A strategy optimized to get an insufficient number of moderates dug in on a worse bill, such that when it becomes clear Republicans are fucking around and there’s no way in hell there’ll be 60 votes for anything, there also won’t be 50 votes except maybe for the worse bill.
There’s no reason for this. Get the process moving quickly on the popular bill you want, make clear it’s the only ship sailing and it’ll pass with 50 votes. Maybe that entices some Republicans to throw in with the winning side. More likely it doesn’t, but if it doesn’t, so what?
Truly insane they’re going to do the same thing they did last trifecta, down to the same Lucy and same football.
There’s even a famous saying dedicated to this kind of unthinking commitment to failed strategies.
The real fun part comes when this gang of 16 reaches a deal on a worse stimulus bill and, due to, um, arithmetic, it gets 58 votes, less than the 60 required to overcome the filibuster, so they have to go through reconciliation anyhow.
1. The theory that ex-presidents can’t be tried by the Senate is fake, conjured in bad faith to give GOP sens cover to acquit without stating the truth: they’re OK with the right using violence to subvert democracy. nymag.com/intelligencer/…
2. If and when Republicans acquit Trump on false pretext, Democrats must pivot immediately to a measure disqualifying insurrectionists from office under the 14th amendment—they might even warn Republicans that they’ll face this vote before the trial ends. nytimes.com/2021/01/12/opi…
3. This whole saga is an object lesson in the pitfalls of timidity and foot dragging. The original sin here was recessing the House in the hope of turning the page instead instead of voting on the impeachment within hours of the insurrection.
The solution is obvious. McConnell is *already* abusing the filibuster to block the constitution of the new majority. Nuking the filibuster is the appropriate response. At the very least the threat is the only thing that might make McConnell back down. politico.com/news/2021/01/2…
The alternative—cave to McConnell on this basic question of which party won the majority, and ratify his plan to set a 60-vote threshold for everything of consequence—would be a profound, irrevocable betrayal right off the bat.
This is an important thing for reporters to portray accurately, too. McConnell is *already* abusing the filibuster to nullify the Senate election results.
I think it’s worth setting aside terminological questions and asking instead whether, if he had ruled within a system that allowed him to perpetrate the same kind of evil that fascists perpetrated, Trump would have done it, and I think the answer is clearly yes.
When people call Trump a fascist, and his most violent supporters fascists, that’s what they mean. And it’s a completely reasonable way to use language.
There’s a mishmash of folks who are being pedantic about this point for self-serving reasons—e.g. I’m not as hysterical as THOSE progressives throwing around the f-word. But they’re obscuring more than they’re clarifying. thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-i…
In the @nytimes, @deepakguptalaw and I explore the hidden power of the 14th Amendment’s anti-insurrection provisions, particularly if used as a complement to impeachment, rather than a substitute for it. nytimes.com/2021/01/12/opi…
Most immediately, it’s a cudgel to brandish at Senate Republicans intent on letting Trump serve out his final days, particularly if they believe they can avoid the tough votes of a trial by running out the clock. nytimes.com/2021/01/12/opi…
But the legislative approach we lay out would serve as a font of accountability well into the future, until the full story of the siege is known and all applicable perpetrators (including those in the administration and Congress) are identified. nytimes.com/2021/01/12/opi…
When Twitter banned Trump I thought it was a face-saving move. But their rationale was oddly precise. Then Google and Apple banned Parler. Then Amazon kicked it off the open web. They’re not scared of boycotters. They’re scared their services are being used to organize an attack.
Democrats, as is their wont, can interpret this as a reason to give up, which is exactly what Blunt hopes they do, or they can interpret it as an invitation to send articles over and spend the next 12 days making Republicans pay a political price for doing nothing.