I think we are about to see another classic display of Democratic Senate weakness.
Tom Cotton and other Senate Republicans are pushing a bill that will freeze the $6M of Iranian funds that the administration released for humanitarian support. Frontline and many other Democrats have also called for the freezing of the funds.
This bill will easily get the 60 vote threshold, but the Republicans are going to push to pass it by unanimous consent, and I expect the Democrats to agree.
But shouldn't some Democratic Senator (one not coming up in 24 or someone with a safe seat) put a hold on this bill and say they will release it once the military promotions are done. And then meet every challenge or criticism by redirecting the issue to Tuberveille's destructive hold?
There's no danger that these funds are all going to get spent while the Senate dithers, and no bill can pass while there isn't a House anyway.
Something like this is possible. A hold is really just a threat to filibuster (that is, require cloture motions and, in the case of legislation, 60 votes). Any individual Democrat can do this, but it won't amount to much if, say, Chuck Schumer doesn't have their back. That Democrat would need 40 others to stand beside them, and if the caucus is divided it won't happen. That said, you're right, it should. And I'm not convinced this crisis won't be the thing that breaks the Tuberville/GOP blockade.
This would have the optics of blocking Isreali aid even though it's about the Iranian money. It may be ill-advised especially if Dems have to comment on the stance. Whatever one person does that would be as frowned on by their party as Tommy Tuberville largely is and for good reason - it's bad politics and will effectively paint the party as radical.
I agree with playing hardball, but we should pick battles that are more easily fought imo.
The Republican/right-wing reaction to the Hamas attack--absurd accusations that Democrats are soft on terrorism, if not outright allies of terrorist groups--puts me in mind of nothing more than how those same people and their forebears were acting in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the run-up to the Iraq war. You know, before they decided that they were actually scourges of the “globalist RINOs” who advocated policies like that.
I’m not *extremely* worried (yet) that they’re going to get us into a war with Iran, because I don’t think even Netanyahu’s government is going to attack Iran.
But I am concerned that the resurgence of radical Islamic terrorism as a political issue will create an atmosphere of generalized fear in which Democratic candidates have traditionally had a difficult time operating. (In retrospect, the 2015 Paris bombing, the 2015 San Bernardino attack and the 2016 Pulse bombing were probably factors in Trump’s winning in 2016).
We seem to always be in a defensive crouch on this particular issue set. The strategy so many on our side adopted in 2001-2004 was to essentially be imitation Republicans on national security issues, and that was a catastrophic failure on multiple levels. That said, I do think that the atavistic rage Republicans promote in moments like this seems to drown out calls for intelligent decision-making in national security matters, and I don’t think we’ve come up with a good way to counter it. Are there specific things you think Democrats should start doing differently on this front?
It's a tough question, but I go back to what I wrote in my scattered thoughts on Israel, Gaza, Hamas, etc: Extremists exist in a kind of symbiosis, and if this escalates to much worse places, it'll be at the behest of extremists here, in Israel, and in the territories. So if you want to stop it, you might start by identifying that dynamic and condemning American leaders who are part of that kind of perverse alliance.
How likely do you think the following scenarios are:
1. Republicans make some concessions and get support from Democrats in the House to elect a Republican Speaker.
2. Some Republicans vote with Democrats to elect Jeffries as Speaker.
I think 2 is as close to 0% as you could get, but perhaps there is some small percentage likelihood that 1 happens? Or are we just doomed to Republicans either never having the votes to elect a Speaker or electing a Speaker, soon growing tired of them, and then deposing and electing a new one forever into the future?
1. Not terribly likely, but gets likelier every day. For instance, today it got a lot likelier, even though it's still hard to imagine.
2. Very, very unlikely. If there's a power-sharing arrangement, it'll most likely be under a fairly conservative Republican; possibly under a Problem Solvers style "moderate," followed distantly by a not-particularly-partisan Democrat. It's really hard for me to imagine any Republicans voting for Jeffries or any other Democratic leader. Though it would be fun to see!
I read that to mean he wants to end Freedom Caucus tyranny on the rules committee and then force floor votes on bipartisan bills (which I imagine would include abortion rights, the PRO Act, etc.)
I think there are several Republicans who would rather live under those circumstances but none of them want to be the ones to end their careers by giving the Democrats that power.
Something for another time, perhaps, but I wonder if there is anything that still gives you hope about politics these days? A lot of the thoughtful conversations already on here seem - at least to me - to reflect little hope of people still being able to affect fundamental change for the better.
