Why I left the Democratic Party

No, I don’t think so. Did you think the Republican led shutdown was worth it?

Do you think if Trump didn’t take the steps he did to end DACA that we’d be at this same point with some other issue prompting the shutdown?




My point though was that if Trump didn’t sabotage his own meeting last week and if a clean DACA bill was brought up for a vote by Ryan and McConnel then the government wouldn’t have been shut down. Agree?

How exactly is this Republican led?

Robert Reich
7 hrs ·
For years, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have had only one goal: power — no matter the chaos and dysfunction they inflicted on the country. Now that they control Washington, they are completely incapable of governing. Trump and his Republican enablers have sought power for the sake of power, with no real intention to actually lead the country. They’ve debased our institutions and shredded the truth. And, now, they've closed the government to spite hundreds of thousands of immigrant children who have known no other country than America.

If a shutdown meant billionaires and corporations wouldn’t get their tax cuts, Trump and Republicans would be in overdrive. But when it comes to protecting immigrant children and providing 9 million kids with health care, they are less interested in keeping the government open. What do you think?

With so many pointing out that the Democrats don't fight for anything, they realized they cannot survive politically without displaying a bit of back bone, it looks like to me. The Republicans are so used to them caving in, I think they expected to just roll over them AGAIN.

Aw, come on Edgar, can't you give us some slack? I honestly think the issue is this important for democrats.

I agree with Reich completely here.

I see the Republicans trying to get the issues important to the progressives kicked down the road and once they stand alone just kill them. By standing firm when they have leverage at least they can put up a good fight and if they have enough resolve, win even.

D.L. Hughley

The Government has shut down!.............Wait! How can u tell?

Thank you for spelling this out for all to see. Both of your points are dead on and absolutely correct. I agree with you. I suspect that the vast majority of America agrees with you as well. If I could I would give you ten thumbs up for this post.

You are on a roll. Give them hell Ed. You have my full support. I know this to be true. You know this to be true. I am hoping that America knows this to be true.

The prior GOP shutdown wasn't worth it.

A 'clean bill' sounds very fair and reasonable but that's not how DC works and everyone there knows it. If you want to get something you have to give. In this case the "give" in "getting" DACA has been funding the wall and ending chain immigration and the Dems don't want to "give" the GOP those so they clamor for a "clean bill." It's all theater.

You might as well ask "Now if the GOP gave into the Dems the government wouldn't have shut down. Agreed?"

When the GOP pulled this stunt were you observing that all the Dems had to do was give in to their demands?

Again, who is responsible: The party that tries extortion or the one that resists it? There can't be a different answer depending on which party is trying extortion.

I can't disagree entirely with you here, but you need to throw the MSM into the mix since their reporting on all of this is what helps motivate it.

You didn't limit your statement to the DACA folks, but to answer your question there certainly can be. Trump & the GOP are prepared to allow one, but they want something in return.

Exactly what is so horrible about what they want that

a) The Dems are willing to blow the chance for their "Dreamers" to remain, and
b) Are willing to shut down the government?

Trump dug in his heels and refuses to even discuss DACA until the Democrats surrender. It's time to stand firm. Prove they are the door, not the door mat.

Your points are valid. I would add one caveat. It makes perfect sense to use this strategy if you have the support of the public and the polls clearly show that the your position to be popular. Sometimes, the only time you can get what you want is to use your leverage when the leverage is in your favor. Especially if you are the minority party with a popular position. Right now the democrats position is popular. That's just how politics works. The republican could have prevented the shutdown from happening by working with democrats. I am referring to the House, the Senate, and the White House. The republicans have the power to work with democrats or not work with the democrats. So, ultimately the republicans are responsible for the government shutdown.

Then you must admit that the Democrats were responsible for the last government shutdown.

You can't have it both ways.

C’mon Finn. You know the 20Bn dollar wall (which will end up costing over 40Bn to build.....and who knows how much to maintain) is a complete waste of money and will stop very few people.

What does it matter even if that is true? Part of compromise means giving the other guy something he wants.

I think the wall actually will stop people. The reason why I don't care about the wall is because I'm fine with allowing people in if they wish to be productive members of our society.

