Malicious Compliance?

 

Monday night, people became aware of a memo from the Trump Administration that halted payments regarding all sorts of things.  That memo said to pause "all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance." 

Well, that wasn't very specific. So maybe the memo was drafted by someone who didn't exactly know what all the programs were, but figured they were all suspect. Or maybe the memo was crafted by someone who really did want all the programs everywhere halted, but didn't know they would be leaving the Administration red-faced and red-assed.

Trump loves doing stuff, and also hates to be blamed for doing stuff. Somebody might get "you're fired'd" for this. I would like it to be Russell Vought, who hasn' t even been confirmed for OMB yet, but who is the Project 2025 guy who thought up this exact kind of thing, was singled out by the Trump Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt as the guy to contact, and is forever stuck in my mind as being the guy in the first Trump admin who halted the aid to Ukraine for the first Trump impeachment.

The Mirror Universe View

 

Just to get this out of my system: it's sad that we creep along in the country from continuing resolution to continuing resolution. We should be able to just get some kind of a budget going. That we just hover on the edge of a government shutdown every couple months is appalling and no damn way to run a country. And I feel the same way the most recent one--hey, no government shutdown, but it only gets us to MARCH. These people have calendars, right? They can count how many days they will even be in Washington to vote, right? 

It would be great to manage a deal on immigration reform, too. There's clearly more to the issue than what I sometimes think of as "the barrier method" (the border wall, a decade-old condom in a ripped wrapper). It would be great to get beyond the stupid GOP rhetoric about an "open border" that simply isn't. 

House Republicans Had Some Kind of Day

 

Things aren't great with the House Republicans. For one thing, some of them are big mad at Speaker Mike Johnson for trying to do something useful like make the government still happen, in part because it involves dealing with Democrats and obviously, that's insane. They tanked some rules just from spite because they're salty about it.  And poor Mike Johnson has to make a pilgrimage to Godfather Trump to get his blessing on the whole avoiding a shutdown thing, which is awkward, because we all know Trump wants the economy to crash because he absolutely said so. 

I have some idea of the kind of arguments that have to be made. If House Republicans are responsible for a shutdown--all Republicans could be blamed, including Trump. Whether Trump can hear arguments like that is dicey, though. Ditto (or maybe that should be "MAGA-dittoes") for the mascots some red districts have elected to Congress--they were elected to sow chaos and it really shows. They want a shutdown for the same reason Patriarch Newt Gingrich normalized Republicans causing shutdowns--just burning spite against the idea of doing government at all. 

This is why the House sucked out loud in 2023. They couldn't pass legislation for shit and just did mascot stuff. Retiring Rep. McHenry referred to it as "a very actively stupid political environment" and that sounds exactly right. 

The Former Guy is Nuts

 

Trump says the Obama Administration “says it in their stats” that Trump built 500 miles of border wall when he was president. pic.twitter.com/hWHLiZax3r

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) October 1, 2023

He thinks the Biden Administration is a continuation of the Obama Administration and is lying on the wall he never really built. TBH, he's all the way nuts:

Montage of 33 clips of the stupidest, most vile, insane, weirdest, addled dementia-ridden, psychotic statements made by Trump over the past two weeks. pic.twitter.com/iCbt5PtzBX

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) September 30, 2023

None of this is new. He's been the guy who has been talking about windmill cancer and buying Greenland and stuff like that.  The problem is, no one ever seems to want to call the weird as fuck things he says actually "crazy" even though they objectively are. It's like Trump has been given a safe space, available to celebrities, to be eccentric or stupid as hell, and the media doesn't want to report that thing. The Trump is not just a criminal fascist thing, a rapist and a racist thing. They don't want to report on the fact that he's dumb as hell. Windmill cancer. Windmills killing whales. Electric cars only travelling for twenty minutes. People drinking bleach to stop Covid. 

The weirdo projects his crimes on others, he suggests other people should commit acts of vengeance for him, he wants impeachment of his political "enemy" and a government shutdown because he thinks it will help him (it would not have because federal prosecutions are funded differently). 

He has been an unstable not-genius for a long while. His supporters are by now, just absolutely shithouse rats. How are you supporting the guy who says any of the things this one says? 

We are not saying this enough. Trump is not stable, not a genius, not sane. He's not just a crook, he's bent.  He' s actually stupid, even though the media has been schooled to not call him stupid. 

They have no trouble calling Biden "old". Where is the trouble with pointing out that Trump is a pussy-grabbing fraudulent dumbass with no redeeming qualities? Because that would be the very sad truth of it. 

And he may have bought a gun and regularly threatens violence. Maybe it would be entirely right for the court to put him in a place where we all feel safer about him. Like a situation where he can stop lying and threatening people.  Things candidates for office um--just don't normally do. 

