US politics: Everything in moderation, including moderation

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Pelosi has always been clear she's not allowing a vote on the bipartisan deal until the Senate sends them a reconciliation bill as well.  So, it wouldn't really be the "progressives" tanking the bill.  That being said, this is a lot of drama over negotiating.  Sinema - and Tester and Manchin - reserve the right to negotiate the reconciliation bill, especially considering it hasn't even been written yet.  They've all confirmed they'll vote to advance the budget proposal, so this is much ado about nothing.  Let Sinema and Manchin do their performance of "tough negotiating," and if the resulting Senate bill really is gutted, then there's actually a problem.  History suggests they're more interested in the attention than actually extracting meaningful changes in the legislation.

I agree on the Senate side. They'll find something that can get 50+1, which is what I was pointing out before. I'm more worried about a small group of far left liberals in the House holding out and that's what causes a potential breakdown.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm more worried about a small group of far left liberals in the House holding out and that's what causes a potential breakdown.

I don't think that's fair.  Even when they've had serious objections - like the bill on capitol police funding back in May - they arranged their "nay" and "present" votes so as to ensure the bill was still passed.  I'm not gonna assume bad faith with no evidence, but yeah if I were leadership of either chamber I'd encourage all parties to chill and let the process play out instead of engaging in tweet wars/posturing.

[Larry of the Lawn]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm just going to delete everything around this because it only highlights my point. The task of passing the ACA was incredible. We don't need to relitigate every detail, but the fact that it passed despite every obstacle it faced, all while being a Republican bill if we can be honest, just speaks to how our politics works and it's gotten a lot worse in the decade since the ACA passed. To ignore this and be angry that you're not getting what you want just reflects a lack of understating of the realities of the current state of affairs.

Or did you like AOC shaming her fellow Democrats for not supporting the most leftist agenda only to admit that something more in line with what Biden proposed was ultimately going to be the only thing that could pass? Pretty easy to do in a safe seat where you only have to protect your left flank.....right?

Please, spare me. I don't lionize most of these people. 99% are no better or worse than most people, and you'd probably be disappointed by a number of them that you actually like. 

You're deleting everything around it because you just move goal posts and obfuscate, and don't actually engage with anything. 

When your only rebuttal is talking about the passage of what you're calling a republican bill from 11 years ago, well, like I said, I feel sorry for you.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think that's fair.  Even when they've had serious objections - like the bill on capitol police funding back in May - they arranged their "nay" and "present" votes so as to ensure the bill was still passed.  I'm not gonna assume bad faith with no evidence, but yeah if I were leadership of either chamber I'd encourage all parties to chill and let the process play out instead of engaging in tweet wars/posturing.

I just think there are a number of House members in safe seats who are emboldened to hold the line and that is what may actually cause a break down negotiations. 

22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You're deleting everything around it because you just move goal posts and obfuscate, and don't actually engage with anything. 

I don't want to engage with nonsense, yes, you caught me. Guilty as charged.

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I just think there are a number of House members in safe seats who are emboldened to hold the line and that is what may actually cause a break down negotiations. 

I don't see any reason to think the progressive caucus will be the cause of such a breakdown any more than the moderate MCs.  I can't think of any significant Dem proposal The Squad has actually tanked, whereas it was the moderates that killed minimum wage (albeit procedurally I actually agreed they shouldn't have overruled/fired the parliamentarian over it) and Manchin that tanked Neera Tanden's nomination - even when Bernie clearly had more cause to.

[DMC]

I think Pete DeFazio, chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, wins burn of the day:

Quote

Pelosi has not said how she'll handle an eventual Senate bill, emphasizing that no one has seen it yet. But she told DeFazio, in their last conversation, that the wait for reconciliation will allow the Transportation Committee chairman the entirety of the August recess to work with Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) on possible changes.

Those senators head committees with jurisdiction over infrastructure, DeFazio noted, "as opposed to the three people who wrote the bill who know nothing about transportation," referring to Portman, Sinema and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

 

[DMC]

Sorry for the triple post.  On a weird schedule right now and still catching up on today's news.  Mentioned a few days ago that anti-Trump GOP candidates are out-raising their challengers.  This trend appears to be continuing - Trump's Republican critics rake in cash:

Quote

Americans Keeping Country First, a super PAC created in late February to defend Republicans who voted to impeach Trump this year, is set to report $525,000 in income through the end of June, the group tells Axios.

