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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Brian Beutler

Brian Beutler Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @brianbeutler

23 Jan
Three thoughts recurred reading this.

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.
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.
Read 11 tweets
21 Jan
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.
Read 11 tweets
17 Jan
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…
Read 5 tweets
12 Jan
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…
Read 7 tweets
10 Jan
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.
Probably not worth dwelling on, however, because as we all know Trump is an InCoMpEtEnT AuThOrItArIaN.
Seems bad.
Read 4 tweets
9 Jan
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.
The inclination to do nothing unless a magic bullet appears is so self-defeating, particularly as magic bullets don’t exist.
An interesting document, clearly meant to deter the House. It shouldn’t.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!