This may be just the vibes talking, but I see a lot of political energy expended these days on simply trying to prevent things from getting worse, instead of getting on with the business of making life better for most people. So, what brightens your thoughts when thinking of what's to come?
"Whatever is new here, the region’s leaders seem intent on drawing things into a familiar pattern: atrocity begetting indiscriminate backlash begetting yet more blowback"
If anything was predictable after Saturday's Hamas massacre foray, it is the disproportionate Israeli "collective punishment" response against the Gaza civilian population. Immediately after the weekend's horrors were broadcast, world "leaders" jumped on the Israeli retaliation train, promising weaponry and unconditional support to "right the wrongs" of Hamas terrorism. And now, after days of total war directed toward Gaza, we see some signs of cautionary statements about "possible" war crimes, and reports of hospitals, schools, and shelters being obliterated. Encouraging blood-lust and ethnic hatred is sparing no one within Gaza...women and children die as did those subjected to the Hamas raid into southern Israeli towns, as the taking of revenge knows no bounds. "Human animals" is how Israel's defense minister put it, framing the response as justifiable mass slaughter.
And so it goes, the never-ending cycle of violence, as though one last, massive spare-no-one military campaign will resolve 75 years of struggle, a force-majeure putting paid to any peace agreement now pushed into the indefinite future. The only upside possible is the end of this far-right government and Netanyahu's career, as he must be seen as the principal architect of an incompetent and provocative regime which provided the opportunity for Hamas to strike. One can only hope.
Every mass shooting we go through the same motions. Conservatives say “thoughts and prayers” and liberals roll their eyes and start talking about the underlying political issue (guns) and conservatives cry foul that we aren’t properly observing the “thoughts and prayers” routine before going to the underlying political issue (again, guns).
Why is that different in this case with the violence in Israel/Gaza? Is it really THAT IMPORTANT that we sufficiently do the “condemning the violence/condemning Hamas” motions before we discuss the underlying issue (the nearly two-decade long occupation of Gaza, the broader settler-colonial project in the West Bank, apartheid) in this case?
Those who want to DO SOMETHING on guns skip the “thoughts and prayers” dance even when it involves schoolchildren being gunned down, and those who want to DO SOMETHING on Palestine are *also* skipping the “thoughts and prayers, I condemn Hamas, I condemn violence against civilians, I condemn violence against children” but seem to be receiving more blowback from the commentariat than I would expect.
I don't think the analogy holds up very well. With respect to guns, we have one party that fanatically opposes and blocks any meaningful firearms regulation. That situation simply doesn't exist with respect to Israel. Support remains bipartisan. It isn't really even clear to me who'd lead the charge to "pivot" from the massacre to any underlying issues. Anyone who tried would be widely condemned. On top of that, thoughts and prayers are totally appropriate in this situation, as they are after mass shootings. What isn't ok is the bad faith use of thoughts and prayers to derail political solutions. But none of that is happening now. Republicans are trying to smear Democrats, and Democrats are largely divided between unquestioning support of Israel and expressing support for Israel but encouraging restraint.
How likely are we to see any more judicial confirmations at this point? Maybe just a few uncontroversial district court nominees confirmed?
I have not followed the in's & out's of membership on the Senate Judiciary committee upon Feinstein's passing away, but I figure you know and have thoughts.
I am hopeful this will actually go pretty smoothly. Little as I trust Republicans, they've given no indication that they'll block a replacement for Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee (that theory was floated by Democrats and party loyalists looking to muffle criticism of Feinstein for not retiring) and so the confirmation machine should be back in order soon. If not, we'll cover it here!
Interesting. Fingers crossed you're correct, but I predict you'll be covering it here because Mitch or some other jackass like Hawley / Schmitt or JD Vance will invent some bad faith excuse / historical "example" and shut it all down and refuse to seat a new committee member. We're pretty close to the 2024 election year anyway, and that sufficed for Mitch before (on a smaller scale, though applied to a higher value position).
I've seen some recent chatter renewing the old argument "Is it better to avoid covering Trump or cover him as much as possible so everyone gets to see the crazy?"
Any thoughts on this? I think your last video made clear that it is the wrong question. Lots of sanitized coverage of Trump that fails to show the crazy seems like all our media is capable of, and that seems like the worst possible option.
I think journalists need to apply a little critical thinking to all of the Trump outrages, and devote resources to the ones that are genuinely important (the Milley death threat, the brandishing of state secrets) and tune out the ones that just amount to attention seeking and partisan abuse (e.g. Joe Biden looks terrible with his shirt off at the beach). Distinguishing between the two is not very hard, even if there are some edge cases.
