Hey Jim are the Dems playing it smart ?

[Crackpot]

I’m having a hard time sifting through the “fake news” (you don’t know how hard it is for me to say that). All the headlines are talking about this big policy shift by the Dems in the House but from what I’ve read all they are doing is passing the what the senate passed last year. (Which would be the smart move). Forcing the senate and the Republicans to take total ownership of the shutdown.

Is that the case? Sanity buried under sensational headlines or are Dems targeting thier feet again?

[Scooter]

I don't know what headlines you are referring to, but to me, paasing the six bills already passed by the Senate forces Senate Republicans to explain why what they supported unanimously a few weeks ago has now become anathema. Passing a CR for DHS until Feb 8 says "we're willing to have a conversation about how to approach border security." Don't see how it can be a losing strategy, at least in the short term.

[Crackpot]

That’s the thing I keep hearing rumors of new or additional demands that the Dems are supposedly making that are somehow extraordinary but never seems to materialize. Any changes to last years senate bill would be politically stupid as it would give Republicans a way out While such behavior wouldn’t be outside the normal for congressional Democrats I haven’t seen any evidence outside of some sloppily written headlines

[Scooter]

What I have heard is that if they are going to move on wall funding, that it could only be in exchange for a major move on immigration like a citizenship path for Dreamers and possibly other undocumented aliens. As in, something along the lines of severals previous compromises worked out by congressional Ds and Rs before the Cheeto-in-Chief declared them non-starters.

[Big RR]

Let's hope they hold to that strategy; the important thing about compromise is that both sides gain something and lose something--a point often forgotten, especially by Trump.

[Burning Petard]

How does congress make a deal with POTUS? Congressional leaders of both parties, meet with Trump; they hash out an agreement together, then go back to Congress and the Senate and pass the bills that compete the agreement. Meantime, (even if only a day) POTUS talks to someone, any one, (many people tell me. . . ) or some talking head on Fox says, Trump will now "look weak to his base. . . " and at that point POTUS reneges on the deal and will not sign.

snailgate.

[Lord Jim]

from what I’ve read all they are doing is passing the what the senate passed last year. (Which would be the smart move). Forcing the senate and the Republicans to take total ownership of the shutdown.

That appears to be what they're doing:

House Democratic leaders have settled on a legislative strategy to reopen the government, with votes expected on proposals just hours after the party takes control on Thursday, a Democratic aide confirms to CNN.

The Democrats plan to vote on a bipartisan package of six Senate spending bills and a stopgap measure to re-open the Department of Homeland Security at its current funding levels until February 8, the aide said. The temporary measure would maintain the current $1.3 billion in border security money, which can be used for fencing and repairs of current barriers.

“The President is using the government shutdown to try to force an expensive and ineffective wall upon the American people, but Democrats have offered two bills which separate the arguments over the wall from the government shutdown,” incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday in a statement.

https://fox43.com/2019/01/02/house-demo ... -thursday/

So what the Democrats are opening with at least seems like smart politics...

They're saying "Look, let's at least get those parts of the government about which there is no dispute funded, so here's a bill that is a package of the funding bills already passed by the Senate that will do that. And separately here's a temporary CR with the exact same language passed by the Senate to fund the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 8th, so we can start paying our border guards and members of the Coast Guard while we continue to negociate those areas where we have disagreement"...

That looks like a pretty politically astute posture to take. It makes them look fairly restrained and responsible. (A much smarter strategy than passing something loaded up with a bunch of Democratic wish-list items, which would leave them open to charges of holding the end of the partial shutdown hostage to advancing their partisan agenda.)

At the moment McConnell is rejecting this out-of-hand as a "political stunt" but that's a pretty tough argument to make, when all they're talking about is passing the exact same things that his Senate already passed. "How dare you play politics by passing the exact same things we passed" is a pretty weak and disingenuous position to be stuck with...

If the Dems stick to this approach I would expect the polling on who is to blame for the shutdown to continue to get worse for Trump (and the Senate Republicans, who will eventually put enough pressure on McConnell to put those bills that were already passed back on the floor once the polls get bad enough.)

[Crackpot]

What worries me is that any change no matter how good will be spun against the Dems. If they added a resolution honoring mom and apple pie it would get billed as anti orphan and fueling the obesity epidemic.

[Burning Petard]

According to NY Times editorial:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/opin ... trump.html

The Trump administration has spent LESS THAN 10 PERCENT of what congress allocated last year for border security.

POTUS has already revealed that he is accountable only to those who would vote for him even if he randomly shot someone on 5th avenue in New York.
He has tweeted that all these people with cash flow problems because of the government shut down are all Democratic voters, so to hell with them. We all know that the only people who really understand how to run this country, what are the real American values that will make American great again, are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the greatest expert on history, military tactics, economics, international relations, that the world has ever seen, Donald Trump.

snailgate.

