ChrisWeigant.com

Leader Time

[ Posted Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 – 17:39 PST ]

As I write this, Nancy Pelosi has been speaking for something like seven straight hours on the floor of the House of Representatives. Historians are scurrying to comb through the House archives, and some are already calling it the longest such speech ever delivered on the House floor. It's not technically a filibuster (which only happen in the Senate), instead Pelosi is exploiting a parliamentary loophole known as "leader time" -- which allows party leaders to speak uninterrupted. Minority Leader Pelosi has been doing so since 10:00 in the morning, Eastern time, and so far shows no signs of stepping down.

This is, obviously, a new political tactic. The reason why it matters is that we're smack up against another budget deadline, meaning if a bill doesn't pass the government will soon shut down. Absent that kind of pressure, it's doubtful whether the media would have paid much attention to Pelosi's stunt. Adding to the pressure is the fact that the Senate seems to have hammered out a sweeping budget deal for the next two years, which even includes raising the debt ceiling until after this November's elections. Even if this bill passes the Senate, it still has to make it through the House, which is impossible until Pelosi sits down and yields the floor. So, in practical terms, Pelosi's speech is working exactly like a Senate filibuster.

Pelosi, of course, has a reason for launching her marathon speech. She wants a firm commitment from Speaker Paul Ryan to bring up an immigration bill that fixes DACA. This is a very important demand, since up until now all Democrats have is Mitch McConnell's promise that he'll allow an immigration bill to be fully debated over in the Senate. This is what the government shutdown last month accomplished. But Ryan never agreed to the same thing. Which is what spurred Pelosi to act.

She is right to call attention to this, because the House is notorious for doing nothing on immigration. The Senate passed a bipartisan and comprehensive immigration bill a few years back, but the House never even brought it up for a vote, which killed the effort. Ryan could very easily do the same thing, especially considering how vocal the anti-immigration GOP hardliners are in his caucus.

Ryan's already facing a tough week. The Senate budget bill already isn't all that popular among the Republican rank and file in the House. Which means Ryan might just be forced to break the self-imposed "Child Molester Rule" (our own new name for what used to be called the "Hastert Rule"). Under the Child Molester Rule, Republican speakers only bring bills to the House floor that have a "majority of the majority" supporting them. Thus if most Republicans are against a bill, it doesn't get a vote, even if it could easily pass with Democratic support. Ryan may just have to break the Child Molester Rule to vote on the Senate budget deal, so it's pretty easy to see why he'd be reluctant to bring an immigration bill to the floor immediately afterwards that also fell short of the Child Molester Rule. He might even be worried about his speakership being challenged from within his own caucus, and he might be right to worry.

Ryan is trying to weasel out of the situation, but so far Pelosi shows no signs of accepting his offer. Ryan's office put out a statement that says he'd be happy to bring an immigration bill up for a vote, but only one "that the president supports." This passes the buck in a rather large way, because President Trump is almost sure to rant and rave about whatever 60 senators can agree to. So if Trump badmouths the Senate bill, Ryan is off the hook and won't even bring it up for a vote. That, obviously, is not good enough for Pelosi. Nor should it be.

No matter what Trump says now or in the near future, the chances are that he'll sign whatever Congress puts in front of him on immigration. Especially if the talking heads on cable television were presenting it as "something George W. Bush and Barack Obama couldn't manage to get done." That'd be pretty hard for Trump to resist, although with Trump anything's certainly possible.

Nancy Pelosi is under pressures of her own, because the House Democratic caucus is not at all happy about the outcome of the previous government shutdown. There is a major contingent of Democrats who feel that their leadership gave up too easily and threw away their biggest bargaining card to force a deal to protect the Dreamers. Pelosi's speech seems like a good way to please her caucus, because while it is not explicitly going to cause a government shutdown, it could indeed run the clock out so there is no time to vote on the Senate's budget bill. In other words, the end result would be the same. And since Trump himself was widely quoted yesterday as actually welcoming a government shutdown, this carries less political risk than usual.

Pelosi's stunt is eminently reasonable in its key demand -- that Ryan commit to a floor debate and a vote on an immigration bill. She's not asking Ryan to support any one specific piece of legislation, she's merely asking him to commit to the process. After all, McConnell has already done so, meaning Ryan looks increasingly unreasonable for not agreeing to the same thing. Neither of these promises would be written in stone -- they are purely political (not legal) commitments. Breaking them would only cause political harm for McConnell or Ryan, they would not mean the government shuts down or anything.

Which is why Pelosi's record-setting speech is such a brilliant tactic. She is -- quite literally -- standing up for the Dreamers (in, as the media reported with somewhat sexist overtones, four-inch heels). She is making a reasonable demand for a mere promise to hold a debate and a vote; she is not demanding one particular piece of legislation pass before she'll support a budget bill. All she is threatening is withholding Democratic support for any budget that comes to the floor before Ryan makes a promise to move on immigration. And for those Republicans who complain that this could lead to a government shutdown, all Pelosi has to do is point to the president's own remarks, since he seems to now eagerly want one.