Yes, we see that, but let's say some criminal stands outside the courthouse and ejaculates: "Radical, deranged, fascist, racist prosecutor and extreme, democrat, so-called judge". Does that hypothetical dipshit think or know that that will have a beneficial effect for him other than to make his mini-legion of imbecile followers shovel money at him?
Depending on how you measure it, I read that this year's deficit it 1.7 trillion (in a booming-ish economy). Because of rising interest rates our debt payments this year have ballooned to ~$800 billion and seem like to go higher as both interest rates and the total debt continue to climb.
This seems like this could be getting out of hand and I don't have much optimism for congress to address it with some combination of tax increases or spending cuts. Seems like we'll take the default option of "pretend nothing is happening until the wheels fall off".
I still don't worry about it too much, even though objectively deficits are more of a problem now than they were in the Bush/Obama/Trump administrations. This isn't a situation, as I understand it, where the bottom's going to fall out all at once. Either tax receipts will pick up and spending will fall through growth/employment/prosperity, or pressure will rise on the government to adopt contractionary policy. The normative quality of those policies (are they taxes on the rich? cuts to programs for the poor?) will depend on who controls the government when that happens. Good argument for keeping Republicans locked out of power.
We hear constant references to "The Court of Public Opinion" and we see and hear prominent officials, one in-particular, acting with apparent conviction that TCPO does have an important effect.
Whatwhyhow is it that all of us powerless numbskulls are expected to passively control the course of political and even judicial events?
Why Gary it's simple! If you want something good to happen, you just have to convince at least 60 percent of the country that it's good, and Democrats will feel liberated to act (unless of course an extreme 10 percent of the country opposes the good thing, and gets every Republican in Congress lined up against it, in which case even then it won't happen).
Best summary I've seen yet of what's going on in Israel/Palestine/Gaza. Thanks.
I think we are about to see another classic display of Democratic Senate weakness.
Tom Cotton and other Senate Republicans are pushing a bill that will freeze the $6M of Iranian funds that the administration released for humanitarian support. Frontline and many other Democrats have also called for the freezing of the funds.
https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/iran_funds_bill_text2.pdf
This bill will easily get the 60 vote threshold, but the Republicans are going to push to pass it by unanimous consent, and I expect the Democrats to agree.
But shouldn't some Democratic Senator (one not coming up in 24 or someone with a safe seat) put a hold on this bill and say they will release it once the military promotions are done. And then meet every challenge or criticism by redirecting the issue to Tuberveille's destructive hold?
There's no danger that these funds are all going to get spent while the Senate dithers, and no bill can pass while there isn't a House anyway.
Something like this is possible. A hold is really just a threat to filibuster (that is, require cloture motions and, in the case of legislation, 60 votes). Any individual Democrat can do this, but it won't amount to much if, say, Chuck Schumer doesn't have their back. That Democrat would need 40 others to stand beside them, and if the caucus is divided it won't happen. That said, you're right, it should. And I'm not convinced this crisis won't be the thing that breaks the Tuberville/GOP blockade.
The Dems would have to break their own member's hold while continuing to let Tuberville do his thing. Would be a toxic look for them.
The Aristocrats!
I would like to see something like this happen but Dems, particularly Senate Dems, don’t ever seem to want to play hardball.
This would have the optics of blocking Isreali aid even though it's about the Iranian money. It may be ill-advised especially if Dems have to comment on the stance. Whatever one person does that would be as frowned on by their party as Tommy Tuberville largely is and for good reason - it's bad politics and will effectively paint the party as radical.
I agree with playing hardball, but we should pick battles that are more easily fought imo.
. . . and less easily spun in the wrong direction. I tend to agree.
The Republican/right-wing reaction to the Hamas attack--absurd accusations that Democrats are soft on terrorism, if not outright allies of terrorist groups--puts me in mind of nothing more than how those same people and their forebears were acting in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the run-up to the Iraq war. You know, before they decided that they were actually scourges of the “globalist RINOs” who advocated policies like that.
I’m not *extremely* worried (yet) that they’re going to get us into a war with Iran, because I don’t think even Netanyahu’s government is going to attack Iran.
But I am concerned that the resurgence of radical Islamic terrorism as a political issue will create an atmosphere of generalized fear in which Democratic candidates have traditionally had a difficult time operating. (In retrospect, the 2015 Paris bombing, the 2015 San Bernardino attack and the 2016 Pulse bombing were probably factors in Trump’s winning in 2016).