That puts it on or above the fundraising pace of independent political groups going after the few remaining Republican Trump critics in Congress.

One such pro-Trump group, Drain the DC Swamp PAC, brought in a little over $600,000 during the first half of the year.

And America Strong PAC, which formed in early May to attack the 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment, raised $51,000 during its first two months.

 

[Fragile Bird]

Speaking of funding people, Mike Lindell, the pillow guy, says he’s “suspending” his advertising on Fox for the moment. Apparently he’s unhappy that Fox is not accepting ads for some special event he’s running to celebrate the day in August when the SCOTUS votes 9-0 to restore Trump to the presidency.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, L'oiseau français said:

Speaking of funding people, Mike Lindell, the pillow guy, says he’s “suspending” his advertising on Fox for the moment. Apparently he’s unhappy that Fox is not accepting ads for some special event he’s running to celebrate the day in August when the SCOTUS votes 9-0 to restore Trump to the presidency.

Mike Lindell is Constitutionally illiterate.  He has no idea how the order of succession actually works.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't see any reason to think the progressive caucus will be the cause of such a breakdown any more than the moderate MCs.  I can't think of any significant Dem proposal The Squad has actually tanked, whereas it was the moderates that killed minimum wage (albeit procedurally I actually agreed they shouldn't have overruled/fired the parliamentarian over it) and Manchin that tanked Neera Tanden's nomination - even when Bernie clearly had more cause to.

Well, at the moment it appears that the hard infrastructure bill will get through the Senate, and it will probably do so without a human infrastructure bill worked out. There are a number of House Democrats on the left, more than just the Squad, who have said they are a no vote on it if the latter isn't also hammered out at the same time. If you take them at their word, they'll be the ones to derail things. These two pieces of legislation don't actually need to be done at the exact same time, but if that's their demand that's what could ultimately wreck everything. And if we go into the August recess without accomplishing anything it will be a lot harder to restart negotiations.

As my old college professor always said, Democrats are the masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mike Lindell is Constitutionally illiterate.  He has no idea how the order of succession actually works.

He could at least say it would be a 6-3 decision. If you're going to lie, at least try and make it not so obvious. 

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are a number of House Democrats on the left, more than just the Squad, who have said they are a no vote on it if the latter isn't also hammered out at the same time. If you take them at their word, they'll be the ones to derail things. These two pieces of legislation don't actually need to be done at the exact same time, but if that's their demand that's what could ultimately wreck everything. And if we go into the August recess without accomplishing anything it will be a lot harder to restart negotiations.

Those House Democrats - which again include Nancy Pelosi btw - are absolutely right to demand the Senate sends them a reconciliation bill before voting on the bipartisan deal.  The latter is a fig leaf for Biden's insistence and portrayal as a president that can somehow get both parties to work together.  That's not unimportant politically, but policywise the bipartisan deal is incredibly lacking in advancing actual Democratic priorities.  The Squad, progressive caucus, and leadership are all correct in demanding passing the bipartisan bill is contingent upon the moderate Dems agreeing to the much larger bill that will actually help people, and in turn help the Dems electorally.

ETA:  Also, this idea that they need to get something passed before the August recess is utter horseshit.  Even if the Senate passes the bipartisan deal before the recess, the House would still use the recess to review it - as my link about DeFazio above makes clear.

[Fez]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Those House Democrats - which again include Nancy Pelosi btw - are absolutely right to demand the Senate sends them a reconciliation bill before voting on the bipartisan deal.  The latter is a fig leaf for Biden's insistence and portrayal as a president that can somehow get both parties to work together.  That's not unimportant politically, but policywise the bipartisan deal is incredibly lacking in advancing actual Democratic priorities.  The Squad, progressive caucus, and leadership are all correct in demanding passing the bipartisan bill is contingent upon the moderate Dems agreeing to the much larger bill that will actually help people, and in turn help the Dems electorally.