If the budget bill passes, then it might mean that we won't be having big budget battles in Congress for a long time to come -- two full years, in fact. This means the leverage of passing the budget will not be available, politically, for that whole time. This is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you feel about the tactic. Either way, though, this might be the last train leaving the budget station for quite awhile. Especially since raising the debt ceiling appears to be part of the deal.

Which is exactly why Pelosi is acting now. What she's asking for is merely an intangible promise from Paul Ryan to do exactly what Mitch McConnell has already committed to doing -- start debate on a bill to fix the DACA problem. By doing so, Ryan might have to accept that such a bill would not fulfill the Child Molester Rule, but then he may have to do that on the budget bill anyway (depending on the strength of opposition to the Senate deal among Tea Partiers and other House Republicans). To put it as succinctly as possible, Pelosi using her "leader time" in such an unprecedented fashion is showing some real leadership, and exposing Ryan's lack thereof. Pelosi standing up for the Dreamers is a historic event, whether it ultimately succeeds or fails.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

93 Comments on “Leader Time”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    I agree with you - Nancy Pelosi is doing what she can. In the end the horrible reality is that the Repubs have control and if they decide to, they can fuck the Dreamers over, period. They may well do that - just one more disgusting thing. After all, Dreamers probably won't vote GOP so naturally condemning them to exile makes the white-supremacist republicans happy - a twofer, really. Barbaric behavior that makes it just that little bit harder to take them down - what's not to like? They've been well-trained by their Russian pals, who know a thing or two about dictatorships.

    However, the majority of the public doesn't favor this so we'll see. They booted the batterer out of the WH, so it appears there are elements in this administration that pay some attention to the public and to decent standards of behavior.

    The child-molester-rule is a good one!

  2. [2] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Typical woman, that Nancy - she gabbed for 8 hrs and never said anything worth hearing.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    And the troll is trying to rile up a response.

    Ignore.

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    [3]neilm: Yes, Stuck-being-pals-with-Spiggie-i has made a couple of trollish statements recently. I guess he's another Trumper - for awhile he hid it better.

  5. [5] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Looks like the FTP Most Impressive:Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week will be easy to choose. Pelosi and the mayor of Nashville Megan Barry, respectively.

    Historians scurrying to comb through House archives? "Out of my way, I'm a famous historian!" Maybe the untenured ones scurry, but established historians know how to pace themselves...they mostly saunter or mosey through the stacks...or just send a grad student in.

  6. [6] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Dang, some guys just like to take all the fun out of this game. PPKJWB

    (In case you have trouble with my acronyms, like I do with you guys', that's 'PartyPooperKillJoyWetBlanket').

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: To put it as succinctly as possible, Pelosi using her "leader time" in such an unprecedented fashion is showing some real leadership, and exposing Ryan's lack thereof. Pelosi standing up for the Dreamers is a historic event, whether it ultimately succeeds or fails.

    I suspect Paul Ryan would prefer to stand up... if only he could find his spine.

    https://twitter.com/StopTheSpeaker/status/825391745512898560

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Typical woman, that Nancy - she gabbed for 8 hrs and never said anything worth hearing.

    hehehehehehehehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny!!! :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once has to wonder what drugs Pelosi was pumped up with to allow her to overcome her Alzheimer's and dementia...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the troll is trying to rile up a response.

    Ignore.

    And yet, YOU can't ignore CRS...

    Funny how that is.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi's problem is that her and her Dumbocrat Party simply have ZERO credibility..

    (1) Their undisguised faith that Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to steal the 2016 election. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think this happened or that it has or will come anywhere close to being proven.

    (2) The Republican tax bill was a “scam” that was going to take money away from those with modest incomes. A look at the tax rate schedules in the Republicans’ bill should have told Democrats that this argument wasn’t sustainable, and perhaps they made it in the hope—which didn’t seem too far-fetched at the time—that enough Republicans would waver, the bill would never pass and their characterization, with predictable help from the mainstream media, would stick. But the bill passed, modest and low-income people are getting raises and bonuses, and just about everyone will get a bigger paycheck later this month.

    (3) Their claims that the Republicans were responsible for shutting the government down last month over DACA. Democrats knew that DACA was widely popular, but overestimated its importance to voters. It turns out they didn’t want the government shut down to help even deserving illegal immigrants. It’s hard for the party of more government to lose an argument over who caused a government shutdown, but they managed to do it.

    (4) Their arguments that release of the Nunes memo would endanger national security, when it was obvious to anyone who read the memo that it wouldn’t. And then there's their ludicrous supporting argument that you should never harm the image of the FBI. Democrats have long been willing to criticize the FBI and other law enforcement agencies when they think it will help them politically, or when they think there has genuine abuse; the first is understandable and the second often commendable. How is this different?

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the troll is trying to rile up a response.

