Bipartisan House Rebuke Of Trump Leads To Bizarre White House Confrontation

In a bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives rebuked President Trump for his stand-down order in Syria. The resolution, which passed overwhelmingly, “calls on the United States to work to ensure that the Turkish military acts with restraint and respects existing agreements relating to Syria” and asks the “White House to present a clear and specific plan for the enduring defeat of ISIS.”

The resolution passed easily with strong support from Republicans in addition to unanimous support from Democrats. The final tally was 354-60 with 129 Republicans crossing the aisle to criticize Mr. Trump’s actions.

The vote in the House was followed by a White House meeting between a Democratic delegation and the Trump Administration that quickly devolved into a shouting match per Associated Press reports. The reports coming out of the meeting tell of bizarre behavior on the part of President Trump.

The meeting reportedly began with the president bragging about a letter that he wrote to Turkish President Erdogan. The letter, which has been released to the public, is dated Oct. 9, three days after Mr. Trump reportedly gave Erdogan the green light to invade Syria and agreed to pull back US forces in the region.

https://twitter.com/katierogers/status/1184567108853751809?s=20

The letter is another example of a release that the White House thinks will make the president look good but actually makes him look even worse. While President Trump takes a tough tack in the letter, probably in response to almost universal condemnation, the letter comes across as very juvenile with the president telling Erdogan, “Let’s make a good deal!” Trump also tells the Turkish leader that history “will look upon you as a devil if good things don’t happen” and not to “be a tough guy.” Trump closes by saying, “I will call you later.”

Turkish sources say that Erdogan threw the letter into the trash.

The discussion of the letter was followed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reading a quote from former Defense Secretary James Mattis on the need to keep American troops in Syria. Trump responded that Mattis was the “world’s most overrated general.”

"You know why? He wasn’t tough enough," Trump reportedly said. "I captured ISIS. Mattis said it would take two years. I captured them in one month."

Mattis has recently warned that ISIS has not been totally destroyed and that the terrorist group could be reconstituted if the US withdraws from Syria.

"ISIS is not defeated," Mattis told NBC on Sunday. "We have got to keep the pressure on ISIS so they don't recover."

When Trump was asked about the possibility that ISIS could revive, Trump answered that the ISIS prisoners released by Turkish militias numbered "fewer than 100" and were the “least dangerous” ISIS prisoners. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper undercut this claim, saying that he did not know if the prisoners were the least dangerous. Other reports have put the number of escaped ISIS prisoners in the hundreds, but no one really knows for sure how many of the estimated 10,000 ISIS fighters have escaped, Defense One reports.

The meeting then devolved into a tit-for-tat between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the president. Pelosi reportedly told the president that Russia had always wanted a “foothold in the Middle East” and that his policy was giving them what they wanted. The speaker said, “All roads with you lead to Putin” and then things got worse.

Trump told Pelosi, “I hate ISIS more than you do.”

Pelosi answered, “You don’t know that.”

Schumer interrupted to ask, “Is your plan to rely on the Syrians and the Turks?”

Trump replied, “Our plan is to keep the American people safe.”

Pelosi responded, “That’s not a plan. That’s a goal.”

Trump then reportedly deflected to President Obama’s “red line” in Syria from 2013 and called Pelosi a “third-rate [or possibly ‘third-grade’] politician.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) interjected, “This is not useful.” At that point, Pelosi and Hoyer got up to walk out.

As they left, Trump delivered a parting shot, saying, “Goodbye, we’ll see you at the polls.”

Few Republicans at the meeting have spoken out, but White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham disputed the reports, telling Fox News, “The President was measured, factual and decisive, while Speaker Pelosi's decision to walk out was baffling, but not surprising. She had no intention of listening or contributing to an important meeting on national security issues. While democratic leadership chose to storm out and get in front of the cameras to whine, everyone else in the meeting chose to stay in the room and work on behalf of this country."

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) spoke to reporters after the meeting, saying, “I see a pattern of behavior with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She storms out of another meeting, trying to make it unproductive. The other Democrats stayed and actually had a very productive meeting.

President Trump tweeted out a series of pictures and comments detailing the meeting, including one that has already become famous, which depicts Speaker Pelosi lecturing the president. Trump captioned the photo, “Nervous Nancy's unhinged meltdown!”

 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1184597281808498688?s=20

In another tweet, Trump said that Pelosi had a “total meltdown” and asked his followers to “pray for her, she is a very sick person!”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1184620202480193537?s=20

Trump’s tweets apparently were posted after the president watched Democratic comments after the meeting. At the Capitol after the meeting, Pelosi told reporters, “I pray for the president all the time, and I tell him that -- I pray for his safety and that of his family. Now, we have to pray for his health -- because this was a very serious meltdown on the part of the president.”

While most of the details of the meeting have come from Democratic sources and are quite likely shaded to make themselves look good and Trump look bad, many of the claims ring true. The president’s Twitter feed includes tweets attacking Barack Obama’s Syria policy and charging that Democrats liked the idea of ending wars and bringing troops home “until I took it.” The US troops are still in Syria, however, and Trump has announced plans to deploy even more Americans to Saudi Arabia. As Erick Erickson pointed out this morning, Trump has both denied giving Turkey a green light to invade and said the opposing sides should “fight it out.”

While it is entirely possible that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats trolled President Trump and badgered him into getting angry so they could stage a walkout and make him look deranged, the president apparently walked into their trap. Let’s face it: Making President Trump look deranged is not difficult these days. His own words do the job pretty well.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Pelosi Reins In Nadler On Impeachment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to discuss the Democratic strategy against President Trump yesterday after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s grueling day of testimony. Rep. Nadler (D-N.Y.) reportedly favored pushing forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump, but Pelosi continued to resist the move, arguing that the time was not yet right in later comments to reporters.

Sources speaking to Politico said that Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee asked whether an impeachment inquiry required a full house vote or could be started by the committee itself. Nadler answered that the Judiciary Committee has the power to launch the proceedings.

Pelosi continued to argue for a “slow, methodical approach” even though more than 90 House Democrats have already signed on to the idea of impeachment hearings. She noted that there are still several Democrat lawsuits pending against the Trump Administration on matters such as the president’s personal finances and tax returns. Pelosi also stressed that some support from Republicans or a shift in public sentiment was necessary. Nadler responded that public support for impeachment against Richard Nixon was low when the House began impeachment proceedings against him in 1973 but increased as news of Nixon’s illegal activities spread.