Much Ado About the Shutdown

 

President Biden has signed CR into law to prevent government shutdown.

Photo via @POTUS pic.twitter.com/eGv2NUsR29

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) October 1, 2023

The maneuvering to have or not have the government shutdown was very stupid, which means it will likely happen again. For all the folk relieved that it didn't happen, there will be some very disappointed that there was no great, beautiful chaos. (Trump doesn't understand congressional math or the assignment of political liability now any more than he did when he was in office. Some of his little House minions are very loyal and very confused.) McCarthy himself knew better. 

But here is what the foofaraw amounted to: stripping out the aid to Ukraine, which can be obtained through a separate resolution. It strikes an awful chord, though: are we a nation true to our word, that will support our allies and follows though on our promises? Are we as a nation capable of understanding the risks and rewards of our actions? Do we understand why Putin is the villain here, and what does it mean when some of our elected representatives simply--do not? 

So what was accomplished besides displaying a soft white underbelly of GOP dysfunction and willingness to answer to the voices of un-American fuck-ups? 

Does McCarthy's speakership survive?  Honestly? Who else wants the job? 

Also, the GOP narrowly evaded being stuck with the onus of being the stupidest people of the day, because one Democratic Representative tried to use a shortcut from Cannon to where the action is. Yeah, he was definitely not trying to stop the vote, since he...voted? I think he was trying to get to the vote but definitely misread the signs. 

That is a problem that is certainly going around.  Anyway, I'm glad I don't have to write about shutdown nonsense, because the idea that these stupid, paycheck and service-denying things happen over political snits is fucking shameful. 

He Can Take the Blame

 

Trump tells House Republicans to shut down the government of the United States in an effort to obstruct his criminal prosecutions. pic.twitter.com/kLqc6wCBMq

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) September 21, 2023

It's sort of breath-taking, isn't it? I don't know if I've seen something so puurely selfish oh, since some dumb damn eeeedjiot helped lose the midterms for his party's House and in, oh, late 2018, early 2019, shut down the government because he started to freak out about getting his border wall money.

And he never did get that border wall money.

Who was that, now?

It's one thing for an actual president to be behind a government shutdown. Wild as a mad goose to think a candidate would openly call for one...to stop his various prosecutions. But if he wants the credit for it, I don't mind him taking the blame.

Should This Stand?

This is going to be a pretty short post because it's already the wee hours and I am certain there will be great shades of fuckery to confront on the morrow, but there is something especially weird about the tendency that President Trump has to undermine the various intelligence agencies who actually do the work of gathering information and analyzing it to provide context that should inform Trump's decision-making process. This relationship should not be either adversarial, nor should it be a top-down thing where Trump dictates what "reality" is.

The IC has provided credible information that ISIS is still active, that North Korea has not stepped down its nuclear program, that Iran is still largely abiding by its nuclear agreement, and that while border security is important, the overland threat is sort of not that big a priority. And Trump rubbishes it all, and then posts the above Tweet that tells us not to believe our eyes and ears about what IC professionals who have sworn an oath to protect and defend this country are saying, believe Trump! Trump might trash treaties and hate NATO and not even understand what defending allies is about, and for that matter, believes climate change is a hoax even though the Pentagon takes it seriously now, and has been doing so for years.

Any person with an open and rational mind, being confronted with information from people who have made it their lives' work to provide high-quality information in the service of their country, would try to incorporate at least some of it into their own frame of reference to try and do their own job better.

Not Donald Trump. He seems to find expertise suspect and is intensely uncomfortable with the very idea that he might not be the smartest person in the room. And it seems like he prefers to take his cues from actually stupid people, like the cast (I cannot call them "journalists") of his favorite shows on the Fox News channel.  Could anyone think for an instant that Lou Dobbs knows more than the FBI about law enforcement or counter-terrorism? (Dobbs has the distinction of being an original "birther" and having been dropped by CNN for his especially anti-immigrant views. His only distinguishing quality seems to be his bigotry.) Let alone weighing in on the rare genius of other Fox personalities like Tucker Carlson and Jesse Watters, who do not understand that the sun and wind still can generate electricity even when it is very cold, because they are functionally science illiterate, and who promote racist propaganda because they are...

Well, by any stretch, not persons who should be trusted over the actual people doing national security work, anyhow, regardless of whatever low esteem they should actually be held in. But it nonetheless remains that Trump, despite having qualified professionals that could provide him with good information, prefers his entertainment to inform his world.  Quite possibly because he lacks the attention span for anything other than "the shows".