We seem to always be in a defensive crouch on this particular issue set. The strategy so many on our side adopted in 2001-2004 was to essentially be imitation Republicans on national security issues, and that was a catastrophic failure on multiple levels. That said, I do think that the atavistic rage Republicans promote in moments like this seems to drown out calls for intelligent decision-making in national security matters, and I don’t think we’ve come up with a good way to counter it. Are there specific things you think Democrats should start doing differently on this front?
It's a tough question, but I go back to what I wrote in my scattered thoughts on Israel, Gaza, Hamas, etc: Extremists exist in a kind of symbiosis, and if this escalates to much worse places, it'll be at the behest of extremists here, in Israel, and in the territories. So if you want to stop it, you might start by identifying that dynamic and condemning American leaders who are part of that kind of perverse alliance.
I'm answering questions from and catting with subscribers in the comments here, if you've got anything you want to ask...
✌️
How likely do you think the following scenarios are:
1. Republicans make some concessions and get support from Democrats in the House to elect a Republican Speaker.
2. Some Republicans vote with Democrats to elect Jeffries as Speaker.
I think 2 is as close to 0% as you could get, but perhaps there is some small percentage likelihood that 1 happens? Or are we just doomed to Republicans either never having the votes to elect a Speaker or electing a Speaker, soon growing tired of them, and then deposing and electing a new one forever into the future?
1. Not terribly likely, but gets likelier every day. For instance, today it got a lot likelier, even though it's still hard to imagine.
2. Very, very unlikely. If there's a power-sharing arrangement, it'll most likely be under a fairly conservative Republican; possibly under a Problem Solvers style "moderate," followed distantly by a not-particularly-partisan Democrat. It's really hard for me to imagine any Republicans voting for Jeffries or any other Democratic leader. Though it would be fun to see!
What benefits for Democrats could you see in a power-sharing agreement, should it come to that?
Jeffries laid this out explicitly, though somewhat vaguely, and his request was pretty modest. He wants a rule change that would "promote governance by consensus and facilitate up-or-down votes on bills that have strong bipartisan support." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/06/hakeem-jeffries-bipartisan-coalition-house-gop/
I read that to mean he wants to end Freedom Caucus tyranny on the rules committee and then force floor votes on bipartisan bills (which I imagine would include abortion rights, the PRO Act, etc.)
In a weird way, I think crossover Republicans might rather live under a Dem speaker than have to be the speaker themselves.
I think there are several Republicans who would rather live under those circumstances but none of them want to be the ones to end their careers by giving the Democrats that power.
Something for another time, perhaps, but I wonder if there is anything that still gives you hope about politics these days? A lot of the thoughtful conversations already on here seem - at least to me - to reflect little hope of people still being able to affect fundamental change for the better.
This may be just the vibes talking, but I see a lot of political energy expended these days on simply trying to prevent things from getting worse, instead of getting on with the business of making life better for most people. So, what brightens your thoughts when thinking of what's to come?
"Whatever is new here, the region’s leaders seem intent on drawing things into a familiar pattern: atrocity begetting indiscriminate backlash begetting yet more blowback"
If anything was predictable after Saturday's Hamas massacre foray, it is the disproportionate Israeli "collective punishment" response against the Gaza civilian population. Immediately after the weekend's horrors were broadcast, world "leaders" jumped on the Israeli retaliation train, promising weaponry and unconditional support to "right the wrongs" of Hamas terrorism. And now, after days of total war directed toward Gaza, we see some signs of cautionary statements about "possible" war crimes, and reports of hospitals, schools, and shelters being obliterated. Encouraging blood-lust and ethnic hatred is sparing no one within Gaza...women and children die as did those subjected to the Hamas raid into southern Israeli towns, as the taking of revenge knows no bounds. "Human animals" is how Israel's defense minister put it, framing the response as justifiable mass slaughter.
And so it goes, the never-ending cycle of violence, as though one last, massive spare-no-one military campaign will resolve 75 years of struggle, a force-majeure putting paid to any peace agreement now pushed into the indefinite future. The only upside possible is the end of this far-right government and Netanyahu's career, as he must be seen as the principal architect of an incompetent and provocative regime which provided the opportunity for Hamas to strike. One can only hope.
Every mass shooting we go through the same motions. Conservatives say “thoughts and prayers” and liberals roll their eyes and start talking about the underlying political issue (guns) and conservatives cry foul that we aren’t properly observing the “thoughts and prayers” routine before going to the underlying political issue (again, guns).
Why is that different in this case with the violence in Israel/Gaza? Is it really THAT IMPORTANT that we sufficiently do the “condemning the violence/condemning Hamas” motions before we discuss the underlying issue (the nearly two-decade long occupation of Gaza, the broader settler-colonial project in the West Bank, apartheid) in this case?