The Democrats agreed that their next step would be to file a lawsuit to enforce a congressional subpoena against former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who was a prime witness to the president’s attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation. Per the special counsel report, the president ordered McGahn to stop Attorney General Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia probe, to pressure the DOJ about Mueller’s alleged conflicts of interest, to fire Mueller, and then told him to lie about his instructions from the president. House Democrats subpoenaed McGahn back in May, but he refused to comply after the White House instructed him not to cooperate, claiming executive privilege.

Although Pelosi is slow-walking the calls for impeachment, she appears to be considering the idea at the right time. At a press conference following the Democratic caucus meeting reported by Politico, Pelosi argued that more evidence was needed before an impeachment inquiry was launched.

“If we have a case for impeachment, that’s the place we will have to go,” Pelosi told reporters. “Why I’d like it to be a strong case is because it’s based on the facts — the facts and the law, that’s what matters.” She said that investigations are “not endless in terms of time.”

“The stronger our case is, the worse the Senate will look for just letting the president off the hook,” Pelosi added, hinting that she might allow impeachment to proceed even without the support of Republicans in the Senate.

“If it comes to a point where the cone of silence and the obstruction of justice and the coverup in the White House prevents us from getting that information, that will not prevent us from going forward and in fact, it’s even more grounds to go forward,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi’s calculations on impeachment are political as well as legal. The 2020 presidential campaign is heating up and Republicans are showing no sign of abandoning Donald Trump. Any impeachment inquiry would extend into the election season and distract from other issues. There is also the possibility that surviving impeachment would give the president enough of a boost to win re-election. So far, most Democratic presidential candidates have steered clear of the impeachment issue.

The likely reason why is that voters show little enthusiasm for impeaching Donald Trump. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 21 percent of registered voters wanted to begin impeachment hearings. Tellingly, 51 percent of independents oppose impeachment and think that Trump should finish his term.

Speaker Pelosi’s cautious approach seems to be the best plan for Democrats, who must both on reining in the current Trump Administration and preventing the president from winning re-election. Democratic overreach on impeachment could alienate the independents and moderates whose votes are needed to usher in a Democratic victory next year.

Under Pelosi’s strategy, President Trump will be the subject of more investigations and a continual dribble of unflattering information throughout the campaign. If support for impeachment builds, Pelosi will be positioned to capitalize on it. If not, she will have been building the case to voters that Donald Trump should be fired.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats Lack Votes To Force Pelosi To Impeach

There has been a lot of talk about a possible impeachment of President Trump lately, but it appears to be just talk. New comments from a key Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee indicate that Democrats who favor impeachment are far short of the votes to force Speaker Pelosi to take up the issue.

In an interview with a Yahoo News podcast, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) said that about 40 House Democrats now support impeachment. Cohen added that about 90 percent of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would support impeachment. Nevertheless, with a Democratic caucus that numbers 235, the uprising against Speaker Pelosi’s decision to focus on the upcoming election rather than impeachment is too small to force a policy change.

While a revolt by 40 congressional Democrats is unusual, Speaker Pelosi has a long history of keeping a tight rein on her caucus. She is a shrewd politician who has had much luck controlling her party’s representatives than recent Republican speakers.

Nancy Pelosi has said numerous times that she opposes impeachment unless there is overwhelming bipartisan support. She echoed that opinion again yesterday, telling reporters, “The president’s behavior in terms of his obstruction of justice... yes, these could be impeachable offenses. If we can get the facts to the American people through our investigation, it may take us to a place that is unavoidable in terms of impeachment or not. But we’re not at that place.”

Thus far, only one Republican, Justin Amash, has announced his support for impeachment. With a Republican majority in the Senate, Pelosi would want to see support from significant numbers of Republican senators before she moves in the House. So far, that has not happened.

As I predicted last year, Nancy Pelosi is unlikely to enter into a battle over impeachment that she cannot win. Although the House would certainly vote to impeach, Donald Trump would survive a Senate vote and might well emerge from the process stronger.

President Trump senses this as well and seems to be attempting to goad Democrats into impeachment with increasingly obstructive behavior with respect to House investigations. The unpopular president likely hopes that impeachment would be even more unpopular and would salvage his hopes for re-election.

The speaker intends to have it both ways. Although beating Trump in the election is far more likely than impeaching him, Pelosi will keep up the pressure on Trump by trolling him incessantly and keeping the impeachment option on the table. The president typically takes the bait and fires back at her barbs, making him look erratic and unhinged, as he did this week when he stormed out of an infrastructure meeting with Democratic leaders after three minutes.

If unforced errors like that one continue, the Democrats won’t need to impeach Trump. Voters will send him packing next year.

Originally published on the Resurgent

Drunk Pelosi Video Is a Fake

If you happen to see a video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stammering through a press conference as you make your rounds through social media, be aware that the video is a fake. The video of Pelosi at a press conference was altered to make it appear as though the speaker was stammering and repeating herself. Accompanying descriptions often claim that she was intoxicated when she gave the remarks.

None other than Fox News is on record with a description of the fake news video’s origins. Fox reports that the three-minute clip was from a speech yesterday at the Center for American Progress in which Pelosi described President Trump’s angry exit from a meeting with Democrats about infrastructure. Per Fox, the video was uploaded to Facebook on a page called “Politics WatchDog.” At press time, the video is still posted on the page and has 2.4 million views. Similar videos have been removed from YouTube and Twitter.

Fox cites the Washington Post, saying that the video was apparently “slowed down to 75 percent from the original speed and that her pitch was also manipulated in order to present her under the influence.”

“It is striking that such a simple manipulation can be so effective and believable to some,” Berkeley computer science and digital forensics expert Hany Farid told the CNN. “While I think that deep-fake technology poses a real threat, this type of low-tech fake shows that there is a larger threat of misinformation campaigns -- too many of us are willing to believe the worst in people that we disagree with.”

A separate fact-check article by Politifact notes that unaltered audio is available from C-SPAN and is noticeably different than the audio accompanying the video, which has “more slurred and lisping than the one on C-SPAN.”

The original altered video posted to Facebook is captioned, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on President Trump walking out infrastructure meeting: ‘It was very, very, very strange.’” The clip closes with Pelosi saying that the meeting with Trump was very strange.

In a subsequent post, Politics WatchDog seemed to acknowledge that the video was fake, saying, “Just for the record [sic] we never claimed that Speaker Pelosi was drunk. We can’t control what the people in the comments think. It’s a free country. For your information [sic] we are not a conservative news outlet.”

The fake nature of the page is also apparent by a poll that the group posted which asks, “Should the Pelosi video be taking [sic] down?” Legitimate news sites rarely leave obvious grammatical errors uncorrected.