But there are fewer professionals available to try and amend Trump's odd mental topiary,  owing in part to the thanklessness of the job and Trump's own limited arsedness to replace the brain-drain in his administration with good quality people, if he could even get them. In fact, his recent shut down was explained somewhat anonymously as an opportunity to purge careerists--quite baldly admitting that expertise wasn't really the Trump Administration's thing.  

Long story short, Trump harps on the Deep State because competent people see through his bullshit, and this gives him a lot of discomfort. So how long will anyone want to stay on when words will be put in their mouths, and their genuine assessments will be supplanted with Trump's casual falsehoods? Especially when he prefers, when his lie is called out, to continue not listening. 

He Couldn't Throw Away His Trash Card

"Prisoner of his own impulse": Inside Trump’s cave to end shutdown without wall https://t.co/db2hTlBGxN

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 27, 2019

I touched on where Trump stood with regards to the shutdown and how he could just do the right thing a few days ago. But in all honesty, he never should have shut the government down. It actually shouldn't be a thing that ever happens. He should have, if he really wanted the wall, and if he thought there was a national emergency, accepted the offer the Democrats once made of $25 billion dollars worth of wall money, made fully one year ago. Instead of getting anything like that, after 35 days he's accepted reopening the government to wait and see if he can negotiate getting his wall, and if this doesn't happen, well, maybe he'll call it a national emergency.

The kind of national emergency that you can sit on for a whole year after rejecting full (ish) funding, then have a 35 day tantrum about, then admit you'll wait 15 days over because (SOTU, the planes won't take rich folks to the Super Bowl, needing to regroup because shit got entirely too stupid), and then, and only then, call a national emergency because you have not got funding for your big, beautiful wall, is not a national emergency, but a massive erection fetish gone badly wrong. A big old wall will take years to build and more dollars than Trump has even been asking to be made a reality. It is prone to tunnels and escalations of the ladderly variety. There are better, smarter, more targeted ways to address illegal immigration anyway, like eVerify and the Dept of Labor addressing employers who behaved illegally, not people looking to work. There has always been the option of tightening border security by increasing people-power and technology at entrance-points to locate contraband and note who seems to be carrying people who don't appear to leave. The wall was always bad posturing for this fight--he wanted it too much, and so the only work Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer ever had to do was say "No" to it.

It was a false argument for a bad gimmick. Democratic voters never fell for the immigration rhetoric, which Trump should have known because of the outcome of the midterms, which was largely based on his caravan-scaring. There was no reason they would change their mind just because he did not understand that the maxim "Elections have consequences" applied to his midterm defeat, and that his duct-taped women fear-mongering would start to seem so over-the-top weird and propagandistic.

Funding for the wall was never a good card. It was only a shiny object that appealed to his base. There was never any reason he should have thought Democrats would be impressed by any pretended need for it. He should have discarded it at once upon realizing it was a trash card and played the hand where opening the government was good for him as a guy who gets things done.

But he already showed how much value he placed in the wall. He will never get it now. Ever. He can shutdown the government again. And no Democrat will cry, because he won't get his shiny, and his approval ratings can sink like a stone, and he will give up in less time, next time. Because it already has been proven--the shut down doesn't work, and next time, there probably will be strikes. And he will be given all the more reason to cave--sooner than later.

Trump is an ex-casino guy. When Paul Ryan was Speaker of the House, Trump could have been playing with "house money". But leave it to a guy who got multiply-bankrupted while running casinos to not understand that the House had the advantage when Nancy Pelosi was in charge of it. Mr. Art of the Deal couldn't even start to make a deal with her. He got trashed in every which way.

Some of Trump's die-hards are doing back-flips on these Internets trying to pretend Trump made a strategic retreat and will do better the next go-around.

Bet? Because Trump doesn't really look like a strategy guy, and it actually looks like trying a shutdown again will only demonstrate a failure to learn from past mistakes. And the National Emergency argument should be a clear non-starter.

This is No Way to Run a Country

"I want to serve": Federal workers gathered by the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia to protest the government shutdown and express their fears about how it will hurt them. Furloughed employees will miss their paycheck if the shutdown isn't over by Friday https://t.co/VM3GdseHeh pic.twitter.com/S9l7CjNDyW

— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 9, 2019

The many furloughed federal workers would love to be back at their jobs and earning their pay, but they are left to scramble, sorting out what bills can be paid now, what can be negotiated, what side gigs they can get cash from, and what kind of financing they can swing to tide them over--except for who knows how long? Or how much they will ultimately need to get them over this stupid government shutdown? And as for the employees declared "essential" who are working through this nonsense without pay, some, like the IRS personnel who have been called back to work to process tax season refunds, don't even have the wherewithal to fill their tanks, arrange for daycare for their kids, and get themselves to their jobs. (The header says "defy", which seems pretty much a misstatement. They can't. They have an actual hardship.) They aren't making big bucks. The same goes for food inspection-personnel--they are still providing the essential work, but it's barebones. The TSA is experiencing high sick calls, but again, this isn't deliberate planned work action, this is people having actual physical hardships provided by their lack of finance.