But I'm not the President. If the Democrats want to compromise with the President, they'll need to give him something that he wants in return for getting something that they want. That's just how compromise works.

And let's face it, while there may not be a good argument for building the wall, there isn't much of an argument against building it either. The Democrats are only opposing the wall out of spitefulness.

I don't know. Did the democrats control all three the House, the Senate, and the White House during the last government shutdown? That is the scenario the republicans are currently in. I want to make sure that we are comparing apples to apples.

I thought so. The Dems will start funding for a wall if this piece is accurate. Disgusting.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/how-the-shutdown-ends.html

After it became clear on Friday that Democrats and Republicans were not going to reach an agreement to keep the government open, there was some chatter around the Capitol that we might just be facing a “weekend shutdown”—a couple of days to finalize some tentative agreement that could cruise through both chambers in time for non-essential federal workers to return to the office on Monday morning.

How precious that thinking was.

Both the House and the Senate went into session on Saturday—for press conferences, meetings, speeches, and some procedural votes—and they did not leave with an agreement, or any apparent progress towards one. The impasse, it seems, will have to be resolved by the public.

Republicans and Democrats couldn’t even agree on a proper accounting of what transpired on Friday.

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, has said that he offered to consider the full spending request for President Trump’s promised border wall when the two met on Friday, and that the president later backed out on some tentative agreements once his advisers, including Chief of Staff John Kelly, got to him. But in a briefing Saturday, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told a different story: The president asked Schumer for $20 billion to build the wall, and Schumer rejected it, only offering the original $1.6 billion request outlined in the White House’s 2018 budget.



“We absolutely did not reject the full funding request,” a senior Democratic aide told me. “Schumer and Trump agreed by the end that they were close enough on everything that they should pursue a short term CR to facilitate a deal, so nothing was agreed to but they were in good shape on an overall framework. Then Kelly started to unravel it.”

There’s also a dispute over why a deal failed to come together during the frenzied two-hour Senate vote Friday night. The proposal included a bill to fund the government through Feb. 8, rather than Feb. 16, as well as a commitment to move a bipartisan immigration bill through the Senate and the House—either in a stand-alone vote in the next few weeks or attached to the Feb. 8 spending bill. The Senate Democratic Whip, Dick Durbin, claims that when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan spoke on the phone to discuss this, Ryan rejected it outright. (There was a moment on the floor last night when McConnell walked back into the chamber from a call, said something to Durbin, and Durbin rolled his eyes and shook his head.) McConnell spokesperson David Popp described Durbin’s characterization as “laughably false,” and said “there was no deal at any time that was blown up by Speaker Ryan. Period.” Ryan’s spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, said that “the speaker was not part of any deal or involved in any negotiations.”


Whether Ryan formally tanked a “deal”—there’s some wiggle room here—is a technical point. Everyone understands the dynamic. House Republicans do not want to take up the Senate’s bipartisan immigration bill. If they did, the Senate could wrap that and all of the other loose ends quickly. If House leaders brought up the Senate’s immigration bill, it could pass the House with mostly Democratic votes, over the objections of conservative members. Such a move could invite a challenge to Ryan’s speakership from the right—especially if the Senate bill doesn’t currently enjoy the president’s support. This, in very condensed form, is the dilemma: Most Senate Democrats will not vote for a spending bill until there’s a path for getting protections for Dreamers passed in both houses, and House Republicans and the White House are saying that they will not negotiate on immigration while the government is shut down.

So how does the government reopen? The answer to that won’t be known for a few days.

First, the public must decide who’s to blame. As the shutdown lingers and more people pay attention, polling will more clearly reveal which party is “losing.” The losing side will then sue for peace, and then it’s just a matter of negotiating the terms of surrender. Since the “winning” side has zero incentive to save the losing party, the surrender offer will likely be nothing.

So much of the punditry about shutdowns is about how it will affect the midterm elections, and so little of it is about the very important items that are at stake. But the political fears are just a spur for resolving a policy logjam. Shutdowns are a referendum on a particular policy impasse, and they’re risky because the winner takes the spoils.