A spokesman for Pelosi told CNN, “We're not going to comment on this sexist trash.”

Yesterday, President Trump tweeted a different video of Pelosi that had also been altered under the caption “PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE.” This video, which was originally aired on Fox News’ “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” strings together a series of the speaker’s flubs in a speech. Although altered through selective editing, this video does not appear to be digitally manipulated.

While I am no fan of Speaker Pelosi and don’t agree with her policy prescriptions, I do value truth over blatant lies, even when they are about the opposition. The “drunk Pelosi” video is an example of the worst inclinations of the right-wing media. The fact that some conservatives and Republicans actually believe that the video is authentic is a far worse reflection on the right than the doctored video is on Mrs. Pelosi.

Fake news remains a real problem, as do blatantly false attempts at character assassination on both sides. Remember, kids, when surfing the internet, if it seems too stupid to be true, it probably is. However, in this day and age, you should probably check the source just to be sure.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats: Trump Wants To Be Impeached

Why haven’t Democrats begun impeachment hearings against President Trump after the special counsel could not exonerate the president on charges of obstruction of justice? The answer that many Democrats are giving is that they think that Donald Trump wants to be impeached.

“The President is almost self-impeaching because he is, every day, demonstrating more obstruction of justice and disrespect for Congress' legitimate role to subpoena,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday to CNN. Yet despite Trump raising the stakes, Pelosi still resists launching a formal House impeachment effort. The speaker has stated on several occasions that she does not support impeachment and that seems unchanged, but why?

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff answered that question Sunday on ABC News, saying, “Part of our reluctance is we are already a bitterly divided country and an impeachment process will divide us further. He [Trump] certainly seems to be trying and maybe this is his perverse way of dividing us more ... He thinks that's to his political advantage, but it's certainly not to the country's advantage.”

Why would impeachment be to Trump’s political advantage? The most obvious answer would be to shore up his base as the trade war heats up and core parts of the Trump coalition feel more and more economic pressure. A Morning Consult poll from early May showing state-by-state approval of the president found that Trump’s approval was underwater all across the vital Rust Belt as well as soft in many traditionally Republican farm states. President Trump has a net approval of fewer than five points in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas. Impeachment hearings might cause Republicans in these states to circle the wagons and defend Trump from the Democrats just as they rallied in support of Brett Kavanaugh last year.

Impeachment would also lend credence to Trump’s claims that the Mueller investigation was part of a coup attempt aimed at removing him from office. The president may hope that he could spin an impeachment attempt as the preordained conclusion to a corrupt investigation. This might not sway independents, but it would help to stoke support from Republicans.

Both Trump and the Democrats might also be looking back at the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998. CNN polling in December 1998 found that Clinton’s approval jumped 10 points after his impeachment by House Republicans while approval of the GOP fell by 10 points. Gallup reported that Clinton received a record-high approval rating at 73 percent after his impeachment. Donald Trump, a longtime friend of Bill Clinton, likely remembers how impeachment backfired on the GOP and hopes to repeat history.

Both Trump and the Democrats can also read polls and the data shows that most Americans do not favor impeachment. A Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll from early May that, while 56 percent of Democrats supported impeachment, 65 percent of the total were opposed to the idea. More recently, Reuters/Ipsos poll found more support for impeachment but still only a minority of 45 percent. The president may hope to goad Democrats into following an unpopular strategy that would become the major issue of the 2020 campaign.

Finally, Trump is probably willing to take the embarrassment of impeachment in the House because he understands that it would be meaningless. Democrats lack the votes to remove him from office in the Senate where Republicans retain a majority. The president may well be willing to go down in history as one of the few presidents to be impeached if he could turn the tables on Democrats by remaining in office and possibly rallying voters to give him a second term.

It is most likely the last reason that prevents Nancy Pelosi from giving the go-ahead to the impeachment effort. The risk that Trump’s impeachment would have a Clintonian effect on the president’s reelection effort is one that she is unwilling to take unless the president goes so far that even Republicans abandon him in large numbers.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why Pelosi’s Decision Not To Impeach Is The Smart Move

Nancy Pelosi said in the Washington Post today that she did not support impeachment of President Trump. The move may come as a surprise to many on both sides of the aisle, but Pelosi is a shrewd politician who has hinted in the past that impeachment proceedings would not be forthcoming. While Pelosi’s decision will anger many on the left, not impeaching Trump is a sound political strategy that potentially has a bigger payoff than the short-term gain of winning an impeachment vote in the House.

“I’m not for impeachment,” Pelosi said in the Post. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

While the temptation to impeach the president is strong among Democrats, Speaker Pelosi seems to be looking at the big picture rather than the emotional gratification of embarrassing Mr. Trump and adding him to a short list of impeached presidents. Impeaching President Trump would allow Democrats to win a battle, but it might cost them the war, i.e. the 2020 presidential election.

The most obvious reason not to open impeachment proceedings is the lesson learned by Republicans when they impeached President Clinton: If you don’t have the votes to remove the president, impeachment is pointless and possibly counterproductive. President Clinton became more popular after he survived the attempt to remove him from office and remained a prominent Democrat elder statesman for two decades after leaving office on schedule.

In the case of President Trump, Democrats have the votes to impeach the president in the House, but they lack the votes to remove him from office in the Senate where Republicans retain a majority. Throughout all of Trump’s embarrassing behavior and executive abuse, most Republicans have stood by him. It is unlikely that many – or possibly any – Republicans would cross the aisle to vote to remove the president from office. In all likelihood, if Trump was able to withstand an impeachment attempt, he would become even more popular with his base and possibly with independents as well.

On the other hand, forgoing impeachment removes a major obstacle to electing a Democrat in 2020. If impeachment proceedings were begun, they would be an issue in the 2020 election. Democrats would be pushing the issue against prevailing political winds since 59 percent of voters recently told Quinnipiac that they opposed impeachment. The unpopularity of impeachment could be a drag on Democratic candidates up and down the ticket.

The decision not to impeach also removes a Republican talking point that could have been used to rally the base. A Democratic attack on the president, who remains popular in the GOP, would have spurred Republicans to circle the wagons in defense of the president. Without impeachment on the table, Republican voters disappointed in Trump’s performance might be more likely to stay home.

Further, Pelosi undoubtedly realizes that Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. Allowing President Trump to remain in office will mean that the eventual Democratic nominee faces a weak candidate. If Democrats were somehow able to impeach the president, Mike Pence, a much more capable politician and campaigner would become president. Pence would have a much greater chance of winning re-election than Donald Trump, whose approval is hovering in the low 40s.

