Senate's imminent passage of infrastructure bill seems to defy many of liberals' heuristics about "how things work" (that all negotiations from Republicans are insincere ploys, that polarization makes bipartisan achievements impossible, that personal relationships don't matter)
FWIW my take a few months back was that: 1. Certain issues (voting rights, immigration) are so polarized that compromise really is impossible 2. On other issues, bipartisanship can be achievable, though it might involve compromises progressives don't love
But many people insisted for months that this was obviously doomed and anyone who thought otherwise was a fool. When there's a surprising outcome, good to take note and update your mental model of the world, at least a bit.
Around 3 Senate Republicans who went from "maybe yes to no" in the final hours got a ton of coverage, but there were 19 who did end up voting yes which is... a lot
Question is whether the committee would have even the remotest chance of achieving such consensus. I'd argue no for reasons laid out here: vox.com/2021/5/25/2244…
The price of "consensus" on an issue with major political ramifications is often a gentlemen's agreement to make neither side look too bad. That's impossible here because of the nature of the issue. (Unless the committee decided to only focus on Capitol Police preparedness)
Furthermore McCarthy made clear all along he'd choose appointees prone to run defense for Trump, not to lend any eventual findings a bipartisan halo.
So would having those appointees on the committee make the process more credible, or ensure it's a partisan food fight?
Perceptive thread. IMO this is more due to changes in the US Senate than to Obama vs Biden.
The 2009 Senate was still steeped in the old traditions and wouldn't have done things this way. But after a decade of The McConnell Experience, opinion's changed
Given the centrality of budget reconciliation to Trump and Biden's year one legislative strategies, it's amazing that in 2009 Democrats hoped to use that process for... nothing.
It was just a backup plan in case the ACA failed. (Luckily so, bc they needed it)
But the experience of the Obama years made it obvious to everyone that a new president could no longer hope to get opposition party votes to pass his top agenda items through regular order.
So McConnell/Trump pursued reconciliation-or-bust in 2017 and Dems are doing the same now
Have to say it makes me a bit queasy when people treat a declination decision on a particular case as coming straight from the AG and get mad at the AG for it. Feels a bit… familiar.
Did the prosecutors involved feel they had a strong case re: Wilbur Ross? How was the decision not to bring charges made?
We actually have no idea. But the narrative has set in among some that this is something Merrick Garland personally did and deserves blame for
The feds searched Giuliani's home and office just a few months ago. Clearly there is no "amnesty for Trump cronies" policy from AG Garland.
Different prosecutors have various different investigations going, and they'll reach different conclusions
Schumer re: budget resolution deal: "Every major program that Pres. Biden has asked us for is funded in a robust way, and in addition we are making some additions to that," most notably Medicare expansion to cover dental / vision / hearing
This reconciliation bill would apparently cover: 1. Tax credits for families 2. Paid leave 3. Child care subsidies 4. Universal pre-K 5. Free community college 6. Clean energy 7. Housing 8. Long-term care 9. Medicare dental/vision/hearing 10. Medicare drug prices
& more...
But, of course, in the end Manchin and Sinema's votes (and all other 48 Senate dems, and a House majority) will be needed to pass it. So still quite a ways from the finish line
The disconnect between Biden's rhetoric and his actions on voting rights that many are pointing out is real. If this is an enormous threat to democracy, why won't he support changing the filibuster over it?
Only seems to be two possible answers... (cont'd)
Possibility #1: Biden and his aides don't fully buy the claims about the imminent threat to democracy or the importance of the For the People Act. There have been signals from the White House that this is part of the story.
Possibility #2: Biden simply sees no path to success on passing democracy reform legislation through Congress, and prefers to focus on what can pass. And he needs Manchin and Sinema for, well, anything else, ruling out tough tactics against them