    And you simply cannot have any sort of reasonable or rational discussions so you have to resort to immature name-calling and childish personal attacks..

    Grow up or shut up... :^/

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    MAGA vs. DACA: How Trump Supporters Trumped Bleeding Heart Liberals on Late Night TV
    https://townhall.com/columnists/arthurschaper/2018/02/05/draft-n2444355

    That's the problem with ya'all..

    You think that American support for illegal immigrant criminals is much more than it is...

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    American support for all criminals is low, and that's actually a good thing because Benedict Donald and his ilk and sycophant supporters who've committed many crimes... with searchable mugshots, police reports, and court documents to prove it... actually have zero moral authority to lecture anyone else about crime.

    I believe yet another of the "best people" that Trump chose to serve the American people is leaving the White House soon because he too committed a crime. This was of course discovered during his security clearance and has been known for many months by multiple people in the White House, but the criminal was granted a temporary security clearance (not unlike Kushner).

    The list of people who've left the administration because they committed a crime grows ever longer... and more to come. :)

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One has to wonder what drugs Pelosi was pumped up with to allow her to overcome her Alzheimer's and dementia...

    Actually, no. One does not have to wonder about that. I am dealing with those issues 24/7 and Nancy Pelosi is not.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, no. One does not have to wonder about that. I am dealing with those issues 24/7 and Nancy Pelosi is not.

    My heartfelt compassion for you dealing with those issues...

    But the facts CLEARLY show that Pelosi is also dealing with those issues personally...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump....

    Jobless claims drop 9,000 to 221,000, remain near 45-year low
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobless-claims-drop-9000-to-221000-remain-near-45-year-low-2018-02-08

    Making America GREAT Again...

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You have no ideal what those issues are, Michale. And, I hope you never do.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have no ideal what those issues are, Michale.

    Perhaps..

    On the other hand, ya'all, either by commission or omission, hysterically screamed **DEMENTIA!!!** when President Trump slurred a single sentence in a single speech..

    Pelosi has a track record of slurring words, staring off into space, forgetting what she was saying and forgetting who is President, etc etc etc...

    All classic signs of dementia.....

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well 45 and his minions have tried a few hail marys to nullify Mueller.

    Remember the Uranium One "real Russian scandal" that was laughed out of the park?

    They tried to convince everybody that (Republican) Comey and (Republican) Mueller were bias.

    We've had the Nunes memo which turned out to be so stupid even Nunes won't take questions about it.

    So, how many more of these hail marys is 45's clown show going to throw before he just fires Mueller and damn the consequences?

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well 45 and his minions have tried a few hail marys to nullify Mueller.

    Remember the Uranium One "real Russian scandal" that was laughed out of the park?

    They tried to convince everybody that (Republican) Comey and (Republican) Mueller were bias.

    We've had the Nunes memo which turned out to be so stupid even Nunes won't take questions about it.

    So, how many more of these hail marys is 45's clown show going to throw before he just fires Mueller and damn the consequences?

    Ignoring for the moment that it's completely OFF TOPIC....

    That's a remarkable amount of spin and bullshit in a single comment, Neil..

    I hope you didn't hurt yerself..

    Just looking out for ya, buddy.. :D

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Jobless claims drop 9,000 to 221,000, remain near 45-year low

    Obama's economy is still running strong on Main St. even while we see the first signs of concern from Wall St. ... 45 hasn't managed to screw Main St. up yet, even though Wall St. is starting to get jittery as the bond market (the one market that rules them all) starts to respond to the irresponsible actions of the Republicans.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, the STOCK MARKET IS IMPLODING!!! shiny thing didn't work our for ya, so yer going back to the old tried and true, TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!!.... :D

    Yea.. 2018 is going to be GREAT for the Dumbocrats... :D

    {/sarcasm}

    :D

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    Watch the 10 year treasury rate. It is the long lead indicator that my smart friends use to judge the confidence in the economy.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's economy is still running strong on Main St.

    Whatever you have to tell yerself to make it thru your Trump-centric existence.. :D

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale is getting scared again. The tell is that he tries to convince himself with hysterical denials and the number of all-caps bold with exclamation points goes up.

    Don't worry Michale, 45 will keep disappointing you for a few more years.

    Now he is attacking law enforcement, you know, the only thing you said you cared about when asked why you preferred 45 over the rest of the field, there can't be much consolation while you hear the rest of the World and most of America laugh at you and your orange king.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now he is attacking law enforcement,

    Do you have FACTS to support the accusation??

    Nope.. Not a single one.

    That's your tell when you get scared and defensive..

    You out and out lie...

    :D

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula [4]

    Yeah, I MUST be "a Trumper", as you put it. I've said from day-1, his single virtue is, he ain't Hillary!!

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, I MUST be "a Trumper", as you put it. I've said from day-1, his single virtue is, he ain't Hillary!!

    hehehehehehehe

    And what a *HUGE* virtue it is.. :D

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you have FACTS to support the accusation??