Having said all that, there are risks to Pelosi’s strategy. As Jess Fields pointed out earlier, Pelosi may anger her own base and make it more likely that a radical Democrat is the eventual nominee. The conventional wisdom holds that Trump would fare better against Bernie, Kamala Harris, or other of the far-left Democrats than against the more moderate Joe Biden. Indeed, the Quinnipiac poll shows that two-thirds of Democrats support impeachment.

I’m not sure that impeachment makes a difference in this argument since Democrats should want to nominate the most liberal candidate who can win if they subscribe to a mirror-image version of the Buckley rule. Impeachment or no impeachment, Democrat voters are not going to repeat their 2016 mistake of sitting out the election. Not impeaching Trump won’t improve the appeal of second-tier Democrats to moderate voters, but it might make Trump more beatable, as discussed earlier.

Finally, there is the question of what happens if Donald Trump beats the odds a second time and is re-elected. In that case, assuming that Democrats hold the House and possibly capture the Senate, impeachment might be a more attractive option than it is now. With Democrat-led congressional investigations ramping up and the Mueller probe continuing, there might also be more evidence against the president that could even lead some Republicans to vote to remove Trump from office.

As I wrote two months ago, impeachment is not a smart move for the Democrats. Pelosi may be reviled by many on the right, but that doesn’t mean that she’s a dummy. She is a shrewd politician who is playing the odds with her eye on the bigger prize, namely putting a Democrat in the White House.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Master Troll Trump Leaves Pelosi's Luggage In Capitol Hallway

Whatever else you can say about Donald Trump, the man is a master troll and an expert at getting under people’s skin. Mr. Trump may not know much about the intricacies of policy, but he does know how to add insult to injury. He did exactly that this morning when the luggage from Speaker Pelosi’s canceled congressional junket was unceremoniously returned to the speaker’s office in Congress.

The Washington Free Beacon published a photo of a luggage cart marked “military liason [sic]” that was tagged “CODEL Pelosi.” The cart is sitting unattended in a hallway that is apparently outside her congressional office.  The Beacon reports that the photo was forwarded to them by an unnamed “snap-happy tipster.”

At least eight bags are piled on the luggage cart ranging from medium size rollaboard suitcases to small, soft-sided bags. The Beacon notes drily, “It's unclear whether all the luggage belonged to Pelosi.”

The personal tit-for-tat amid the larger showdown began when Pelosi notified President Trump on Wednesday that the annual State of the Union address should be postponed until after the government was reopened. The president held his return fire until Thursday afternoon, about an hour before Pelosi’s delegation was scheduled to depart for a trip to meet with NATO commanders in Brussels, Belgium and then continue to Afghanistan to visit US troops. Politico reports that the delegation was actually on board the bus when they learned that the trip was off.

Just prior to the departure of the Air Force bus taking Pelosi and her entourage to Joint Base Andrews to board a military flight to Europe, the Trump Administration posted a letter to Twitter that notified Pelosi that the trip had been “postponed” until after the shutdown.

“Obviously, if you would like to make your journey by flying commercial, that would certainly be your prerogative,” said the letter signed by President Trump, who himself took a military flight to Iraq shortly after the shutdown began.  

While President Trump’s base is celebrating Pelosi’s embarrassing comeuppance, I have to wonder if the childish behavior of leaders on both sides of the aisle is good for the country. Of course, it is not. I suspect that most voters look at both Pelosi and Trump with embarrassment themselves. Ultimately, the hardball tactics of both leaders serve only to further deepen and cement our national divide.

On a tactical level, angering and embarrassing Speaker Pelosi is unlikely to achieve Trump’s goal of funding a wall for the southern border. Making people angry makes it less likely that they will give in to your requests.

There are two aphorisms that may be applicable for President Trump and the current budget confrontation. It may be too late for the first, the notion that “It’s easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.” The second is still very apropos, however, and that is the warning that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

Meanwhile, Day 27 of the shutdown passed and it seems that the country is further away than ever from having a functional government.

Originally pubished on The Resurgent

Congressmen Waver While Trump And Pelosi Refuse To Compromise On Shutdown

It’s Day 21 of the government shutdown and there is no end in sight. As of today, the shutdown is tied with the 1995-96 shutdown as the longest in history. The leadership of both parties is resolute. Both President Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have dug in and refused to compromise from their respective positions. Not everyone is happy among the party rank and file, however.

In the most recent House votes on compromise bills to reopen the government, 12 Republicans joined with House Democrats in voting to fully fund the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development (HR 267). Previously, 10 Republicans had voted to fund parts of the government. In Thursday’s vote, they were joined by Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), the most recent chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL). Stivers and Davis did not join the 10 other Republicans in a separate vote to reopen the Department of Agriculture (HR 265).

The number of disaffected Republicans is growing. On Wednesday’s votes, Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) joined with another eight Republicans who had earlier voted to fund the government. The eight who have consistently voted in favor of funding are Reps. Will Hurd (R-TX), Greg Walden (R-OR), Fred Upton (R-MI), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), John Katko (R-NY) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA). Greg Walden was the chairman of the RCCC from 2014 through 2016.

Although both bills passed the House, they will die in the Senate where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to take any action on a bill that Trump would not sign. President Trump has refused to waver on his demand for $5 billion for his wall project, about one-fifth of the estimated total that would be required, and Democrats have offered only $1.3 billion for border security funding that excludes the wall. Pelosi joked with reporters that she would only appropriate one dollar for the wall, adding, “We’re not doing a wall. Does anybody have any doubt about that?”

Despite Pelosi’s show of resolve, some Democrats are wavering as well. Politico reported on Wednesday that some freshman House Democrats were “freaking out” about the shutdown and the party’s strategy. A senior Democratic aide blamed some of the anxiety on the fact that some new congressmen didn’t have their offices and emails set up and were not receiving communications from Speaker Pelosi.

Nevertheless, some are feeling the heat from constituents. “If I am getting comments and contact from my constituents expressing concern that the Democrats are not prioritizing security, then I think we can do better,” said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.).

Even if some Democrats have misgivings, so far, they have not had the opportunity to break ranks with their party. The only funding bills active are the partial funding bills passed by the House that reopen individual departments of the federal government. The dynamics of the shutdown are that funding bills originate in the Democrat-controlled House. Since McConnell is quashing votes in the Senate, that means that Republicans have more chances to cross the aisle than Democrats.

If McConnell decides to allow the House funding bills to be considered in the Senate, it is highly likely that they would pass easily. The bigger question is whether the Senate would have enough votes to override a probable veto from the president.

