We once had a little dog. She was white and fluffy. Our kid was 7 years old when we got her. She, the dog, was a very good dog. Other dogs liked her. She was gentle around kids. I think WG’s Henry is the same breed.
Sometimes, on our walks, we’d encounter a dog who didn’t like her, for whatever dog reason. These encounters were very few, because our dog loved meeting other dogs and was never aggressive. Still, when a mean dog tried to attack her, she would immediately roll over and show her belly, because she would never want a fight. On the occasion when the attacking dog was not on leash, I intervened and protected our little pup, because she was a wee smol bean and I am a big human who can be scary when I’m mad.
I think of our little dog sometimes when I read stories like these:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to his caucus on Monday that detailed four strategies to counter Trump: investigations, litigation through the courts, legislation and party messaging.
However, Schumer pushed back against recent rumblings that Democrats might walk away from the negotiating table on spending bills, saying his party wants to avoid a “Trump shutdown” and supports bipartisan negotiations to try to find a funding deal. Republicans had accused Democrats of walking out on talks last week and some of Schumer’s members are warning the GOP can’t count on their votes to avert a shutdown.
“Democrats stand ready to support legislation that will prevent a government shutdown. Congressional Republicans, despite their bluster, know full well that governing requires bipartisan negotiation and cooperation,” Schumer wrote.
“Of course, legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes and Senate Democrats will use our votes to help steady the ship for the American people in these turbulent times. It is incumbent on responsible Republicans to get serious and work in a bipartisan fashion to avoid a Trump Shutdown,” he added.
Chuck seems to think that someone bigger and meaner is going to come along and protect his wee smol bean self, because I can’t see any explanation for throwing away the one piece of leverage that Congress (maybe) has — the debt ceiling. Like my tiny white fluffy dog, Chuck doesn’t even bark when the big bad dog comes to rip out his throat. He hopes that lying on his back and showing his stomach will keep that big bad dog from bisecting and disemboweling him.
It won’t. Where is the fight in this fucker? Is he mad about anything that’s happened in the past ugly horrible three weeks? “Republicans are unwilling to stop the criminal behavior of Elon Musk and his goons. So, we’re not going to vote for a debt ceiling increase until grants that we have funded are restored, until USAID is restored and Musk’s goons are out of Treasury, Education and every other Department.” Is that so hard?
Some people might say “Hey, mistermix, you’re overreacting to a generic terrible no good piece of messaging from Chuck, he’s just citing bipartisanship and making it sound like just another Monday, because that’s going to <insert reason here: appeal to normies, keep his caucus in line, appease a few Republicans who might jump ship, trying to keep options open>.” Well, to that I say: Every. single. time. that I and others have made a prediction about what King Musk and his junta are going to do, the reality has been as bad or worse than the prediction. This is the time for Chuck to listen to people like Chris Murphy and Brian Schatz, who get it, not to whomever is feeding him the bland pudding that he regurgitates at every turn.
Fan favorite Brian Beutler has a lot more on this. Here’s a gift link. His conclusion:
Why would Democrats do that? Some are probably scared, either physically, or for the people who would be hurt by the ensuing crises. The party is also suffused with strategists and consultants who can only think inside the box of electoral savvy, as if the question at hand isn’t also “will we have real elections anymore?”
This is why establishment-brained strategic interventions—like when David Axelrod says Democrats fighting to uphold the Constitution are playing into Trump’s hands because the public supports “cut[ting] foreign aid”—are so noxious at this moment. The torch must pass now from party strategists seasoned in (though not terribly good at) normal electoral competition to tacticians who understand how to wield power maximally in the here and now. What’s at stake is the highest principle, not whether Fetterman’s odd’s of re-election in four years slip a fraction of a percent.
Why would the members and candidates that Jeffries and Schumer and Axelrod think they’re protecting want these jobs under the conditions Trump is proposing? Where their power has been eliminated? I understand that winning elections is a big part of what members of Congress signed up for. But, corny as it sounds, they are also public officials—they take an oath to the Constitution just the same as Republicans do. And when those two imperatives come into tension with one another, as they do today, it’s the former that must give.
If you don’t like Brian Beutler, Josh Marshall ends up in a similar place as me:
Here’s the thing: If Chuck Schumer called me up and said, “Hey, we are absolutely going to go to the mat on this but we just want to keep the focus on Republican chaos for now” I might say, okay cool. But I don’t think we know that or can be confident about that without the leadership publicly locking itself in. (And no, in case you’re wondering I’ve never spoken to Chuck Schumer. So this isn’t happening.) Democrats really need to demand assurances that they’re going to use it. Otherwise there’s just too great a chance they either won’t be ready or willing to hold the line. Again, saying no help without stopping the criminal [behavior] just isn’t a big ask.
