Wolfgang Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 3 minutes ago, Che Guevara said: I think that the democrats just embarrassed and discredited themselves. By caving and agreeing to reopen the government without getting any of what they were asking for as the basis of the shutdown means that the democrats just took ownership of the entire shutdown. The democratic leadership just demonstrated itself to be completely incompetent. At the time of the shutdown, I could see the binary arguments that either side was at fault. The republicans were at fault because they are in the majority, controlling the executive and legislative branches of the government. The majority party sometimes needs votes from the minority party and, hence, they sometimes have to negotiate. The shutdown was one of the times that the republicans were being asked to negotiate and they simply said no. From a minority party position, to then say, "okay don't negotiate but you can't have the votes you need," is a reasonable position to stake. To the contrary, for the republicans to say, "we need 7 (turns out 8 votes) minority party votes to stay open and minority party is saying no so they own the shutdown," is also tangibly factually and the basis for why republicans could claim that the democrats were (are) responsible for the shutdown. I can or could see how both parties could blame the other (although I personally thought one party was definitely more responsible than the other). So, for the democrats to now decide to accept an offer that was floated weeks ago, demonstrates that the democrats were never sincere in the positions they staked (at least the leadership wasn't sincere) and have now essentially taken ownership of the entire shutdown. And, after elections that just showed potentially considerably republican vulnerabilities, the democrats have just triggered a decided political turn. I think that there is a real possibility that rank and file democrats will turn on the democratic leadership in DC. On the one hand, the democrats just set themselves back politically. On the other hand, this might just be the event that triggers a tea party like uprising in the democratic party and possibly reconfigures a democratic party that is desperately in need of a massive shakeup. For example, I think that any democratic primary candidate that does not distance themselves from or doesn't demand a change in leadership (aka., removing Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries) is going to have a hard time winning their primaries. I think that rank and file democrats feel betrayed by their leadership and this betrayal may come at a big political price. Maybe?
JDHillFan Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 6 minutes ago, Che Guevara said: (although I personally thought one party was definitely more responsible than the other). Why so spineless?
The Frankish Reich Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 1 hour ago, Che Guevara said: By caving and agreeing to reopen the government without getting any of what they were asking for as the basis of the shutdown means that the democrats just took ownership of the entire shutdown. They were never going to get their demands from Trump and the Republican Senate. The shutdown accomplished a couple things: it probably took Trump's approval down a tick or two and, more importantly, ensured that Democratic turnout would be higher in the VA/NJ races. I haven't seen specific language in the Senate deal, but if it includes a commitment that Thune will take an extension of Obamacare subsidies to a vote, AND if that somehow happens on the House side too, then the Dems make every Republican publicly vote on that specific issue, which they will use in the midterms. It is what it is.
Recommended Posts