Those who want to DO SOMETHING on guns skip the “thoughts and prayers” dance even when it involves schoolchildren being gunned down, and those who want to DO SOMETHING on Palestine are *also* skipping the “thoughts and prayers, I condemn Hamas, I condemn violence against civilians, I condemn violence against children” but seem to be receiving more blowback from the commentariat than I would expect.
I don't think the analogy holds up very well. With respect to guns, we have one party that fanatically opposes and blocks any meaningful firearms regulation. That situation simply doesn't exist with respect to Israel. Support remains bipartisan. It isn't really even clear to me who'd lead the charge to "pivot" from the massacre to any underlying issues. Anyone who tried would be widely condemned. On top of that, thoughts and prayers are totally appropriate in this situation, as they are after mass shootings. What isn't ok is the bad faith use of thoughts and prayers to derail political solutions. But none of that is happening now. Republicans are trying to smear Democrats, and Democrats are largely divided between unquestioning support of Israel and expressing support for Israel but encouraging restraint.
How likely are we to see any more judicial confirmations at this point? Maybe just a few uncontroversial district court nominees confirmed?
I have not followed the in's & out's of membership on the Senate Judiciary committee upon Feinstein's passing away, but I figure you know and have thoughts.
I am hopeful this will actually go pretty smoothly. Little as I trust Republicans, they've given no indication that they'll block a replacement for Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee (that theory was floated by Democrats and party loyalists looking to muffle criticism of Feinstein for not retiring) and so the confirmation machine should be back in order soon. If not, we'll cover it here!
Interesting. Fingers crossed you're correct, but I predict you'll be covering it here because Mitch or some other jackass like Hawley / Schmitt or JD Vance will invent some bad faith excuse / historical "example" and shut it all down and refuse to seat a new committee member. We're pretty close to the 2024 election year anyway, and that sufficed for Mitch before (on a smaller scale, though applied to a higher value position).
I've seen some recent chatter renewing the old argument "Is it better to avoid covering Trump or cover him as much as possible so everyone gets to see the crazy?"
Any thoughts on this? I think your last video made clear that it is the wrong question. Lots of sanitized coverage of Trump that fails to show the crazy seems like all our media is capable of, and that seems like the worst possible option.
I think journalists need to apply a little critical thinking to all of the Trump outrages, and devote resources to the ones that are genuinely important (the Milley death threat, the brandishing of state secrets) and tune out the ones that just amount to attention seeking and partisan abuse (e.g. Joe Biden looks terrible with his shirt off at the beach). Distinguishing between the two is not very hard, even if there are some edge cases.
Team Biden should ask for a shirtless debate.
Yes, we see that, but let's say some criminal stands outside the courthouse and ejaculates: "Radical, deranged, fascist, racist prosecutor and extreme, democrat, so-called judge". Does that hypothetical dipshit think or know that that will have a beneficial effect for him other than to make his mini-legion of imbecile followers shovel money at him?
House republicans wanted to shut down the government. Now we know they have.
What's your take on the deficit?
Depending on how you measure it, I read that this year's deficit it 1.7 trillion (in a booming-ish economy). Because of rising interest rates our debt payments this year have ballooned to ~$800 billion and seem like to go higher as both interest rates and the total debt continue to climb.
This seems like this could be getting out of hand and I don't have much optimism for congress to address it with some combination of tax increases or spending cuts. Seems like we'll take the default option of "pretend nothing is happening until the wheels fall off".
I still don't worry about it too much, even though objectively deficits are more of a problem now than they were in the Bush/Obama/Trump administrations. This isn't a situation, as I understand it, where the bottom's going to fall out all at once. Either tax receipts will pick up and spending will fall through growth/employment/prosperity, or pressure will rise on the government to adopt contractionary policy. The normative quality of those policies (are they taxes on the rich? cuts to programs for the poor?) will depend on who controls the government when that happens. Good argument for keeping Republicans locked out of power.
Hi Brian,
We hear constant references to "The Court of Public Opinion" and we see and hear prominent officials, one in-particular, acting with apparent conviction that TCPO does have an important effect.
Whatwhyhow is it that all of us powerless numbskulls are expected to passively control the course of political and even judicial events?
Why Gary it's simple! If you want something good to happen, you just have to convince at least 60 percent of the country that it's good, and Democrats will feel liberated to act (unless of course an extreme 10 percent of the country opposes the good thing, and gets every Republican in Congress lined up against it, in which case even then it won't happen).