These are just middle class, working class people, being called upon to serve for nothing more than their vested interest in their jobs (pension and benefits) and the pride they take in their careers. And they are hurting. And the jobs they do, often so well you would hardly know how vital they can be to our national security because of all the tragic potentialities they intercept, are strained.

It is a sin that Coast Guard employees are relying on food pantries while serving this country. It is a crisis when our air traffic safety may be at risk because we can't pay these people who keep us safe in the air. It is a crime when our justice system is threatened because our law enforcement resources at the FBI are being squandered through lack of use and money-starving. And it is beyond conscience that a government shutdown, supposedly over a crying need for border security (which is a bullshit crisis by any metric except the elastic inches of the white nationalists' hateful yardstick) now imperils actual national security in the estimation of the men and women who have headed departments related to national security and understand the principal issues involves most intimately.

This is no way--no way at all--for a country to be run, and that is because no person, no person at all, but Donald Trump, has been stupidly burdened with the responsibility of the executive office and all its powers, and the ability to fuck all of them up because he has no concept of their purpose and importance. And yet he could, quite easily, get all these wheels of state back in motion with the merest wave of his hand, freeing Senate Majority Reptile Leader Mitch McConnell to put a clean CR forward without the wall funding or any DACA or asylum shenanigans, just as had been passed before by both houses before Ann Coulter made him feel all funny about doing the right thing, as opposed to trying the alt-right thing.

He could actually show leadership by doing this thing, because it isn't actually a concession to resume the government without getting the "extra" funding for his wall--it's just the right thing to do. He could even frame it as being awfully big of him, giving up the wall funding to end a national crisis like this, and use the lack of wall funding as being on Democrats from that very day forward. The political framing to not see ending the shutdown as an L for him, or even making it about his resolve and heroism and shit, and calling it a "win", completely exist.

And all he has to do is ask himself--did you come here to run a country, or did you come here to run your mouth? Because I don't see what's going on right here, right now as running a country, and he wants to run his mouth about who did what.

How about having responsibility? Is this Trump anything at all? Because this shutdown is basically an abdication--it shows he isn't even trying to be shit, and his nonsense about security is bullshit while his inaction leaves us with so much potential for danger.

His poll numbers are taking a hit during this stand, and I really don't want to help his ass. But his doing the right thing, even if it makes him a little more popular, helps all of us.

Do the right thing, Trump. Just do the right thing. I might even find it in my greasy little heart to celebrate it.

(Or Mitch McConnell could....Nah, fuck him. he doesn't ever do the right thing, ever.)

(And not for nothing, although I know Secret Service are consummate professionals, I really would especially want them paid if they were personally protecting my personal ass. Just saying.)

Donald J. Coyote--Super Genius

The recent shutdown (the third of Trump's term in office, all three with Republicans in the majority for both houses of Congress) over Trump's desire for a big beautiful wall (or "Steel Slat Barrier", which is aesthetically more attractive, maybe, more politically correct, entirely as racist, and of course, see-through, which is important because Safety! and Transparency!) seems to have a lot to do with whether Trump is seen as weak in the eyes of such brilliants minds as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. He knows that if he disappoints them, he will never hear the end of it from his base, who largely exist because of the brain-tenderizing skills of people like Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham. He could have had some pretty sweet funding for his wall, a shutdown or two ago, if he only agreed to DACA, but his fear of pundit disdain killed that notion. And Dems caved, because they didn't want to be seen as the problem, here.

This difference this time around though, is Trump already took vocal ownership of the shutdown and can't re-gift that son-of-a-bitch for political Pollyanna. And unlike last time, the House of Representatives is going to change parties in literally a matter of days. He might be facing quite a different situation.

One thing is, it's Christmas and he's just told a couple hundred thousand federal workers they need to work through this thing without a paycheck, a few hundred thousand others they don't actually know when they will be working or seeing a paycheck again (and sure, they could, would, should get back pay, but your bills are due when they are due, and that can be a problem for working and middle class people who may be living paycheck to paycheck especially when expenditures have been made to celebrate a holiday). And he's done so over a wall that won't work and appeals to really just his base.

Which would all by itself be a big old "whut?" that leaves us questioning his priorities and whether he gets what government is about at all. But when he also says things that makes us wonder if he knows that the "coyotes" we worry about on the border are not four-footed, then we are at the point where it is hard to parody Trump, because he is just so underprepared to fulfill the requirements of this job, even two years in, that it is hard to find the humor. He says he knows things, but he gets all his information, even after having gained access to the US' top intelligence, from goddamn Fox News. And Lou Dobbs has had brain worms for a very long time.

