See you in New Orleans!

:-)

goode trickle [11] -

Yeah, I saw that too. Had to save it for FTP ... too funny!

"To be blunt... Dave's not here, man."

Heh.

Balthasar [13] -

Yeah, those of us who grew up in Maryland remember the name D'Alesandro (Pelosi's maiden name)...

:-)

-CW

Way to stay singularly focused on a cure-all that is little more than a band-aid for a sucking chest wound!

Now that's a vivid picture and spoken like a man who's seen many a sucking chest wound.

I agree completely, but as you noted, that sort of pragmatism can get you into hot water in some quarters.

And it should be noted that new presidents almost always encounter harsh criticism from their flanks for making their first deal with the other side (though this one comes later than usual). It's almost ritual at this point, as both sides of the aisle include plenty of those who would rather sacrifice their entire agenda than cut a deal with 'the enemy', and aren't shy about expressing their disappointment to the press.

Still, I was struck, after hearing descriptions of this meeting, by the advantage that Chuck, native New Yorker, and Nancy, daughter of an Italian American pol from Baltimore, have relative to their midwestern and southern counterparts when negotiating with Trump. Schumer's spent his whole political career dealing with contractors from Queens, and has a personal and social history with Trump that goes back decades. Likewise, Pelosi knows how to speak with an East Coast directness that's simply foreign to Paul & Mitch, both of whom come from political cultures that are in many ways vastly different. This cultural difference was best expressed by Tony "the Mooch" Scaramucci, a fellow New Yorker, during his abbreviated stint at the White House: "One of the things I can't stand about this town is the back-stabbing," complained the Mooch. "Where I grew up, we’re front-stabbers."

"I might be impressed a little if Trump cut a deal on a real issue with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, but Trump cutting a minor deal with Pelosi and Schumer is nothing to celebrate."

That's all well and good, but the reality of the matter is that Pelosi and Schumer are the official leaders of the Democratic party in their respective chambers, chosen by their membership, while Warren is not and Sanders is not even a Democrat. In fact, he doesn't even caucus with them.

Also, both Pelosi and Schumer have a proven track record of being very savvy political leaders, with an uncanny shared ability to keep their members in line with a strong sense of party discipline, translating into bloc votes that delivers on their party agenda, something that is sorely lacking among their Republican counterparts. If this were a parliamentary system, they and the Democrats would be held up as an example of how to do things correctly in that regard.

"And it gives people like CW something to write about as an excuse to avoid addressing the issues he should be writing about- fixing the electoral process and getting the Big Money out of our political system."

Obviously this is very important and needs to be addressed. But I think it is an entirely separate issue that is really above purely partisan political issues, since it really applies to both Democrats and Republicans equally, and can't be effectively addressed in a partisan political way anyway.

I am also not sure how you are going to fix the electoral process unless you address the underlying causes that has resulted in the hyper partisanship that has developed among both Democrats and Republicans alike. When Republicans fear being attacked from the right in a primary and being called a RINO, and Democrats fear the same from the left, and when Republicans equate compromise with being a traitor, and Democrats now wanting to obstruct everything Republicans do, then obviously it goes a lot deeper than Trump simply cutting a deal with Pelosi and Schumer.

I also don't think you are going to make any really meaningful headway about reversing Big Money's influence in politics unless you can change the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision's impact, which very well might require a constitutional amendment.

That again, is something that is a much different issue from whether the Democratic party's leadership, who may or may not be currently accepting political donations from either large or small contributors, is making any progress on getting their agenda adopted in the long term, based on how effective and wise their short term strategic tactics may be.

From Orin Hatch today.
“It’s high time to address research into medical marijuana,” Hatch said. “Our country has experimented with a variety of state solutions without properly delving into the weeds on the effectiveness, safety, dosing, administration, and quality of medical marijuana. All the while, the federal government strains to enforce regulations that sometimes do more harm than good. To be blunt, we need to remove the administrative barriers preventing legitimate research into medical marijuana, which is why I’ve decided to roll out the MEDS Act.”

Someone in the Hatch office has some humor.

You put down an accomplishment by the Democratic leadership as being a bad thing as it gives "the Big Money Democratic Party establishment something to keep their base in line."

You can repeat your mantra until the cows come home, but no one is jumping on board for a reason: while your idea looks great on the surface, you can't show how it will produce better candidates or how it will get anyone elected.

As of this AM it looks to me like Trump's abrubt deal was driven by short term Hurricane optics. Today he's busy subverting the Senate Investigation and FBI probe. At this point, Trump's thinking is driven almost entirely by serving out his term, or failing that, arranging an exit that doesn't involve jail. Making nice to Democrats on the budget should be evaluated against his primal fear. I think the special prosecutor fully understands this. So does the Democratic leadership.

I would have advaced a Ghost Shirt analogy, but relying on a Ghost Shirt is a good way to get a sucking chest wound that can't be treated with a band aid.

Smart leaders know when to give ground to gain strategic advantage. He who defends everything defends nothing. I think Frederick The Great said thay...or something close.

All this deal and any future deals will do is give the Big Money Democratic Party establishment something to keep their base in line, which is what Trump wants because he wants to run against the Big Money Democratic establishment in 2020.

So you would rather horrible things occur under the leadership of Big Money Democrats because the first thing people who are caused to suffer will think about is how they really wish the people in power only accepted campaign donations that are under $25, is that it???

Way to stay singularly focused on a cure-all that is little more than a band-aid for a sucking chest wound!

The DACA one should be fairly easy once the six month deadline is looming and all the press are going to be calling 45 "The Grinch". The Democrats don't need to involve the Wall because they can claim that the Republicans have the numbers to do that separately if they really want it.

Tying $15/hour to any tax bill (more revenue from higher wages and lower spending on food stamps) and calling it "more for the little guy as well as their bosses" should put the Republicans in a bind and also might appeal to 45's populist tendencies.

Should be a fun Fall.