As the shutdown stretches on, the effects are starting to pile up like trash in the unstaffed national parks. Federal workers are missing a payday today. That has rippling effects throughout the country as local federal employees may be unable to pay their bills and about $2.2 billion in consumer spending is withheld from the economy. Even the Coast Guard and air traffic controllers are affected. Some services, such as the ability to obtain passports from the State Department are already closed and, if the shutdown stretches on others, such as tax refunds, may be delayed.

The shutdown will continue until one side blinks. So far, neither President Trump nor Speaker Pelosi has given any indication of budging from their positions. The compromise to end the shutdown will have to come from members of Congress who feel the pressure from their constituents. Pelosi’s San Francisco seat is safe, but many other congressmen and senators represent swing districts and states. They will be ready to make a deal and, because Republicans are more vulnerable after the last midterms, the odds are that it will not include a wall.

At this point, Mitch McConnell is the key. If McConnell stays strong and protects the president then the shutdown could last indefinitely. However, polling already shows that voters blame Trump for the shutdown and oppose both the shutdown tactic and the wall. If and when McConnell determines that Trump’s shutdown is endangering the Republican majority in the Senate, he could easily allow a vote and put Trump in the position of having to veto funding without a wall or backing down. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why Democrats Won't Impeach Donald Trump

As the 116^th Congress begins, the question on the minds of many political observers is, “Will they or won’t they?” Democrats will control the House of Representatives, the congressional body that is responsible for impeaching elected officials, so will they impeach Donald Trump?

The answer is a definite maybe.

On NBC’s Today Show this morning, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that impeachment would be very “divisive” for the country. She added, “We shouldn't be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn't avoid impeachment for a political reason.”

Some Democrats are anxious to begin impeachment proceedings. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) is already planning to introduce articles of impeachment based on the allegation that Trump obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey. Sherman originally introduced the articles in 2017 but they went nowhere in the Republican-controlled House.

But just because the legislation is being introduced does not mean that it has the support of House Democrats or their leadership. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush in 2008 but the effort went nowhere. Nancy Pelosi was speaker then as well.

Whatever you might think of Nancy Pelosi, one thing is certain: She is politically shrewd. Pelosi undoubtedly realizes that as long as Senate Republicans remain united, there would be no point in impeaching President Trump.

The House could pass the articles of impeachment but to what end? The second phase of impeachment is a Senate trial to determine whether the president would be removed from office. With Republicans in control of the Senate, it is a certainty that this effort would fail.

Pelosi is more likely to bide her time and wait. If the Mueller investigation uncovers evidence of more wrongdoing by Trump, then it is possible that she will consider pursuing impeachment in the future. This is particularly true if the revelations about Trump’s actions cause a split in the GOP that enables her to pick up enough Republican votes to remove Trump from office.

Looking back to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, this was the error that Republicans made. House Republicans impeached the president but he was acquitted in the Senate even though Republicans held a majority in that body as well. A number of Republican senators voted “not guilty” and Clinton was allowed to remain in office. President Clinton’s popularity reached its highest points during and after his impeachment.

Bill Clinton was in his second term in 1998 and could not run for re-election. If Donald Trump is impeached in 2019, however, the Democrats run the risk that he will become more popular. A failed impeachment might give Trump the edge he needs to win re-election.

Napoleon is said to have advised, “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Speaker Pelosi is likely to take this advice to heart.

While impeaching Trump would be emotionally satisfying for many on the left, Pelosi will play the long game. Her focus will not be on a feel-good impeachment, it will be on winning the Senate and the White House in 2020. This year’s midterm elections showed that the best chance for Democrats in 2020 is to keep Trump in office. His divisive temperament and unpopular policies led Republicans to a suburban rout in 2018 and more of the same is likely in 2020.

On the other hand, a successful impeachment of President Trump would result in Mike Pence becoming president. Pence is a much more experienced and competent politician who would stand a better chance of being re-elected than Donald Trump. Pence would also benefit from a united Republican Party that would rally avenge the ouster of President Trump.

A lot can happen in two years but at this point, it seems that Pelosi’s best strategy would be to keep impeachment on the back burner. If the opportunity to oust Trump presents itself, she will be prepared to jump on it, but her best bet would be to sit back and allow Trump to defeat himself and fracture the GOP in the process. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Nancy Pelosi Says Deal Linking Wall And DACA Will Be DOA

Once-and-future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has fired a shot across the bow of the Trump Administration on immigration. The California Democrat, popularly known as “San Fran Nan,” is preemptively signaling that Democrats won’t sign onto a deal that ties President Trump’s wall funding to a permanent fix for the DACA program.

In comments to reporters on Thursday as the House and Senate approved an extension of spending that will fund the government until Dec. 21, Pelosi rejected the idea of a compromise that would link the president’s wall project to making Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program permanent.

“They’re two different subjects,” Pelosi told the Associated Press.

It is extremely doubtful that House Democrats could be persuaded to fund the wall as part of a standalone bill. Pelosi added that many Democrats consider the wall to be “immoral, ineffective and expensive.” Even if Mexico paid for the wall as Donald Trump promised in the election, she said, “It’s immoral still.” So far, Mexico has shown no sign of being willing to fund the wall either.

Earlier this year, Democrats refused to budge on similar proposals to legalize DACA participants. A Trump Administration proposal from January would have represented a major victory for Democrats in exchange for a $25 billion commitment to the wall. That deal was scuttled by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats. Afterward, President Trump said that there would be “NO MORE DACA DEAL.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/980443810529533952

In reality, neither side wants a comprehensive immigration deal. Republicans have long opposed comprehensive immigration reform, preferring instead to insist that border security must come first. For more than a decade, any Republican who has supported a comprehensive fix for the immigration system has been accused of supporting “amnesty” and “open borders” and is reviled by the Republican base. A significant number of Republicans opposed President Trump’s DACA deal because they thought it would benefit Democrats.

For their part, Democrats seem to prefer that the issue be kept open to provide them with a wedge that makes Republicans appear bigoted and xenophobic. As the two parties battle over the Hispanic demographic, Democrats cannot afford to let a Republican president claim credit for fixing the popular DACA program. Likewise, giving President Trump a victory on the wall, his signature issue, would boost Trump’s reelection chances and energize his base. Democrats cannot allow that.

Ironically both parties risk alienating voters with their hardline positions on immigration. Exit polls from 2018 showed that minorities are fleeing the Republican Party, but the downside may be even greater for Democrats. There were pro-DACA protests against the Democratic Party in March after the implosion of the DACA deal. If pro-immigration voters decide that Democrats are stringing them along, they may give Republicans a try.

