State of the Discussion

I am grateful and relieved that Ossof is more concerned about pleasing the Dem base than sucking up to Republicans the way Manchin did. The Manchin calculus--betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes--never worked. One of my pet peeves has been Dems who make that mistake. I'm fine with Ossof deciding to dance with those who brung him. I don't see this as meaning Ossof fails to see the fire. He's in GA. He sees the fire.

The Epstein Files have never been a GOP hobby horse (and we have always been at war with Eastasia).

Someone needs to update their Two Minutes of Hate.

I, for one, look forward to Trump and his MAGA co-conspirators being hoist by their own petard*.

Just hope it happens.

(*and yes, I really love that phrase)

The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move - making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don't know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people's health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.

Let's hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people's healthcare access seriously. It's simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.

I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.

I'm not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism. It feels more like a rational response to the entirely predictable howls of outrage. The point of the exercise, after all, is to:
1) Get SNAP money flowing for the next year, get Federal workers paid again, etc.
2) Either get the ACA subsidies restored or, more likely, make it starkly, unmistakably clear who is responsible for the price hikes.
3) Avoid wasting time and money on primary battles, since the goal is to win general election battles.

Now if you think that the Republicans would cave on ACA subsidies, and do so fast enough to avoid the disasters for real people flowing from the lack addressed by the first point? Sure, there's lots to criticize. Just start by explaining why you think the Republicans would cave any time soon. Because, unless you can do that, criticism is nonsense.

wj - I understand what you are saying about not interrupting the enemy when they are in the midst of making a mistake. What I do not understand is why you think Kaine saying something like what wonkie outlines would in any way tip off the GOP that they were being set up.

And, assuming that they did recognize the mousetrap, I really don't see how the GOP could ever avoid that trap. Even if they see it sitting there, The Ancient Orange One Who Slumbers will not let them back down from tearing down a big shiny thing with Obama's name on it.

So where is the downside for Kaine blasting the GOP?

And I really don't believe that this is all Schumer calculus, and that the drama between caucuses has been scripted. If I had to pick anyone out of that group who was doing it for cover, I'd say it was Durbin giving cover to Gillibrand, but I don't think that was engineered by Schumer.

And I think Schumer should lose his leadership spot because he is such a soft target for people like Stewart, and even his attempts at sounding feisty look and sound squishy to anyone not starting to worry about retirement. The Dems need a scrappy wartime leader, not someone who talks about the sympathetic conversations that they have with their colleagues across the aisle while working out at the Senate gym.

Pull him from his leadership position and put someone else in front of those cameras who knows how to talk a good fight.

I generally have little time for those who see conspiracies everywhere. But it occurs to me to wonder...

Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?

Start with the fairly safe assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. If the Democrats don't stand up and announce that they've neatly mousetrapped the Republicans here, the idea that it might be happening is unlikely to occur to them. Especially if there are loud complaints about "caving in" and "betrayal" from Democratic activists -- which we are hearing.

So the Republicans cheerfully pass the continuing resolution that just passed the Senate. And loudly declare victory (which Trump is incapable of not doing). Then, February rolls around. The government shuts down again. The differences being that this time SNAP keeps going (per this bill), critical Federal workers get paid, etc. Of course, health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. And elections come ever closer, close enough that voters may even remember whose fault that is.

Did the Democrats saw all this coming? I don't know, and certainly don't expect an announcement. But, as politics goes, this ain't rocket science. I note that Schumer only had votes for cloture from Senators who are retiring or otherwise not subject to primary battles next year. Which avoids wasting resources on those. Spend the money on those districts that the Republicans gerrymandered into smaller (supposed) Republican majorities.

Hmmmm

russell, the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting, because of all the inevitable results you list, that I was just relieved to see that Josh Marshall nonetheless saw some positives in what had happened:

But don’t tell me nothing has changed or that this is some cataclysmic disaster. It’s not. This accomplished a lot. It demonstrated that Democrats can go to the mat when the public is behind them and not pay a political price. It dramatically damaged Donald Trump. It cued up the central arguments of the 2026 campaign. It just didn’t go far enough. The ball was fumbled at the end. So we need to demand more.

wonkie, I very much like your alternative script for Kaine. If only some of them were capable of talking like this - it's clearly necessary. It seems like Pritzker may be capable of it:

“Books are being banned. History is being erased. Republicans want to take billions away from public schools and pump it into private institutions. They want to punish teachers for telling the truth. They want to criminalize educators for supporting LGBTQ students. They want to turn classrooms into cultural war battlegrounds,” Pritzker began.
“I’m sorry to be vulgar, but Donald Trump and his cronies can f*** all the way off,” Pritzker said, causing a standing ovation from the audience at the Illinois Federation of Teachers gathered in Rosemont on October 19th.