[Crackpot]

A lot of people don’t know thar

[Big RR]

BP--I would think the best the dems could hope for is to convince the repubs to join them against the president on important actions like this, creating a veto proof majority in both houses. There's no negotiating with this idiot, but if the dems could get enough of the public behind them on issues like this, I think the repubs might have no other choice. After all, how many of them would want to join their future with the idiot in the White House. Regardless of who is in the WH, it's about time for the legislative branch to stand up and take its rightful place in the government rather than letting the executive to cal the shots; the current jerk in chief just makes the final decision easier.

[Sue U]

the important thing about compromise is that both sides gain something and lose something--a point often forgotten, especially by Trump.

I think that in this case, treating "compromise" as both sides gaining an losing something is not really appropriate: compromise shouldn't mean giving Trump $2.5 billion or whatever for his wall when his demand is $5 billion (which is how the media are playing it). Rather, "compromise" should mean "we'll do the things we can agree on and we won't do the things that don't have the support of the majority in Congress." If there's not enough support for some dumbass project, that means it simply doesn't get funded, not that it gets partial funding.

I read in the paper this morning that Trump told congressional leaders yesterday that he can't give in on the shutdown because it will make him "look foolish." Someone really should tell him.

At the moment McConnell is rejecting this out-of-hand as a "political stunt" but that's a pretty tough argument to make, when all they're talking about is passing the exact same things that his Senate already passed. "How dare you play politics by passing the exact same things we passed" is a pretty weak and disingenuous position to be stuck with...

"Weak and disingenuous" pretty much define Mitch McConnell. The man is a worm.

[Sue U]

BP--I would think the best the dems could hope for is to convince the repubs to join them against the president on important actions like this, creating a veto proof majority in both houses.

That's not going to happen. The GOP representatives are scared to death of Trump and his rabid base coming after them in the 2020 primaries, where any act of bipartisanship would be spun as betrayal. Trump is certainly petty and vindictive enough to support loyalist rivals against GOP incumbents who vote against him.

[Big RR]

You could well be right, but they had best be afraid as well of what the sane voters will do when they see them bending over backwards to please Trump. The last election showed what might happen; two more years of Trump might create even more of a backlash against those who choose to stand with him. Failing that, I am not certain what else can be done--you cannot make a deal with an insane person, and if they won't oppose him on legislation, there is no chance of impeachment. It's pretty much a no win situation, but we can hope for something better.

[Sue U]

I don't think potential House losses in the 2020 general election is much of a threat. Pretty much all the seats that could be flipped red to blue were flipped in 2018. The remaining GOP House seats are in secure Republican districts that will elect whoever is the party nominee in the general election, whether an "establishment" Republican or a Trumpist. (It's the Senate that will be in play in 2020, and at this point I can see a potential Dem pickup of 5 GOP seats -- and possibly even McConnell's -- especially if the Dem presidential candidate really motivates the electorate).

I think we're going to have two more years of a Trump presidency with little to no legislation moving (not necessarily a bad thing). There will be plenty to keep Trump embattled and weak going into 2020, which is probably the best we can hope for.

[Big RR]

with little to no legislation moving (not necessarily a bad thing)

Perhaps, but not necessarily a good thing either; we have a lot of things, from immigration to healthcare that are crying out for legislative action, and two more years of stagnation is not something desirable in the least. These people should do the job they are elected for; but I am not optimistic.

[Crackpot]

2022 is another story though. By then there will probably be a lot of new districts

[Lord Jim]

all these people with cash flow problems because of the government shut down are all Democratic voter

That was interesting since among those being forced to work with no idea when they will be paid are the Border Patrol guards, whose union was the only federal employee union to endorse him...

I see that he just trotted six of these guards out for a deflection infomercial for the wall...(He just popped into the press briefing room to pull this stunt; apparently all the news attention Pelosi and the Dems are getting today wasn't sitting well with him,)

I hope he paid their way to DC, since they're not getting their paychecks...

[Econoline]

Of course *HE* didn't pay their way to DC.

*WE* did.

[ex-khobar Andy]

One thing which hasn't really been mentioned about the 'shutdown' is this. A company I used to work for had a lot of federal contracts - environmental emergency response, Superfund site investigations, that sort of thing. Not particularly well paid work because the govt gets any and all discounts going and generally has to get the lowest available price under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). But steady work. Until the government shuts down. All those federal workers will get paid eventually; but the companies which have all these people on staff to assist the feds will not get paid so they will see a hit on their earnings. My recollection is that the company covered the paychecks and employees were deployed to other work (busy work such as making sure all SOPs were updated, for example) for the duration.