The reality is that neither side has the numbers to enact its own unilateral immigration bill. That will be especially true when Democrats take control of the House next year, but even over the past two years, minority Democrats in the Senate were able to kill Republican bills with the filibuster.

Until the two sides decide to work together (or until one side controls both houses of Congress and the presidency and eliminates the filibuster), there will be no fix for our broken immigration system. Until that day, the border will stay open and illegal immigrants will remain in legal limbo. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Nancy Pelosi Lays Out Impeachment Strategy

Nancy Pelosi may not be holding the Speaker’s gavel yet, but she is already laying out the Democratic strategy for the new Congress. Before the votes had all been counted from Tuesday’s election, the congresswoman from California was already pouring cold water on the left’s hopes for impeachment of President Trump.

In an interview with PBS Newshour Tuesday night, Pelosi told Judy Woodruff that impeachment would not be a Democrat priority. “It depends on what happens in the Mueller investigation,” Pelosi said, “But that is not unifying.”

“I get criticized in my own party for not being more in support of it, but I'm not,” she continued. “If that happens, it would have to be bipartisan, and the evidence would have to be so conclusive.”

Pelosi is apparently taking the smart route in playing down impeachment. Apparently having learned from both the Clinton impeachment and the Kavanaugh hearings that such actions often galvanize resistance, Pelosi does not want to stir up the Republican base ahead of a presidential election. Even though Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, he became even more popular afterward and survived an attempt at removing him from office.

By insisting on bipartisan support for any impeachment, Pelosi keeps the door open to future action if Donald Trump loses the support of Republicans, but she also implicitly acknowledges that Democrats don’t have the votes to do the job. It only takes a simple majority vote in the House to impeach a president, but a two-thirds vote in the Senate is required to remove him from office. While the Democrats hold the House and theoretically have the votes for impeachment, the exercise would ultimately be pointless if the Senate’s Republican majority would not vote to remove the president from office.

 Instead, Pelosi said that her priority will be to work with Republicans on bipartisan legislation. “What people want us to do is address the concerns that they have in their lives,” she said. “There is serious financial instability in many families in our country. They want to see us working to do — to get that done for them. They want results. They want peace, and that's what we will bring them.”

The once-and-probably-future Speaker of the House noted that she had “worked closely on many issues” with George W. Bush despite their differences. She contrasted her claims of cooperation with Republicans during the Bush years to Republican attempts to block President Obama.

“We're not going to act the way they did,” Pelosi said. “Again, for those who want impeachment and… that's not what our caucus is about.”

Pelosi’s comments about impeachment stand in contrast to comments recently made by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary committee. A Federalist writer recently overheard Nadler discussing the possible impeachment of not only Trump but also Brett Kavanaugh.

While Pelosi’s promises of bipartisan cooperation on national priorities are unlikely to last long into the new year, her plans not to impeach Donald Trump should have more staying power. Democrats have been acting as obstructionists for the past two years. That is unlikely to change. In the case of impeachment, however, Pelosi is a seasoned politician who knows that the downside of impeaching President Trump is much greater than the benefit.

Orignally published on the Resurgent

Trump And Pelosi Are Both A Drag

At first glance, Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi don’t seem to have much in common. The San Francisco liberal and the New York populist seem about as different as you can get. One is the pinnacle of political correctness while the other has made a career of flouting societal norms. They do have at least one thing in common, however. New polling that isn’t exactly shocking shows that neither of the two party leaders is popular and that substantial portions of the electorate may show up to vote against them.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found both good news and bad for Republicans. The upside is that six in ten registered voters are satisfied with the economy and most give credit to President Trump, whose approval is up to 44 percent.

The bad news for the GOP is that 48 percent say that they are more likely to support candidates who would be a check to President Trump while only 23 percent say they are less likely to back anti-Trump candidates. Fifty percent wanted a Democrat-controlled Congress versus 40 percent who preferred the GOP. The poll also found an enthusiasm gap with Democrats showing a higher interest in the upcoming midterm elections by 16 points.

Democrats should not take much comfort from the poll’s findings, however. In numbers similar to those of President Trump, 45 percent say that they would be less likely to support a House candidate who supports Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Only 21 percent would be more likely to back congressional candidates who would vote for Pelosi.

The poll also found that Americans are split on the issue of impeachment, but pluralities believe that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and support the Mueller investigation. The top issue for voters was health care at 22 percent, followed closely by jobs and the economy at 19 percent. Guns was a distant third at 13 percent.

As with 2016, the election is shaping up to be an unpopularity contest. The question for many voters will be which party’s leaders they dislike the least.

One advantage that Democratic candidates may have is that it is easier to distance themselves from Ms. Pelosi than it is for Republicans to disavow Mr. Trump. In May, Pelosi said she didn’t care if Democrats opposed her.

“I think if they have to do that to win an election ... I'm all for winning,” she said at a Politico event.

Some Democrats are doing just that. In Pennsylvania’s special election in its 18^th district, Conor Lamb won after vowing to oppose Pelosi as speaker. At least four other Democrats have also lined up against Pelosi.

On the other hand, Donald Trump takes politics personally and tends to attack Republicans whose support for him is less than enthusiastic. In many districts, support for Donald Trump, who still has 87 percent approval among Republicans, has become a litmus test for Republican candidates. In Alabama, Rep. Martha Roby, a Trump critic, was forced into a runoff with a former Democrat.

There are many variables at play for the upcoming elections. The economy is good, but the trade war may change that in the coming months. President Trump is personally unpopular, but many of his policies are preferred over those of the Democrats. In the wake of the failure to reform Obamacare, health care looms as the primary concern of many voters.  

With both parties unpopular, the outcome of the election is likely to hinge on local issues and the news cycle in the weeks leading up to the midterms. Democratic challengers may have an important advantage in their ability to run as outsiders who oppose both Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Sees DACA Deal As Win-Win

Chaos broke out last night after a dinner between President Trump and Democrat congressional leaders Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.). In the wake of Trump’s deal with Democrats on the debt ceiling, there were late-breaking reports that the three had reached an agreement to extend President Obama’s DACA program.

Fast forward a few hours to this morning and President Trump is denying almost everything. In a tweet, the president said, “No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote.”

The president continued, “The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.”

Then, in a third tweet, President Trump changes tacks. “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?” he asks. “Really!” He continued in that vein in a fourth tweet, “They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security”

Taken together, the tweets indicate that President Trump may not have a final agreement on an extension of DACA, but he wants one. Even though Trump ran his campaign as a hardliner on immigration, he gave several indications that he was not firmly committed to the issue.