This could look like a situation to play solely for laughs, if we forgot that thousands of migrant children are held in US custody, and the head of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen can't say how many people have died in DHS custody, even though she should have intuited that this was sort of question she might have been asked in the wake of the death of a seven-year old girl, Jaklin Caal Maquin. The "wall" has become such an item of importance to DHS that they've lost their articles over it, because we needs wall, precious, and filthy libses thwarts us!

I have half a notion that if this wears on, instead of caving, Schumer and Pelosi should actually put DACA back on the table. Just give him the original $1.6 billion he originally rejected because he got his ass reddened by the RW talkers, and make a demand regarding how he even gets that much out of Dems. Because Trump's cards are all on the table. He wants his wall funding and he needs it to make his base happy. (His "art of the deal" is so terribly naked and on display here.)

Dems don't love a shutdown, but it might be really nice to see Trump's "My way or the highway" attitude get greeted with "Eat asphalt".  Because he is by no means a super genius. He's just, sadly, what the Republicans have got, and this is why they are sticking with him. And if what he wants is wall, well wall is just a major fucking concession to unracist our policies away. Let's leverage that shit.

Also wall will still not work and the separation policy is inhumane and Tornillo should be shut down.

I feel like there is a way to get better out of this schmuck. In spite of himself.

Continuing, Resolutely

Consider me in the "not a cave" camp regarding the vote to end the government shutdown in exchange for six years of CHIP funding. a promise for a DACA debate, and the possibility of another shutdown.  The deal wasn't perfect--of course settling the situation of the Dreamers sooner rather than later would be better as the lives of hundreds of thousands are in the balance.  But Sen. McConnell already gave us a clue that that was not the binary choice Dems (and a handful of Republicans) were actually going to get. In the meanwhile, CHIP remained unfunded, and Sen. McConnell had blocked a bid to keep the military and other federal workers paid. Hostages were piling up.

It should be clear that, just as the party that has neither the majority in the House and Senate nor the Presidency is unlikely to be the main culprit in causing a government shutdown in the first place, that the party that does have those advantages is also responsible for determining what gets voted on. It should be obvious, but there is no counting on the media not to report this as a "both sides" problem. The framing coming from the White House and from Majority Leader McConnell presented the most negative light: Those liberals were ready to support illegal immigrants over American citizens. And sure--that's crap. Kids brought here when they were minors had no control over coming here, and are as American as anybody, except for the paperwork. But given enough time, and without the ability to easily reframe that debate, Dems were facing losing support for the trying to do what not only seems right but is actually popular.

The thing of it is, while DACA is popular, government shutdowns are not. So, I don't see this vote as a "cave" so much as choosing a different time and battlefield. Dems responsibly voted to end the shutdown. And if Mitch McConnell is a man of his word, he will allow a debate on DACA. He said so.

Now, that means an awful lot rides on the good word of Mitch McConnell. Senate colleague Bob Corker was optimistic:

Addressing questions about whether McConnell would stick to his word on DACA, Republican Sen. Bob Corker said, “He’s going to do it. He said he’s going to do it. I’ve never gotten any sense that he’s not going to do it."

Corker added that it would be an “affront” to a larger number of his colleagues if McConnell didn't keep his promise.

 (Wouldn't it just be an affront, now?) But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been luxuriating in his effrontery for some time, now. There was that thing about denying President Obama a hearing on his SCOTUS pick. There was giving assurances to Senator Collins and Senator Flake  for votes over things that did not come to pass. But what McConnell promised just now was public and maybe just a little harder to go back on. And in three weeks, if he was not a man of his word, he deserves to get well and truly dragged for his bullshit.

There's no guarantee that, even if a debate takes place, an acceptable bill will get passed by the House and Senate, what with the Freedom Caucus and all that. Or that a bill gets signed by President Trump, given who his particular base is, and all that. (There were no assurances this time around either, which makes me wonder what people think would have happened this go-around.) Our best option on a good DACA resolution would involve neither a Republican Senate, nor racist-ass Trump in the White House--and that takes elections. But the next time, the debate about immigration can't hide behind insurance coverage for kids. It rests on McConnell having the debate, and the spotlight being on what Republicans do with that debate.  All in an election year.

The Trump Shutdown

It isn't an entire year that Donald Trump has been president, and yet, with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, the government is now facing a shutdown because, as everyone probably should have known during 2016 but just enough failed to take into account--he hasn't the least clue what he's doing. 

He articulated a lot of promises during the campaign about building a wall that Mexico would pay for (but it most certainly will not) and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. That sort of thing doesn't seem very in line with the idea of crafting "a bill of love" with respects to DACA recipients, anymore than his basically ending it by executive order did. 