    You mean the change in support from Republicans for the FBI?

    Easy.

    https://www.axios.com/gop-turns-on-fbi-survey-78c4f486-8755-4c9e-be99-a1567bd3a625.html

    The Republican support for the FBI has not only dropped below that of the Democrats, but it is net negative because the orange king's subjects are on a hate-along.

    Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of our top law enforcement agency Michale? Are you standing up for law enforcement when they really need it, or are you just a political fanboy who follows the needs of your orange king?

    Can't be fun. How do you rationalize your way out of this one? You tried to claim that the FBI were all lawyers and not cops, but that sort of fell through because of reality.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, I MUST be "a Trumper", as you put it. I've said from day-1, his single virtue is, he ain't Hillary!!

    On the other hand, a garden slug would be a better POTUS than Hillary..

    So I guess that really isn't a huge virtue...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Republican support for the FBI has not only dropped below that of the Democrats, but it is net negative because the orange king's subjects are on a hate-along.

    That is nothing but spin...

    The Republican support for the FBI is strong.. It's the Republican support for FBI Leadership that has dropped..

    The FBI leadership that has proven it was in the tank for the Dumbocrats...

    So, once again, you lie..

    Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of our top law enforcement agency Michale? Are you standing up for law enforcement when they really need it, or are you just a political fanboy who follows the needs of your orange king?

    Only an ignorant moron or a stoopid partisan would equate FBI political leadership with "law enforcement"..

    Which are you, Neil?? :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am guessing you're the type of stoopid partisan who would support Hoover's FBI if it pushed the racist Democrat Party Agenda..

    Oh wait.. The FBI *DID* push the racist Democrat Party agenda..

    No wonder you support the FBI....

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yup, Michale - when you can't face reality, you create your own.

    They weren't asked about the FBI leadership - they were asked about he FBI. And Republicans are getting a nightly "minute of hate" on the FBI on their state news channel, and it is working.

    You see, you demand unconditional support for bad cops who shoot unarmed Americans, but then turn around and vomit on cops who are investigating you.

    You have lost all credibility as our resident "law enforcement expert" (even though you didn't have any after blindly supporting bad cops even when it meant tainting good cops).

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    But that's just a guess.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yup, Michale - when you can't face reality, you create your own.

    Says the guy who is creating his own reality that the discussion is about anything but corrupt FBI personnel..

    Aren't you the one that's always raging about corrupt cops??

    NOW that it suits your hysterical anti-Trump agenda, NOW you want people to SUPPORT the corrupt cops..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The so-called GOP-FBI split is a Democratic fantasy

    Republicans exposing the malfeasance of Hillary Clinton supporters at the top of the FBI’s ranks has hit a nerve. Democrats are afraid it could not only diminish their hopes that the Russia investigation will bring down President Trump but also perhaps flip the investigation into questions of senior FBI leaders manipulating the legal process to pursue Trump and help Clinton. As historian Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote in National Review, “the greatest irony of all” would be “a special counsel investigating what likely did not happen while ignoring what likely did — perhaps the greatest political scandal of the modern age.”

    To me, it looks like former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, former FBI counterespionage section chief Peter Strzok, former associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr and perhaps others were anticipating a Clinton presidency. But they guessed wrong, and they got caught trying to impress Team Clinton. I’ve been in the swamp for more than 30 years. I know selfish career maneuvering when I see it.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/06/the-so-called-gop-fbi-split-is-a-democratic-fantasy/?utm_term=.821235f98e35

    That's all you got, Neil...

    Spin and bullshit.. :D

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Michale, since you hate the FBI leadership, can you tell me exactly what in the career history of David Bowdich you think makes him corrupt?

    Career prior to the FBI

    Before joining the FBI, Bowdich attended New Mexico State and Georgetown Universities, where he received a bachelor's of science degree in criminal justice and a master’s in leadership, respectively.

    Bowdich then worked as a police officer and detective in Albuquerque, N.M., for the city's police force. Bowdich's father, Joe, was a sheriff in Bernalillo County.

    His career with the FBI

    Bowdich joined the FBI in 1995 as a special agent in the San Diego field office, according to the FBI's website. In that role, he investigated violent crimes and gangs. He also worked as a SWAT team operator and sniper.

    It was during this time that Bowdich had one of his first significant successes as a FBI agent: After he led a yearlong wiretapping investigation, federal racketeering convictions were brought against gang members in Southern California for the first time.

    In 2003, Bowdich was promoted and served in the Safe Streets and Gang Unit at the FBI headquarters in Washington. But he returned to San Diego two years later to lead a task force that investigated drug and racketeering cases against some of the nation’s most infamous gangs, such as the Bloods, Crips and Hells Angels, the Washington Post reported.

    A few years later, in 2009, he oversaw non-white-collar crime investigations in San Diego. At that time, he created the first FBI squad to help spot kidnapping threats on either side of the U.S-Mexico border.

