoever edited this piece should think about what they are doing. I like to hear opposite sides of the issues, that is why I am here on Bulwark and added Bulwark+, but that is not shooting it straight - it is manipulative and straight-up lying.
Please, please, please make the T-shirt and put it in the store!