It really doesn't make sense then, that Democrats should be faulted for the GOP deciding to hold both DACA and CHIP beneficiaries hostage in the continuing resolution debate. And yes, this is exactly what they had done, as Mitch McConnell, may his neck skin rise up to swathe his breathing holes, clearly Tweeted:

The intention being to bully the Democrats into picking CHIP kids over DACA, and probably ensuring DACA protection would never happen. I mean, the GOP basically considers DACA to be an amnesty. Trump put DACA on the line. Majority Leader McConnell never did boo about renewing CHIP. If the GOP cared about either, they could have easily ensured their continuation--even without Democratic agreement (although they would have had it). Instead, they held them to lord over Democrats for a continuing resolution that there's no real reason to believe the Democrats would have been against if there hadn't been hostage-taking by the party that happens to be the "government shutdown experts" in the first place. Thus resulting in the first time a government shutdown has occurred with a White House and Congress both in the same party's power.

And of course it's Republicans. Because they can't govern, because they don't seem to know what government is for.

Trump, the populist common guy communicator and all around deal-making sonofabitch, who bragged to all and sundry that he could get shit done, got no shit done. The wall isn't happening, the GOP, trying to pin the failure of the CR on Dems not loving DACA enough just made it clear who really is supporting Dreamers, and in the meanwhile, funding CHIP is now and always has been a thing McConnell could introduce, right?

The GOP owns this, but as with so many things a lot of people have a piece of the ownership of, let's put Trump's name on this one. This is the Trump Shutdown. The Shithole Shutdown. This is his inaugural 1st anniversary present.  He said he alone could fix it--he can't even explain it. 

And tomorrow, there will be marches. Because we resist.

Trump Chose This

Sure, there is a stunt-like quality to the image of Trump sitting at a table with his Democratic friends "Chuck and Nancy" conspicuously absent which highlights his side of the argument that they aren't trying to reach out to him over issues such as the looming government shutdown or tax reform, but I can't help but direct attention back to what Trump did to basically disinvite them:

Leaving aside that this meeting wasn't even supposed to really be about crime or immigration--he does know that the GOP plan right now is actually going to raise taxes on millions of people, right? Or does he once again have no idea what's supposed to be in the policies he allegedly wants passed? The CBO has said this plan is liable to increase the deficit and will hurt the poor, and frankly, the only fixes proposed for the deficit issue is Sen' Corker's "trigger" to freeze the tax cuts if (when) the deficit is negatively impacted, and, well, there really isn't a solution to do squat for the poor that I can see. And despite Trump's describing his meeting with GOP leaders as a "lovefest" , it still genuinely sounds to me like Republicans have some serious ground to cover before they are all in the same place on this bill. 

What Trump did today was a failure to get Democrats to the table. He could have made it seem like negotiation was possible, but he was the one who insulted Democrats' position and even said "I don't see a deal!"

Wait a minute--wasn't he supposed to be the master of the "art of the deal"?  That was supposed to mean some kind of genius at seeing opportunities? And, well, right here he didn't. So. "Chuck and Nancy" didn't have to waste their time. And if the party that controls both houses of Congress and the White House has to shut down the government to sort their own self-made problems, Democrats do not exist to save Republicans from themselves. It would be great not to have a government shutdown, but, shit. Republicans. What are you gonna do?

Trump had a choice. Act like a leader and an adult and try to get something done. He instead Tweeted something dumb and ended up talking between empty chairs--and maybe some of his fanclub see that as a success. 

But that kind of "success" is just as empty as those chairs. 

Trump Made a Good Call

You probably won't hear this from me very often, but President Trump made the right call in making a deal with Democrats on the Hill to raise the debt ceiling and ensure Hurricane Harvey relief. I won't exactly be gleeful at the disarray this puts the GOP in, but if Trump was thinking of "sending a message" to McConnell and Ryan that he only has so much patience with them--I can entirely understand. Their lack of interest in governance has had me right out of patience for some time. I also don't think it's as strategic as one might expect of a politician, because I don't view Trump as a politician (or really a long-term strategic thinker). 

What I do think is that, in the wake of the devastation from Harvey and the threat of Irma, with his political agenda not nearly cleared to his satisfaction, with whatever is going on with North Korea, it would be appalling to be bogged down in a debt ceiling row right now. Anyone thinking of a government shutdown or political horseplay right now would have to be off their rocker. 

And here's the thing: Ryan and McConnell might have been "blindsided" or "shell-shocked" by Trump's decision, but they set themselves up for this because of previous debt ceiling gamesmanship. I hate, hate, hate the idea of debt ceilings having to be congressionally approved but even more so now that they've become politically-charged, so I entirely appreciate wanting a longer period between government-funding battles. I hate, hate, hate shut-down nonsense, too. But at the same time, remember how they set their agenda to tell Trump what he wanted to hear?  And he got nothing? 