    Bowdich next served as special agent in charge of the counterterrorism division at the Los Angeles field office before he became the assistant director in charge of the same office in 2014.

    After the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015, Bowdich gained national attention when he led the FBI’s response to the attack. Before the shooting, Bowdich suspected that Southern California could be a potential target for a terror attack, according to an interview he gave to the Los Angeles Times.

    Before becoming acting deputy director, Bowdich was named the bureau's associate deputy director in 2016 -- managing the FBI’s personnel, budget, administration and more.

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    DEMENTIA DONALD

    * Melania really wanted to be with us. [She's standing right next to him].

    * Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it's true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it's four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us; this is horrible.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blT8mQHUUT4

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Michale, since you hate the FBI leadership, can you tell me exactly what in the career history of David Bowdich you think makes him corrupt?

    Are you REALLY that stoopid, Neil??

    Or are you, as you usually admit, just pushing buttons??

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    See what I mean??? :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Informant says Moscow paid millions in bid to influence Clinton

    An FBI informant involved in the controversial Uranium One deal has told congressional committees that Moscow paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in a bid to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by helping former President Bill Clinton’s charities during the Obama administration.

    The Hill first reported late Wednesday that informant Douglas Campbell gave a 10-page statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and was interviewed for several hours behind closed doors by committee staff.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/informant-says-moscow-paid-millions-in-bid-to-influence-clinton.html

    You HAVE to believe this informant, Neil..

    If you don't, that means you HATE all law enforcement..

    Do you see how utterly moronic you sound, Neil???

    I am betting you don't, which is all the more sad and pathetic...

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paul Ryan states they will bring a DACA solution to the House floor.

    Kudos to Nancy Pelosi. :)

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    But getting back to the subject at hand...

    The more we talk about the actual reality of U.S. immigration policy, the more we win.

    The Democrats’ immigration radicalism has handed Donald Trump a huge gift. The only question is whether he will smartly accept that gift by allowing them to walk away from the deal he has offered, rather than engage in pointless bargaining with a party that has no interest in strengthening America’s borders, focusing on higher-skilled immigrants, or even enforcing America’s existing immigration laws. Did I mention that further concessions to the Democrats on immigration will be electorally devastating, as they will drain all of the enthusiasm from Trump’s base? The president’s overly generous proposal on immigration, which provides an amnesty and pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal aliens who were brought to America as children in exchange for ending chain migration and the diversity visa lottery and beginning to fund a border wall, was greeted with predictable howls of indignation on the left.

    But while Nancy Pelosi and her media enablers may see Trump’s immigration framework as “an act of staggering cowardice which attempts to hold the Dreamers hostage to a hateful anti-immigrant scheme,” it is Pelosi and her Democratic brethren who are dangerously out of touch with American public opinion.

    While I personally favor a policy much tougher than the one espoused by the president, there is little doubt that Trump is correct when he notes that “the Republican position on immigration is the center mainstream view of the American people.”
    -NRO

    By all means, Democrats.. Continue to be on the side of illegal immigrant criminals..

    The House and the Senate will remain in GOP hands...

  45. [45] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [39]I've had some personal experience observing dementia (in a parent who lived to age 99, and did not recognize me or my two sisters for the last several years of her life.) Admittedly, that's a narrow exposure, but I don't see dementia in trump.

    I would offer my own diagnosis more along the lines of him being an excessively verbose, narcissistic, scatter-brained, self-centered, ass hole.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick [39]I've had some personal experience observing dementia (in a parent who lived to age 99, and did not recognize me or my two sisters for the last several years of her life.) Admittedly, that's a narrow exposure, but I don't see dementia in trump.

    Exactly....

    Curious as to your take on Pelosi's symptoms of dementia....

    I would offer my own diagnosis more along the lines of him being an excessively verbose, narcissistic, scatter-brained, self-centered, ass hole.

    NONE of which is impeachable...

  47. [47] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    I don't see dementia in Pellosi, just insanity (medical diagnosis, hyperliberalnuttyness).

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't see dementia in Pellosi, just insanity (medical diagnosis, hyperliberalnuttyness).

    There have been dozens of episodes of dementia-like symptoms...

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=VYt8WsnjH83uzgKs66C4Bw&q=%22Nancy+Pelosi%22+dementia+symptoms&oq=%22Nancy+Pelosi%22+dementia+symptoms&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1209.9334.0.9581.33.32.0.0.0.0.164.2323.31j1.32.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.24.1825.0..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i20i264k1j0i46k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1.0.45ywJCziyLk

    But it could be the hyperliberalnuttyness exacerbating the symptoms.. Troo.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/eagles-super-bowl-champ-schools-ex-trump-adviser-whining-not-visiting-white-house/

    USA Today noted that Long is joined by teammates Malcolm Jenkins and Torrey Smith, the latter of which told CNN that his decision to abstain from the traditional White House visit for Super Bowl winners goes beyond politics.