Se what I mean? Mumbling curated professional word choices just doesn't work. Never has, never will. Dear God, you'd think professional politicians would know how to communicate. Now even the people the Dems were trying to protect will believe that the Dems screwed them for nothing. Honestly, Democrats. What was the point of your government shutdown? | Opinion

I think it would be helpful if the Democrats could figure out how to be moderate enough to allow more moderates to support them. These favorability ratings in the face of a fascist take over of government reflect how out of touch the Dems are at the other extreme. I keep looking for that party that isn't a sinking ship and don't see one.

As for the millions of Americans fucked by the ACA subsidies being cut, that was the plan put forward from the beginning. They were to last 5 years then phase out. That was never feasible but it was the plan bullied through Congress and part of the crowning achievement. Tough to have to live with it now. But both parties have not made them permanent for all these years so they both suck. As has the ACA structure from the beginning. It was an attempt to force employer insurance to go away and force full government controlled health care. It failed to accomplish that so its just a shitty half baked solution that is essential. Next Congress should just make the subsidies permanent and take the budget heat.

While I appreciate the analysis of the possible / likely tactical scenarios leading up to the "deal", the bottom line (to me) is that a lot of people are basically fucked.

The cost of private health insurance is probably going to double, or worse, for most folks that have it.

What I personally take away from all of this - and by "all of this" I mean the last decade if not longer - is that the (R) party and the conservative movement in general no longer serves the interests of the people of this country. What I see from them is cruelty and greed.

I understand that politics is the art of the possible, and that professional politicians need to do what they can in the particular circumstances they operate in.

And I'm glad that federal employees are gonna get paid.

But in the immortal words of Jerry Garcia, one way or another this darkness has got to give.

To say that people being outraged at the prospect of millions of their neighbors facing the choice of extreme financial distress or going without health insurance is "wailing and rending of garments" is dismissive and, frankly, kind of rude. People *should* be outraged.

To address GFTNC's cite of Marshall's piece, the thrust of what he was saying as far as I can tell is that yes, this totally sucks, but it's nice to see the (D)'s at least try to use the limited levers of power available to them.

And I don't disagree with that.

And like him, I'd like to see them do even more.

The (R)'s seriously deserve to be driven from the public space. They've become a dysfunctional, toxic cancer on the body public.

I suggest you moderate conservatives being the process of building an alternative. That, or go down with the sinking ship that is the (R) party.

It deserves to sink.

I think the "capitulation" was leadership's call. They had done as much damage politically to Trump and the GOP as they could get, and neither Trump nor Johnson were ever going to give up the subsidies. Johnson, in particular, almost automatically loses any tiny shred of credibility he has left if he does.

The Democrats picked people retiring or not having to run next year so minimal damage, leadership still gets to complain, but the pain eases.

I think it was as artfully played as possible. Kudos to Schumer and team.

I spend a lot of time in Spotify, average 4 hours a day, many days 12 hours I have a few 50 hour playlists but they aren't really curated, I have 20 or more 1 to 12 hour playlists carefully curated to the mood I wanted.

With that context, my Spotify listening has become a challenge as the algorithm is so trainable that almost any way I let Spotify pick songs it quickly just duplicates playlists I already have created with a different song here and there.

So, it trained me to be more imaginative in my seed requests. Song radio is my favorite way to listen, so I very carefully consider the seed song if I want a certain genre/era of music. It has become really fun to pick more obscure songs by lesser known artists to see how long it takes for that trail to lead back to my choices.

All to say that Spotify can be a fun pastime if you recognize its limitations and try to get around them. If you pick Willie Nelsons On the Road Again or Willis Alan Ramsey's Ballad of Spider John you eventually get to Jerry Jeff Walker but the road there is quite different.

What is not going to come out of all of this is any kind of extension of the ACA subsidies. 

My point was, that extension wasn't going to come out regardless. Those Republicans in Congress (on their own, let alone driven by Trump) simply are not going to extend those until the increased insurance costs generate howls from their own constituents. And they never were. There simply is no plausible scenario where that would happen before spring. Because, even if the Senate Republicans were somehow brought to agree to it, the House simply wouldn't concur.

Whether they allow a vote next month on those subsidies, as agreed, or not, it's fairly certain that an extension will fail to pass. And when it does, it will be defeated stand-alone -- no other spending distractions. (Of course, the Congressional Republicans might surprise us all. But I figure it will be months before they can bring themselves to act.)

GftNC, you have to understand. For some, the options were a) cave in like this (their phrasing, not mine), or b) hang tough a tiny bit longer until the Republicans cave. If those were indeed the choices, their rage over option a) would be well placed.

But those weren't actually the options. Instead we had
a) accept a continuing resolution for the next couple of months, get some relief for a whole lot of Federal workers, and pick up the fight again in January. There is, after all, no chance the GOP will be in any better position then than now. Oh yes, and get a couple of elected Democrats seated finally.
Or
b) hang tough, no matter the collateral damage. While a lot of Federal workers go bankrupt, SNAP money runs out (for real), and a lot of people see their health insurance premiums skyrocket -- except they hear a lot about how the Democrats wouldn't let a bill to fix it even come to a vote.

