All else aside, and suspending disbelief for a moment--the first minute. That guy, with that tone, dedicated to that message, could climb back in this race before it spirals out of control.
You can get mad about it or you can heed the caveats--even the glimmer of humanity and humility in the early going is eclipsed by the rambling tangent that follows; we know there's no other Trump besides the one we know; and the wheels are going wobbly either way.
I've been talking/thinking through how this could offer any upside or silver lining, and it always comes back to yes, but it would require a normal human in a Trump suit. Which is why these sorts of moments are disarming. Goes back to something I raised on the debate preview pod.
Trump has so thoroughly broken people it's impossible to note, in a heavily conditional way, that stringing together as many human-adjacent moments down the stretch might be his best hope of avoiding catastrophic defeat without wading through a tire fire the next morning.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Because this seems to be CW at this point, let's be clear--there's nothing easy about pulling together permitting reform language that both parties can support in the immediate term. Spending side is far simpler (and more necessary) to resolve.
Otoh, this is an interesting flag to plant. If the bar is simply not spending more than FY23 that's the best deal Ds were ever going to get regardless. And it's the most open acknowledgement yet that nobody is prepared for a rollback borne entirely by NDD.
Permitting for Rs: NEPA reform, 401, lands, oil & gas leasing
Permitting for Ds: Transmission, federal role in siting, cost allocation
Hard to imagine Ds allowing any of column A w/o any of column B, and both aren't happening at this juncture. At best you get a deal to do a deal
A deal isn't done until it's done, nor passed until it's passed, but this thinking betrays a misunderstanding of the dynamics at play, and a failure to adjust to what happened on and since Jan 7.
I really should write this up, because too few people grok this, but I got into it in my discussion with @MichaelRWarren a few weeks back.
To Ben's point, the deal is there if people want to get to yes. When the poles are howling that's usually a signal that something is afoot in between. And as it happens, angry progs/HFCers are a feature to the respective rank and file types. Key will be Rs carrying their weight.
Remember--none of these people, on either side, were ever going to support a deal. Registering their dissatisfaction was just a matter of time. To the extent their public comments capture their true angst, this is them going through the motions and playing their part.
Astonaut meme here, but the universal key is everyone feeling like they fought the fight as hard and as well as it could have been waged. That nothing significant was given away/left on the table. That's the threshold, not whether opposers oppose.
I don't want to be overly doomer-ish because I do think something will give, but it takes a reaction from the folks currently winking at the camera. Consider this peace of mind is predicated on a process available 2 days/mo after 30 days of ripening & a 7 legislative day layover.
Early, sustained discharge effort can apply pressure and create a failsafe should worse come to worst. It is a terrible option for what is sure to be an urgent and fluid situation that requires a nimble response, legislative or otherwise.