    “For me, it’s not just about politics,” Smith said. “This isn’t something that I personally feel inclined to be involved with…I respect the office, but often times we hold our athletes and entertainers to higher standards than we hold the President of the United States. To me it’s about doing the right thing, it’s not about choosing sides or anything, it’s simply about right and wrong.”

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    45

    I've had some personal experience observing dementia (in a parent who lived to age 99, and did not recognize me or my two sisters for the last several years of her life.) Admittedly, that's a narrow exposure, but I don't see dementia in trump.

    I've had some personal experience too, 500+ cases and counting more every day. There are multiple types of dementia that present multiple ways: Alzheimer's (the most common), Lewy Body dementia, Multi-Infarct/Post-Stroke dementia, PD - Parkinson's, Frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and more that are less common. If I were forced to "diagnose" Hair Furor based on the hundreds of cases I've seen, I'd have to go with FTD.

    I would offer my own diagnosis more along the lines of him being an excessively verbose, narcissistic, scatter-brained, self-centered, ass hole.

    Yep, yep, yep, yep, total.

    See there, we can agree on some things. :)

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    USA Today noted that Long is joined by teammates Malcolm Jenkins and Torrey Smith, the latter of which told CNN that his decision to abstain from the traditional White House visit for Super Bowl winners goes beyond politics.

    WOw..

    3 whole players (out of hundreds) aren't visiting the White House..

    Cop hating lusers who don't deserve the honor of visiting the White House..

    Good...

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Speaking of Hair Furor, anyone who didn't see the video of Trump's hair flapping in the wind... trying to fly to Mar-a-Lago by itself on Friday... has got to see this:

    https://youtu.be/yTiW4yOrWNQ?t=1m40s

    This is why Darth Vader had the good sense to wear a helmet. ~ Jimmy Kimmel

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:
  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    49

    Chris Long is Howie Long's son. He played college ball for the Virginia Cavaliers... Charlottesville. One of his home-town residents was murdered by a white supremacist recently.

    He's won back-to-back Super Bowl rings now because last year he played for New England. *bling, bling* He didn't go to the White House then either.

    Fun Fact: Charlottesville is named after Queen Charlotte, the wife of King George III who descended from a branch of a Portuguese royal family who traced their ancestry to a 13th-century ruler named Alfonso III and his lover Madragana, a Moor of African descent. Queen Charlotte's granddaughter, Queen Victoria, was of mixed race, as are her descendants Queen Elizabeth II, Charles Prince of Wales and his two sons William and Henry. Henry a.k.a. Harry will soon marry a mixed-race American actress.

    Ain't history fun?

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Can you watch the following video and tell us exactly why you state:

    The Republican support for the FBI is strong.. It's the Republican support for FBI Leadership that has dropped..

    The FBI leadership that has proven it was in the tank for the Dumbocrats...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cYrb_yFYeY

    Also, can you tell us why you feel the same way about David Bowdich?

    Let's face facts, you hate the fact that the FBI are investigating your orange idol because you are scared of the potential result.

    If you truly thought the orange king was completely innocent then you'd be cheering the FBI in their quest.

    Also, it wasn't only Pelosi that said the Nunes memo should not be released, but, yet again, the FBI.

    Who'd've believed that the person on the board who would be leading the trashing of the FBI would be old knee jerk "Law Enforcement Can Do No Wrong" Michale?

    You see what happens when you get into the sewer with 45 Michale - you come out covered in foul smelling detritus. Dump him before he drags you to worse places.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's face facts, you hate the fact that the FBI are investigating your orange idol because you are scared of the potential result.

    I would "face" facts, Neil..

    It's just you never *HAVE* any facts...

    All you have... All you EVER have is hysterical and bigoted spin....

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's just like your "fact" that President Trump colluded with the Russians after you read that LeCarre novel..

    Those are the kinds of "facts" you have...

  58. [58] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [54]

    Yeah, history can be "fun", but it can also be phony. I don't care enough to research it, but any king of England being descended from Portuguese ancestors sounds bogus to me. The English were basically of Germanic origin, right? Which explains why English is basically a 'dialect' of German, with a lot of French grafted onto it from the Normans.

  59. [59] 
    Paula wrote:

    [54] Kick: Yes, Chris Long was appalled by Charlottesville and Blotus' support of the nazis there. And yes, the history is interesting!

  60. [60] 
    Paula wrote:

    [15] Elizabeth: Do you mean you have a parent or spouse or the like with Alzheimers? Or do you work in the field? Or are you, yourself, a sufferer?

  61. [61] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Truth be known, EVERYBODY around this place, with the possible exception of Michale and me, suffers from some sort of dementia (likely the same one as Pellosi).