In August 2016, three months before the election, there were reports that Trump was flip-flopping on immigration. He denied the charge, telling Fox News at the time, “We want to come up with a fair but firm process. Fair but firm."

In December 2016, the president-elect directly addressed the “Dreamers” in his “Person of the Year” interview with Time magazine. “We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud,” he said. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen.”

The signs were there all along that President Trump would cut a deal. And there are benefits for the president if he does. Its unpopularity among Republicans notwithstanding, most Americans like DACA and don’t want to deport the Dreamers. For many people, how President Obama created the DACA program, usurping congressional legislative authority, is more of a problem that the program itself. And let’s be honest, many people don’t even care if Obama exceeded his executive authority to create the program. Recent polling shows that most Americans approve of DACA by double-digit margins. Even a third to a half of Republicans support continuing the program.

Not just any illegal immigrant is eligible for DACA. Candidates must have come to the country illegally or overstayed a visa when they were younger than 16 and have continuously resided in the United States since 2007. The must be in school, have a GED or high school diploma or have been honorably discharged from the US military. A felony or more than three misdemeanors is not allowed. Participants also had to pay $980 in initial fees and $465 for renewals, all for a program that did not give official legal status. Whatever DACA was, it was not amnesty. The prospect of prosecution and deportation was still there.

Most voters also approve of President Trump’s first deal with the Democrats. Rasmussen found that two-thirds of voters think it’s good for the country if Trump and the Democrats work together.

President Trump likely sees a DACA deal as a win-win. He can become more popular by reaching across the aisle to enact a policy that he likes anyway. From a pragmatic perspective, the Republicans have been unable to get anything done, so a pivot to the left makes sense.

Could Republicans block collaboration between Trump and the Democrats? Assuming the Democrats all vote together, in the Senate, a deal would need 13 Republican votes for cloture and three votes for passage. In the House, 23 Republican votes would be needed for a simple majority. Between Republican moderates who support DACA and Trump supporters who will follow the president’s lead, a Trump-Democrat deal would be hard to stop.

The problem with a nonideological president is that his principles and platform are not firmly grounded. If he wants to accomplish things – anything – and be popular, he won’t necessarily continue to dance with the voters who brought him to the Washington.

And what of the Trump base that voted for the Wall and deportation?

“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,” Trump famously said of his base during the campaign.

His pivot on DACA may be about to put that theory to the test.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Is a Democrat Civil War Brewing Over Abortion?

News stories often point to internal squabbling among Republicans and speculate as to whether the GOP is in the midst of a civil war because of the frequent disagreements. Mainstream outlets may be missing a budding civil war among the Democrats, however. Recent comments by several Democrat leaders indicate that the party may be splitting over one of its core issues.

For years, Democrats have marched in virtual lockstep on abortion. If pro-life Democrats were endangered before Barack Obama’s presidency, they were almost nonexistent after the elections of 2010 when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and a cadre of pro-life congressional Democrats bowed to pressure to vote for Obamacare and lost their seats as a result.

Fast forward to 2017 when Tom Perez, elected chairman to rebuild the Democratic Party in the wake of the disastrous 2016 election, seemed to draw a line in the sand last month on abortion. “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

If support for unrestricted abortion is “not negotiable” as a litmus test for Democrats, then the donks can plan on writing off about half of the American electorate. Polling has shown that Americans are split almost equally between the pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints. When examined more closely, only small factions support either extreme on the issue. Most Americans say that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

Perez’s comments have set off a battle between Democrats who favor a big tent party and those who believe that ideological purity is more important. The debate is similar to the one that Republicans have had in recent years on issues such as spending, immigration and the details of replacing Obamacare.

Some party leaders rejected Perez’s comments. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on NBC that “of course” pro-life Democrats should be accepted and supported by the party.

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she told the Washington Post. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”

Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Minority Leader, agreed on MSNBC. “Look, we're a big tent party as Nancy Pelosi said, but we are, let's make no mistake about it, we are a pro-choice party. We're a strongly pro-choice party,” Schumer said. “We think that's where the American people are, and in fact, if anything, are moving even more in that direction.”

Some members of the Democrat base disagreed with their leaders’ inclusiveness. “It was great to see Perez discover a spine,” Erin Matson, a pro-abortion activist, told The Atlantic, adding that “Schumer and Pelosi’s recent comments are cowardly.”

“It’s about policy, not feelings or labels, and anything less than a bold stance that makes clear that the Democratic Party must be united in protecting a woman’s right to an abortion is a betrayal of a core constituency of the party,” Matson continued. She stopped short of calling big tent Democrats “DINOs.”

Elyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America noted in the Washington Post that last year’s Democratic platform “went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the women’s rights. It didn’t just seek to protect abortion access — it sought to expand it,” while failing to note that Democrats lost that election. “If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it can’t go backward, it can’t back down and it can’t trade away these principles,” she added.

“I don’t know why we would want to start walking away from folks, like myself, who have a personal conviction on the pro-life issue,” said Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), a pro-life Democrat congressman. “We ought to be able to include everyone, as opposed to saying ‘no, we don’t want these folks, even though they fight with us on jobs, even though they fight with us for economic rights, even though they fight with us on healthcare.’ It just seems to me to be very, very short-sighted.”

Nevertheless, even Bernie Sanders, the sometimes-Democrat with the cult-like following, is not immune to criticism when he deviates from the party line on abortion. Sanders drew fire from fellow progressives for his support of Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello. Mello had a pro-life voting record and reputation during his time in the Nebraska state legislature.

Pelosi later claimed to the Washington Post that the abortion is “kind of fading as an issue” for Democrats. That may be wishful thinking.

This week failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray with a speech to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. “Protecting access to the full range of reproductive health care: it is a health issue, of course, it is a core economic issue,” Clinton said, quoted by The Blaze. “Women in every corner of our country understand that intimately. And anyone who wants to lead should also understand that fundamentally, this is an issue of morality.”

By claiming that opposition to abortion is immoral, Clinton has upped the ante and made it clear that pro-lifers will not be welcomed by a large part of the Democratic Party. Framing the issue in moral terms makes it almost impossible to compromise.

“I believe we can and should respect deeply held beliefs of our friends, our neighbors, our fellow citizens, even if they differ from our own,” Clinton continued. “That’s what should make America, America. But it is possible to do that while holding firm to what we know is the only right approach in our diverse democracy. Oh, yes, let’s respect people’s convictions, but never back down from our commitment to defend the ability of every woman to make these deeply personal decisions for herself.”