Be clear, getting ACA funding done wasn't going to happen either way. (At least not for several more months minimum.). But this way, it's starkly obvious that the Republicans have sole ownership of the mess.

Now our strategy going forward to save the Democrats from complete disgrace is to run hard against the Cowardly Cave-in Caucus and get headlines that say "Don't Blame the Whole Party for the Acts of Few" which is a muddled message with nowhere near the power of the bad press the CCC has given us. Still, it's the only way to have any credibility in the midterms. Dems running for Congress will have to run hard against the decision to end the shut down without saving the ACA. 'Making this deal is malpractice.' It's Democrat vs. Democrat as shutdown nears end

"Oh yes, there will be the usual wailing and rending of garments from the left. Because, the very idea of something less than total victory is anathema. But then, strategy and tactics: not a core competency there."

The idea wasn't total victory--only saving people who get ACA insurance. That's all. There was never an effort to save Medicaid, prevent the cuts in Medicare that are coming because of the increased deficit, roll back the tax cuts for the rich...the Republican bill sucks in every aspect but the Dems in Congress chose only one to stand on and they caved on that one.

Now all those people will lose their insurance because they won't be able to afford the rate increase. I lost my insurance temporarily a while ago and had to pay 900 for a one-month COBRA. It's not the kind of experience people forget or forgive.

I agree that strategy and tactics are not core competencies with the DSA left. It should be obvious though that for DECADES strategy and tactics have not been core to Congressional Dems either, not when it comes to national issues.

They completely fail to understand that they are not going to get MAGA votes, that the Republican party never operates in good faith, and that outside of MAGA most voters (especially indies) vote emotionally and have no clue at all about insider baseball tactics or policies and want to be able to vote for perceived strength and commitment.

Acting in a way that leads to headlines that say, "Dems agree to end shutdown" followed by millions suffering rate increases is fucking stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid--on an order of stupid as supporting the war in Iraq.

Pretty clear where this is going. First, it isn't going anywhere unless Johnson is willing to bring the House back into session to vote on the changes from what they previously passed. In which case . . . Epstein Files! And if he won't, no cover about "if only the Democrats would let the Senate vote." They totally own the mess.

Second, assuming it passes, then what. First, a lot of Federal employees who were stuck working without pay, or were furloughed, get their family economies patched up thru the holidays. Also, the new funding bill only runs thru the end of January. Which means that we probably see another shutdown then -- lest voters forget this shutdown by the time voting starts.

Oh yes, there will be the usual wailing and rending of garments from the left. Because, the very idea of something less than total victory is anathema. But then, strategy and tactics: not a core competency there.

My bet is that the Democrats end up with a big boost out of this, come next November. And that's assuming (and frankly, it's a heroic assumption) that, some time next spring, the Republicans in Congress get themselves together without another shutdown at the end of the fiscal year, i.e. next fall, right before the election.

It seems there is always a faction of Democrats who find a way to take two steps back as soon as the party manages one step forward. It's too easy to be the lesser of two evils when the greater evil is evil itself.

if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed

so, not really an idea of the discussion, but just some thoughts.

Some of this is, I think, generational. Charlie was born in 1935, and was the youngest of my mom's siblings. The family had come through the Depression, somehow, and were basically, not blue collar exactly, but working class Queens folks. Not desparately poor, but... of limited means.

Folks like that can basically see serious poverty in the rear view mirror. And too far back, either. It's tangible to them in ways that it is not to people like, for instance, me. People who are more solidly and securely middle class.

For my grandparents especially, and for my mom and her siblings, there was serious shame around being "on relief". Around receiving welfare of any kind. It meant that you had failed to maintain your toehold in the respectable world.

There is also a sort of patriotic dimension to it. We had overcome the Depression, we were to go on to prevail in WWII. We would follow that up with the Marshall Plan, and then later with the international aid and "soft power" politics of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.

All of which covers my uncle's youth and young manhood.

My grandparents and mom's siblings really did think of the US as the greatest country on earth, maybe (probably) in history. Because it arguably was, mostly, for a minute.

So there is that.

And there is a cultural dimension.

My uncle was a NY City fireman, retiring as a lieutanant. In NYC, first responders - cops, firemen - tend to be conservative. Uncle was probably more so than most - not that many FDNY folks are Birch Society chapter heads - but that was likely the common direction - the prevailing winds, if you will - of his social context.

He was also a founder and elder in a relatively conservative church. Which was a chosen social context, of course, but also one that would be likely to reinforce his own conservative instincts.

And I would add, perhaps somewhat oddly, Charlie was a New Yorker. New Yorkers tend to be chauvinistic - tend to think in "we are the best" terms.

That's all I got. Make of it what you will.