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Nothing new. This is not your first time to dispute facts regarding history. You disputed the fact that the colonists paid a bounty for scalps of Indians, but they did do that... even it doesn't fit your worldview or you never heard of it.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/10/17/nailing-scalps-to-the-newsroom-wall/#comment-109771

    As far as the ancestors of Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Duchy located in today's Northern Germany, believe what you wish... you will anyway, but the Royal Household itself referred to Queen Elizabeth II's Asian and African bloodlines in an apologia released before her coronation in 1953.

    Crack some books. ;)

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Truth be known, EVERYBODY around this place, with the possible exception of Michale and me, suffers from some sort of dementia (likely the same one as Pellosi).

    Trooo dat....

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Truth be known, EVERYBODY around this place, with the possible exception of Michale and me, suffers from some sort of dementia (likely the same one as Pellosi).

    Although CW has bouts of clarity now and again.. :D

    Heh

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    The trolls unite [61, 63, 64].

    Sad really.

  66. [66] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    C.R.S [54]

    Very few post-Conquest kings of England married Englishwomen. Most Queen Consorts were European royalty and European royalty intermarried right across the continent. (Foreign-born queens often being a focus of hostility and suspicion.) Catherine of Braganza, the wife of Charles II, was Portuguese, for example, although they had no living children.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    The trolls unite [61, 63, 64].

    And Neil doesn't have anything but childish name-calling..

    Yer very disappointing, Neil...

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Amusing and clever:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U

    I'm sure the NRA approves this message, I mean it uses their own words.

  69. [69] 
    dsws wrote:

    CW wrote:
    It appears that the marketed answer is that we should only have highly educated, skilled folks immigrate. Why?

    The world is viewed as a Hobbesian contest among nations. If we take their best people, we weaken them and strengthen ourselves. Besides, we've got a melting pot here, and whatever melts becomes part of us. So we don't want any wretched refuse defiling it.

    But beyond the traditional "nuclear family," at some point one has to draw a line.

    Why? Nations are bogus. They're fiction. Americans aren't tied together by some mystical bond of blood, requiring a suitably weighty blood ritual if ever its circle is to be widened. We're just subject to the jurisdiction of the same government. That's it.

    You don't need a bureaucratic hazing ceremony to move from Michigan to Massachusetts. Why should you need one if you're only moving from El Paso to Juarez?

    Why should high-skills immigrants be prioritized over low-skills immigrants?

    Simple: we live in a system with a heavy dose of plutocracy, so driving wages down (and dividends / interest / capital gains up by comparison, even if there's an absolute loss of efficiency) is always on the to-do list. If someone is already getting paid less than it really costs in the long term to keep body and soul together, then there's not a whole lot of room to drive their wages down any further.

    If Republicans had a magic wand they could wave to eliminate all illegal immigrant workers tomorrow, would they really use it?

    Sure, why not? There's plenty more where they came from. Removing a few million undesirables from the world is always good fun, if you live in a particular worldview. At least it's something that a lot of very fine people can be counted on to support.

  70. [70] 
    dsws wrote:

    Hey, where'd my italics go? In case it isn't obvious any more, the first bit of quoted text goes from "It appears" to "Why?"

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Wow. The market finished up 1000+ points again!

    Thanks, Drumpf!

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Ooops. My bad! Rephrase:

    Wow. The market "finished up" down 1000+ points.

    FIFM

    Fixed it for me. :)

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    68

    I'm sure the NRA approves this message, I mean it uses their own words.

    OMG. That's hilarious and sort of blows that ignorant "liberals don't have guns" bullshit all to pieces, don't it? *LOL*

    Neil wins the "Internets" two days in a row. :)

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or are you, yourself, a sufferer?

    Very funny, Paula.

  75. [75] 
    Paula wrote:

    neilm: If you haven't seen this and have a minute I'd be interested to know if you agree/disagree with their assessment: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-08/trump-s-soaring-budget-deficit-risks-intensifying-market-frenzy

  76. [76] 
    Paula wrote:

    [74] Elizabeth: Actually - and for a change - I wasn't being snarky there. Though it's not bad as snark…I was serious. One of my favorite authors, Terry Pratchett, was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimers - something we fans all found heartbreaking. I wondered if you had something similar to deal with or if you are a caretaker for others in some way.

  77. [77] 
    Paula wrote:

    Meanwhile, in this column the writer discusses how the Rob Porter mess is not just a problem in terms of the administration covering for a batterer, but is another example of how they are being exceedingly careless with whom they're giving access to classified information. Porter and Kushner have only "interim" clearance but are not being kept from access to top-level stuff. To whom else might that apply?

    And Blotus himself is spilling to Russkies:

    Just last week we learned that what the President disclosed to Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak was far, far more sensitive than had been previously reported.

    DAVIES: So if I understand it, you know of specific information that the U.S. shared with the Russians that has not been revealed publicly and that you are not revealing publicly?

    BERGMAN: The nature of the information that President Trump revealed to Foreign Minister Lavrov is of the most secretive nature. And that information could jeopardize modus operandi of Israeli intelligence.