In other words, Democrats should respect the immoral opinions of pro-life Democrats as long as those opinions have no impact on the party platform or policies.

The decision on whether to welcome (or tolerate) Democrats who differ from the party dogma on an issue like abortion is an important one. It is very difficult for a political party to win if it is actively seeking to expel many of its members. Even if pro-life Democrats are permitted to stay, it is unlikely that the official Democrat position on abortion will change any time soon.

 Originally published on The Resurgent

Two prominent Democrats contract foot-in-mouth disease

Yesterday was a bad day for Democrat oratory. Perhaps driven to mushmouthedness by the recent 24-hour talkathon in advance of yesterday’s confirmation vote on Betsy DeVos, two prominent Democratic congresswomen put their feet in their respective mouths on different subjects.

First, Nancy Pelosi apparently flashed back almost two decades to the year 2001. Rep. Pelosi (D-Cal.), speaking in a press conference covered by Fox News, said, “While it's only been a couple of weeks since the inauguration, we've seen nothing that I can work with President Bush on.”

While Ms. Pelosi may be confused about who the president is, she isn’t confused about her opposition to all things Republican. While some Democrats have hinted that they might be open to deals with Mr. Trump on infrastructure spending programs, for Ms. Pelosi, apparently the fact that President Trump has an (R) after his name is sufficient to merit total opposition, just as it was for President Bush.

In yesterday’s second example of a Democratic gaffe, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cal.) erroneously accused Vladimir Putin of making moves in Korea. “The fact that he [Trump] is wrapping his arms around Putin, while Putin is continuing to advance into [pause] Korea,” Waters said on CSPAN, “I think that he is leading himself into that kind of position where folks will begin to ask: 'What are we going to do?' and the answer is going to be, eventually, we've got to do something about him.”

Waters may have been thinking about Crimea or Ukraine, which are half a world away from Korea, but phonetically similar. Putin’s Russia has annexed Crimea and is sponsoring an insurgency in Ukraine. Of course, given Mr. Putin’s penchant for expansionism and the fact that North Korea considers Russia one of its best friends, maybe Waters knows something we don’t.

Pelosi and Waters continue in the grand tradition of congressional Democratic oratory that includes Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) who once expressed concern in a committee hearing that the large number of military personnel on Guam might cause the island to “tip over and capsize.” Johnson’s statement stands as the most amusing clips of a congressional hearing that I have ever seen.

Even with their misstatements, in deep blue California Pelosi and Waters probably don’t have to fear that their seats might be in jeopardy. Rep. Johnson made his statement, undoubtedly one of the dumbest things ever said in Congress, in 2010. He is still serving his district today.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump and Democrats could form alliance on some issues

One potential problem for the Trump Administration is that since Trump is a newcomer to the Republican Party, he holds different views than many other Republican elected officials. During the campaign, Trump’s views on many set him apart from other candidates in the primary. They also set him apart from other members of his party in the general election.

Trump made many promises that he may find his Republican colleagues unwilling to back up. The Republican Party has traditionally been a free trade party, but Trump is openly hostile to trade deals. Republicans fought tooth and nail against Obama’s infrastructure stimulus, but Trump has hinted at a similar spending program. Trump’s proposed childcare plan is the sort of entitlement expansion that Republicans have opposed when put forward by Democrats.

Some Republicans are undoubtedly confirmed passengers on the Trump Train, but many others will require much persuasion. Many Republicans supported Mr. Trump only reluctantly as the only alternative against Hillary Clinton. Conservative members of the party are unlikely to be willing to blindly follow Trump down a path of progressive policies.

The rub is that the Republican Party isn’t as conservative as it used to be. While few Republicans have voiced support for Mr. Trump’s childcare entitlement, anti-trade sentiment and isolationism had been growing in the GOP even before Trump burst onto the stage.

The libertarian faction of the GOP has been arguing against foreign involvement for years. When President Obama drew a “red line” in Syria, it was a bipartisan coalition of anti-war Republicans and Democrats that revolted against a military strike against the Assad regime’s chemical weapons facilities. Likewise, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was tagged as “Obamatrade” by Republicans who sided with Bernie Sanders to kill the trade deal.

Following these examples may provide Trump with a strategy to enact some of his less-than-conservative ideas. It is not beyond question that President Trump could reach out to forge bipartisan coalitions to push through policies that lack conservative support.

For example, the base of the Republican Party has moved left on trade. A September poll in Politico found that 85 percent of Republicans believed that free trade cost more American jobs than it has created. Only 18 percent believed that trade deals had helped their communities.

Even though many voters have shifted, many congressional Republicans remain favorable to free trade. President Trump is unlikely to be able to rely on Republicans to rubberstamp an anti-trade agenda of higher taxes and more regulation. The answer might well be to find a majority by combining protectionist Republicans and Democrats into one voting bloc.

Trump is hardly hostile to the idea of reaching across the aisle. Last January, early in the primary season, Trump said on MSNBC, “I think I'm going to be able to get along with [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi — I've always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi.” Trump also said he was “close to” incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer “in many in ways.” Trump said in the Washington Examiner in July that he wouldn’t mind being a “free agent” when dealing with Congress.

Trump’s cabinet appointments also show a willingness to go outside the Republican Party. Wilbur Ross, Trump’s pick for Commerce Secretary, was a Democrat until after the election.  Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s Treasury Secretary, worked for Goldman Sachs and George Soros. Mnuchin, like Trump, was a big donor to Democrats before this election cycle. Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, is also a registered Democrat.

Would congressional Democrats work with Trump? They seem open to the possibility.

“If he truly wants to revise U.S. trade policy, he is going to have to come and work in a bipartisan manner to do that. It's always been a substantial majority of Democrats who oppose these agreements," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said in US News.

Even new Senate Minority Chuck Schumer is reaching out. “To the extent that the president-elect and the Republican majority pursue policies that help Americans and are consistent with our values, we stand ready and willing to work with them,” Schumer recently said in a speech quoted in Yahoo News. Schumer suggested that an infrastructure stimulus, tax reform and trade might be areas where Democrats and Trump could find common ground.

On the other hand, some Trump priorities would find little, if any, support from Democrats. A repeal of Obamacare or hardline immigration reform would be largely party-line issues that Schumer says Democrats would fight “tooth and nail.”

At this point, we can only speculate what the Trump Administration will be like. From his performance in the campaign, we can assume that there are few ideas that President Trump will be strongly committed to, but one of those is a protectionist trade agenda. To accomplish his goal of imposing large taxes and restrictions on trade, Trump, the former Democrat donor, is very likely to make a deal with congressional liberals.

Originally published on The Resurgent