He wants McConnell and Ryan to deliver him something. Here's a few months of funding the government and helping our fellow Americans out of a disaster. Now McConnell and Ryan can figure out how to make the most of the time they have until the next row. 

Hint--it might involve bipartisanship. He made it harder for them, unless they figure out how deals get made. Do I know that's what Trump is thinking? Hell no. But it makes sense that Trump is used to getting his way and will look for a way to get it. 

But When the Delivery Guy Goes to the Door, She's Naked!

So Rep. Darrell Issa thinks the government should be shut down until Hillary Clinton is charged with something, because otherwise, Clinton, or Lois Lerner, or Eric Holder (!?) will just think they can get away with anything!

And then Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter come into the room, but, uh-oh, why are they carrying whipped cream?

I'm just saying. Maybe he could hold a copy of The National Review in front of himself until the feeling goes down?

John Boehner, Don't Look Back in Anger or Tears

There are metaphors that can be used for Speaker of the House John Boehner ("The Only Adult in the House" and the "Designated Driver" come to mind for me) but I think my impression of Boehner's tenure as Speaker of the House is summed up by the three-part series of blog posts I did called "Speaker of Nothing" regarding the summer of 2011 debt ceiling fight. Here he is, Speaker of the House, a powerful position--provided you have a caucus behind you interested in governing. But his Speakership was dependent upon a Tea Party wave in 2010, resulting in many people new to politics who 1) weren't necessarily "House-trained" and 2) were instinctively anti-government.

It's damn hard to come to a consensus with people who actually think "lowering the debt ceiling" is a thing, or who believe that a government shut-down is a perfectly cromulent stunt to put on one's political resume. This is a person who has had to sit across from Michele Bachmann, Steve King, and Louie Gohmert, and accept these were the people on his own team--and no damn help. He's had to deal with occasional votes that weren't against him per se--but are hard not to take a little personally. And sometimes he was put in places he probably had no "win".

I can't blame the man for wanting out, because getting pressure over trying to keep the government running over defunding Planned Parenthood has got to be a vicious kick in the gut for a devout pro-life Catholic. But the problem is, he's standing in the gap between a functional government and the crazies in his own party, for who nothing will ever be enough. He could probably promise them ponies upon ponies--but they would still want flying unicorns, even if those things don't exist. If he came to this decision in the wake of the Pope's visit, with an understanding that he could no longer reconcile his job with his heart--it makes sense.

The problem for the aftermath though is--does this change anything? Will there still be a gap to stand in, or will the Tea Party nihilists just go all smash-happy? Rep. Pete King said, ruefully, this is a "victory for the crazies."  I don't think he's wrong. There are folks who denied Superstorm Sandy emergency funding and don't understand that your national defense and infrastructure are only as good as you actually pay for.

Rep. Boehner might have taken more of an aggressive role in trying to educate and convince his team in how not to be awful, and it does him no credit to have been the Speaker of such dysfunctional Congressional terms. But I think he tried--oh, he tried. And we did survive, after all. We might have busted his balls a  lot. But we could have had worse.

I Guess I'm Happy About the Cromnibus?

Usually, some deep, conservative, procedural-correctness malaise comes over me when talking about budget measures, continuing resolutions, looming government shut-downs, and all that. That our chambers of Congress have gotten so polarized that "shut-downs" and, my personal favorite, threatening to default on the national debt, seem like plausible moves over working together is the kind of reality that makes me want to hang up the old blogging-gear and think about going back to writing pornographic fanfic.  There are worse hobbies.

But this is the dawning of the age of the cromnibus--a portmanteau of "continuing resolution" and "omnibus spending bill", which possibly signals an end to the shenanigans (for now) on one hand, but which on the other hand makes me think helplessly of "cronuts".

This vote wasn't entirely shenanigan-free, apparently. Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee were looking to hold the whole thing up for an up or down vote on "Obama and his amnesty--shamnesty, amirite!" but apparently, there was an overwhelming vote for "Jesus, Ted, not everything has to be about you." This bit of maneuvering seems to have allowed for some votes on Obama Administration appointees for different cabinet positions through some kind of procedural magic I do not understand. So--yay?

Well, not strictly "Yay!", no. The bill also loosens bank regulations (like they were so tight to begin with, ahem, 2008).  Warren, Sanders and Whitehouse voted it against it, so I have reason to believe the loosening of bank regulations part is not a good thing.

But hey--no government shut-down! (This is exactly like being glad the puppy did not pee on the rug, tonight.) So I will put this in the "win" column for congress functioning almost like a functional thing. Cronuts for everyone, you guys.

