When Senate Democrats agrees to end the Republican Shutdown without passing a fix for dreamers, my initial action was anger. I considered the Senators who voted against ending the Republican Shutdown heroes and still do. How those Democrats who voted for the deal were not traitors, and the did not abandon the Dreamers. They employed what they considered the best strategy, so before we consider shooting them (in jest), we should see how it works out.
[L]iberal Democrats and progressive activists reacted angrily on Monday after a majority of Senate Democrats voted to enable the federal government to reopen after a three-day shutdown. “It’s morally reprehensible and it’s political malpractice,” Ezra Levin, a former Capitol Hill staffer who co-founded the anti-Trump Indivisible Group, declared. “Schumer led the [Senate] caucus off the cliff.” Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the Daily Kos, accused the Senate Democrats of aiding Republican efforts to block an immigration deal that would protect the Dreamers.
The critics’ arguments merit serious consideration. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s promise to take up immigration legislation when the spending bill expires in three weeks hardly amounted to a firm commitment to extend legal protections for the Dreamers, which will begin to lapse at the start of March. “The idea that they are gonna take a pinky-swear promise from Senator McConnell after he’s broken so many promises, it’s political malpractice—it’s absurd to believe that,” Levin said. “The only answer is that [they] aren’t actually interested in fighting for the Dreamers.”
That last comment was unfair. In their pursuit of a legislative deal for the Dreamers, Schumer and other Democratic senators took the highly contentious step of shutting down the government. If McConnell doesn’t follow through on his promises, they may well do the same thing again in three weeks’ time. Reopening the government was a tactical move, not a betrayal of the Dreamers. Whether it was the right tactical move won’t be clear for a while, but it was certainly a defensible one, especially in view of the broader political environment.
Progressives worry that Schumer and his colleagues will capitulate again in February, which could happen. But a number of things will be different then. For one thing, they will already have assured six years of funding for chip, the public health-insurance program that serves six million children. As my colleague Amy Davidson Sorkin pointed out yesterday, the inclusion of long-term funding in the new short-term spending resolution amounts to a “solid victory” for Democrats… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The New Yorker>
I urge you to click through and finish the New Yorker article for an in depth explanation of their assertion.
One thing that the article does not cover is that, while the polls taken at the time of the shutdown blamed Republicans more than Democrats, Democrats were getting more blame for it with each passing day. In addition, voters favored ending the shutdown over holding out for an immediate fix for Dreamers by an almost two to one margin.
Continuing the shutdown had no chance of success for Dreamers, because Republicans are happy to let Americans suffer.
RESIST THE REPUBLICAN REICH!!
8 Responses to “On Shooting Senate Democrats”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I am seeing more and more reader-written articles and comments with this point of view, and it encourages me. Because, of course, this is how politics works. It isn’t pretty, but it’s factual. I absolutely understand the anger of minorities and the feeling betrayed. But hopefully actual Democrats will be smart enough to eventually realize that feelings are not the same as facts, the main fact in this case being that DEMOCRATS HAVE NO POWER TO NEGOTIATE.
As I said yesterday, and will probably say again many times, we need to grab them by the midterms. Then maybe we can get something done.
Hopefully, the Dems can keep the Dreamers dream alive, and get this resolved. If McTurtle doesn’t agree to it, we’ll have another shutdown. I agree with your statement, in your last sentence too, Tom. So true!
I was VERY mad at Durbin & Duckworth (both D-IL.) when I first heard..they are my Senators & had been vocal about Dreamers. I couldn’t understand how they could even pretend to believe that lying liar McConnell..but then I saw they did get CHIPS funded for 6 years! So I guess I won’t hold it against them. But next month they better get Dreamers some Real help!
I did not know, until now, that the Dems secured funding for CHIP, kudos to them for that. We will see what the next round of the battle brings, but, yes, trusting McSleazy Liar is not a viable tactic.
Yes, Democrats got 6 years funding for CHIP, kudos to them AND to the Republicans, because this was a bipartisan issue from the start. And they got a promise from McConnell, but not from Ryan who will not bring it to a vote in the House. But nobody mentioned what the Republicans got out of this three week deal: more military spending and a promise to discussed fully funding the president’s request for a border wall and worst of all even more tax cuts ($31 billion, including a temporary delay in implementing three health care-related taxes).
I think there’s little chance of any financial damage control by either party in the coming three weeks; do you?
Thanks all. The reason that CHIPS was a win for Democrats is that Republicans killed funding for CHIPS in September, if memory serves.
Pooped out Hugs!
Nobody should be talking about shooting our Representatives and Senators, who have unanimously stood fast against ACA repeal, tax “reform”, and so forth over the last year.
They could not have won anything, on DACA or anything else, by continuing the shutdown. Doing so would, however, have inflicted serious political damage on themselves. We shouldn’t fault them for recognizing that reality. Pretending that reality is not reality because you don’t like it is what Trumpanzees do. The fact is, a party which is in the minority in both Houses has only limited ability to get its own way.
Infidel, I stated that shooting Senate Democrats was in jest. It was a response to the extreme reactions to which you also objected. You and I agreed on our conclusions for the same reasons.