    DAVIES: And this is different from what was publicly reported at the time. There were some question about, you know, plans for, I think, laptop computers on airlines. This – you’re referring to something that we don’t yet know.

    BERGMAN: Most of it, we don’t yet know. And there were conflicting reports. I cannot – in order not to be part of disclosing secret information and jeopardizing Israeli and the U.S. ability to track down terrorists and proliferate, I prefer not to go into the details of that.

    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/02/08/what-the-rob-porter-mess-really-tells-us/

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I actually assumed it wasn't snark. :)

    I'm a caregiver.

  79. [79] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: don't share if you don't want to, but do you provide care for a loved one or professionally?

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My mom.

  81. [81] 
    Paula wrote:

    [80] Elizabeth: Sorry to hear that. My Dad died of Alzheimers. Heartbreaking and exhausting. Have you read Contented Dementia (book)?

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No but, I'm thinking I need to read something. Thanks for the reference.

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry to hear about your dad. And it certainly is exhausting but, there is no other way. I'll check out that book ...

  84. [84] 
    Paula wrote:
  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    Paula [75]:

    Thanks for posting. This is what the smarter market watchers have been talking about.

    There are two factors coming into play. Both were downplayed by the Republicans:

    1. Increasing the deficit will increase the amount of monthly borrowing (via treasuries) and supply and demand dictate that the cost of borrowing will go up

    2. The tax receipts (if the pattern from Kansas when they also introduced some very irresponsible tax policies is a guide) will decrease more than the loudly touted cuts as businesses who were taxed at the individual rate reclassify as small businesses to take advantage of the new business rate

    Both of these will put upward pressure on the bond market, just as the capital markets are buoyed up by cheap money and high asset prices across the board.

    This could just me the market letting off some steam - adjustments of 10-30% in the stock market are far more common historically than we've seen over the last 8 years or so, or it could be a systemic grind that many are predicting where returns in the U.S. stock markets level off as fundamentals catch up to current asset prices.

    The only thing I can predict about the markets is that anybody who predicts the markets over a time frame of less than a couple of decades is probably trying to rob you. Nobody knows nothing.

    Mark Zandi (name drop alert: I presented with him once at an event in the NYSE) was quoted describing the conventional wisdon:

    That is “exactly the opposite of what the economic textbooks say lawmakers should be doing,” Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics Inc., said in an email. “Deficit financed tax cuts and spending increases in a full-employment economy will result in more Fed tightening and higher interest rates.”

    As I said earlier, watch the 10 year treasury.

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    Another key quote from the article Paula posted:

    “Some participants that I’ve talked to have said, look, you know, they’re suddenly realizing that Treasury is going to be doubling the amount of debt issuance,” Patrick Harker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, told reporters Thursday. “I think that was not fully baked into some people’s thinking.”

    A Treasury auction on Thursday underscored the concerns. The $16 billion 30-year U.S. bond sale drew a yield of 3.121 percent, higher than indicated before the offering. Indirect bidders, a class of investors that includes pensions and mutual funds, purchased 61.2 percent, the least since September.

  87. [87] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    So sorry to hear about your mother. My mom passed away at the age of 65 after suffering from dementia for years. The last three years she was no longer able to communicate with us and dad had to get help 24/7/365 to care for her at home. It’s been 5 years since she passed away, but she is at peace now.

    R

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    “I think that was not fully baked into some people’s thinking.”

    Fed speak for: We have a bloody idiot in the White House who will sign anything the three ring circus in the House and Senate send him. We tried to tell them, but they think the Laffer curve is a viable model for Pete's sake.

    ;)

  89. [89] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wow - another Terry Pratchett fan - I started reading him in the mid 1980's when I lived in London. I used to wait for his new book every year until he had to stop writing.

    Very sad, and my condolences to all of you who have had to struggle with dementia in your families.

  90. [90] 
    Paula wrote:

    [89] neilm: Did you see the tweet from "Death" when Terry Pratchett died?

  91. [91] 
    Paula wrote:

    A clacksman never dies if his name is sent back and forth on the trunkline - paraphrase from Going Postal. That's what it felt like.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-31859675

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    89

    Wow - another Terry Pratchett fan - I started reading him in the mid 1980's when I lived in London. I used to wait for his new book every year until he had to stop writing.

    So glad you are one of US now, mate. You rank right up their with Elon Musk, in my book. Thanks for all your investment advice. People use it and truly appreciate it; I know because I'm one of them. :)

    Very sad, and my condolences to all of you who have had to struggle with dementia in your families.

    I second that. My heartfelt condolences. I've had the pleasure of meeting so many veterans, who though not related, I do consider my family, and I am their memory. Speaking of which... it appears our largest organization in the world is going on shut down again. Bollocks.
    __________

    Favorite Terry Pratchett quote? Too many to list, of course, but here's a relevant one:

    "Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind. ~ Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Russ ... it's truly a labour of love. Though, this is the first time in my life that I wish I had siblings. :)

Comments for this article are closed.