If McCarthy was smart, which he's not, and if the final senate bill passes with close to 70 votes (and I do think the final bill may pick up a couple extra Republicans), he should try forcing a discharge petition on the infrastructure bill if Pelosi bottles it up waiting for the reconciliation bill. Make a big deal about how House leadership is blocking a major bipartisanship achievement and see if he can split the Democratic caucus. He'd need a lot of defectors, which is unlikely, since he can't count on anywhere close to his full caucus. But it's the kind of failed stunt that would get him a lot of good press among the national media, who are still relevant to many of the swing voters that Republicans have lost during the Trump years. And if it actually worked it would cause major bad blood between Democrats, which a Republican would always be in favor of.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

If McCarthy was smart, which he's not, and if the final senate bill passes with close to 70 votes (and I do think the final bill may pick up a couple extra Republicans), he should try forcing a discharge petition on the infrastructure bill if Pelosi bottles it up waiting for the reconciliation bill. Make a big deal about how House leadership is blocking a major bipartisanship achievement and see if he can split the Democratic caucus.

Sounds like fantasy to me.  The Dems would read that play - and not just the leadership.  Plus the House GOP caucus is much more Trumpist - and thus absolutely opposed to the bipartisan infrastructure deal - than the Senate GOP.  I don't see how this would work, even as a political tactic he'd knew would fail.  Only significant thing it'd do is garner the animus of Trump.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sounds like fantasy to me.  The Dems would read that play - and not just the leadership.  Plus the House GOP caucus is much more Trumpist - and thus absolutely opposed to the bipartisan infrastructure deal - than the Senate GOP.  I don't see how this would work, even as a political tactic he'd knew would fail.  Only significant thing it'd do is garner the animus of Trump.

Depends how long the reconciliation negotiations play out, I could see the moderates getting very frustrated. And they've broken with leadership before. Nothing nearly this big of course, but it was an issue last session that several Republican motions to recommit passed, temporarily scuttling bills.

I agree that probably only 20-30 House Republicans actually want the bill passed. But I could see more on board if McCarthy could do an accurate whip count and explain that it'll fail, he just wants to troll Democrats. And I don't think the national media would see through it.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

I agree that probably only 20-30 House Republicans actually want the bill passed. But I could see more on board if McCarthy could do an accurate whip count and explain that it'll fail, he just wants to troll Democrats. And I don't think the national media would see through it.

How many members are there of the House Problem Solvers Caucus?  ...56?  That discharge petition would get 57 votes, assuming McCarthy had the balls to vote for it as well.  And while I'm not the biggest fan of national media, yeah, they'd see through it.  Simply by quoting all the MCs on both sides that would point out why it's bullshit.

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

How many members are there of the House Problem Solvers Caucus?  ...56?  That discharge petition would get 57 votes, assuming McCarthy had the balls to vote for it as well.  And while I'm not the biggest fan of national media, yeah, they'd see through it.  Simply by quoting all the MCs on both sides that would point out why it's bullshit.

You've got more faith than I do in the media; especially if the reconciliation negotiations fall apart. I think it would win McCarthy several favorable press cycles, and he hasn't had any in a long time outside the far right fever bubble.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

You've got more faith than I do in the media; especially if the reconciliation negotiations fall apart. I think it would win McCarthy several favorable press cycles, and he hasn't had any in a long time outside the far right fever bubble.

You seem to be forgetting the wrath of the orange goblin, and he is clearly very pissed about any "RINO" that supports the bipartisan deal right now.  As for the media, no, I don't think I'm putting too much faith in them.  They're not literally idiots, and a lot if not most of the opinion-makers fashion themselves DC insiders who, again, would obviously be fed quotes on such a move being a cynical ploy from both sides.

Perhaps things will change if negotiations drag out for months, but how all sides will be situated at that point is entirely uncertain right now.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

He could at least say it would be a 6-3 decision. If you're going to lie, at least try and make it not so obvious. 

I can’t tell if Lindell is lying or sincerely deluded.  The very fact that so many Trumpanistas hang on his every word is disturbing in and of itself.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I can’t tell if Lindell is lying or sincerely deluded.

Why can't it be both?