I'll Do Reince Priebus One Better

I kind of like how that thing called "good sportsmanship" is running out in Washington. It was kind of fake anyway. So when, shortly after his party drubs the Dems in a midterm wave, Reince Priebus seizes on President Obama's Wednesday presser to say he "doesn't believe a word Obama says", I feel like he's just saying it how he feels. Nope, there's nothing cynical in what he's saying:  he genuinely thinks that President Obama would not attempt to go it alone and do something to reform immigration because:

"So he’s been talking about immigration reform for seven years, so you’re using his words as if they actually mean something, and ask me to respond to it. He’s been talking about this when he had 60 votes in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House and they didn’t do a darn thing."

The RNC chief added that "all he’s been doing for the last year is lying to Hispanic voters across the country." Priebus pointed to Obama initially saying he would act on immigration before the end of the summer, then delaying the action until after the midterm elections.

Leaving DACA aside, which I guess I will for rhetoric's sake--let's just say Obama does something without Congress, since he is pretty sure he's getting nothing from them. Is there any way at all he wouldn't think the unified GOP-led Congress would not be on his overreaching self faster than, hmm.  See, the problem with part of the "Obama's overreaching and/or has never wanted to really do something" trope is that Congress could conceivably work with him to everyone's benefit and pass needful legislation, and we could call it something like, I don't know, a "functioning democracy". (The other, bigger part is that it's self-contradictory, as so much Obama criticism actually is.) It's not like the House leadership can pretend they have to deal with much obstruction from the Senate, anymore.  And it isn't like Boehner and McConnell haven't at least attempted to strike a pose of wanting to work with the White House. (If they can promise no government shut-downs, and want to strike a deal at tax reform--I'm pretty open to hearing them out, especially if they will stop chiseling at the ACA). If they don't work things out, they have to accept some responsibility.

Instead of not believing that McConnell and Boehner can, under the new paradigm, work better with the White House--I'll take them at their word that they might try. I'll keep track of whether it looks like they are, as folks say "Getting'er done." But if they aren't doing it...well...

Watch this space for the usual grievances.

They had their fingers crossed?

In a moment of peculiar, aggravating self-bullshitting, 27 Senate Republicans "refudiated" the vote to raise the debt ceiling that they took just two weeks ago:

Twenty-seven Republican senators voted with Democrats on Oct. 16 to lift the debt ceiling and avert a catastrophic default. And each one of those 27 senators voted Tuesday to "disapprove" of their own votes. 

The vote Tuesday was a symbolic "resolution to disapprove" of the debt limit hike. It was mandated by the deal thanks to a last-minute provision inserted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The motion failed 45-54 because all Democrats opposed it.

Blink, blink, blink.  Oh, they raised the debt ceiling, but they felt just terrible about not crashing the economy the next morning, did they? I suppose we should be glad about the Senate "no takesies-backsies" rule, yes?

Oh, I kid, I kid. This is the kind of posturing cowards have to do when they can't even talk to the loonies in their constituency anymore. I understand. Some of them might even have to face primary challenges from people who would so crash the economy to get their way (see if they wouldn't!). A recent NYT editorial suggested that the GOP could use a few "grown-ups" . They name senators Hatch and Portman as being among the coalition of the grown--but we can see them both on that list of 27, fiddling about with a fig leaf instead of just admitting that raising the debt ceiling was the sensible thing to do.

One would despair of them if schadenfreude wasn't so durn delicious.

And things were said and tears were shed, people.

The above video is of Rep. Pete Sessions of TX, who was supposedly the person who said he could not stand to look at President Obama at some point in a White House meeting. And I don't even know if it is true. I won't pretend I know. Let's just call him the Schroedinger's Racist, and posit that unless the White House meeting in question was actually recorded, we simply can not infer from the available data whether he actually expressed the opinion that he could not stand the President and will not know until that event can be observed.

Some people might allege that based upon a priori data, we can reasonably speculate that Pete Sessions is in fact just the sort of person who might have made a disrespectful remark regarding the President. Others might state that the authoritative denial of the White House spokespeople negates the likelihood that he said that thing--but reasonable people might also weigh the possibility that the remark exists as an inadmissible anecdote--not on the record, but having been heard by someone, just not in a fashion readily reproducible.

In other words, he may have said it, and have had it been officially unsaid. In fact, it may have been very necessary to do so, because in order for the aforementioned White House meeting to have been in effect, the actual authority of the holder of the office that the White House represents would have to be validated. The failure to recognize that authority would tend to corrupt the resulting exchange of the conversation.

And we have no particular reason to believe that the conversation was corrupted, do we?

I leave that logical exercise for the reader to determine on his/her/their own.