Home / congress / Is that a conditional sentence in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Is that a conditional sentence in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?


Any theory, discussion or argument that’s based on the idea that the Blathering Butternut will behave rationally is a damn stupid theory, discussion or argument. Not that this very plain and obvious fact stops people from trying. Here for example is the president of something called the Progressive Policy Institute arguing that Democrats should be willing to work with President Mine Tailings if he starts to play nice after 70 years of not doing so.

Perhaps it’s beginning to dawn on the president that today’s Republican Party is designed for maximal obstruction and minimal constructive policy making.

Perhaps if we stand out in a blizzard long enough the flakes will turn into gold dust. That’s as likely as the #StupidestPresidentEver getting a clue.

The rigidly doctrinaire Freedom Caucus essentially has veto power over White House initiatives, while moderates will jump ship if Mr. Trump concedes too much to right-wing purists.

What’s more, Republicans are all over the map on the next big items on Mr. Trump’s agenda — tax reform and infrastructure. So even though Republicans control Congress and the White House, Washington’s new political math suggests that Mr. Trump may have no choice but to reach out to Democrats.

The only time that man reaches out to anyone is to commit assault or demand money. But hey, after 70 years he might be ready to change.

If Mr. Trump does turn to Democrats, how should they respond?

“Hell, no” will most likely be the first response. Under pressure from their base, congressional leaders are dug in for years of unremitting resistance. They’ve even issued orders to Democrats on tax-writing committees not to produce a reform blueprint of their own, lest they be tempted to talk turkey with the White House.

Without the threat of losing their jobs from the Democratic base – however that’s being defined – Democrats in Congress would be willing to work with a supremacist who has nothing to offer except bluster, insults and greed. If so, then long live the base. However, that’s not exactly an argument for working with tRump. Perhaps all the backing and filling left the writer disoriented.

All this is understandable, given the ugly and dishonest campaign Mr. Trump waged and what most Democrats still regard as his obvious unfitness for the office he now holds. Yet hold it he does…

Yes, I know the GOP spent eight years killing the notion that the opposing party should work with the President of the United States. But that was just high spirits! And racism! Now that a cartoon villain of a Republican who is less popular than hemorrhoids with Democratic voters is in the White House, Democrats in Congress should give a shit that he received more Electoral College votes.

— and if he’s willing to make real concessions to their party’s core values and priorities, pragmatic Democrats should hear him out.

The first thing pragmatic Democrats – however that’s being defined – would do is look around for a giant pod. And then they’d check their wallets.

Really, this is same line of reasoning that produces pieces titled Donald tRump – the champion single payer has been waiting for? The less than subtle subtext that Horrible bigots might redeem themselves if we BELIEVE, just makes everything that much more annoying.

Would Mr. Trump accept Democrats’ help on these terms? If he really wants to start racking up “wins” for his voters, he would.

Another hardworking if. Mentioning “wins” for tRump voters without acknowledging that their idea of “wins” will frequently be so at odds with what Democrats consider “wins” that Democrats in Congress would have to cave to give Napoleorange his “wins,” is another huge but not unexpected flaw in this argument. Unless another assumption is that the Talevan and the supremacists and the greedy millionaires and the corporate thugs and the white working class conservatives, beloved of many a think piece writer, will also all see reason. It’s not any dumber than Reasonable tRump, so why not?

He’d have to share credit — a novel experience — with Democrats, who’d get points from swing voters for being pragmatic and competent.

Ah-HA! I knew there’d be some swing voter servicing in here some where. And of course there’ll be bothsidesism.

If Democrats have a chance to help average working families and show they’re not obstructionists, they should take it. America doesn’t need two parties of no.

Because when Democrats say no to Republicans who say no to things like affordable health care, basic human dignity and keeping the planet habitable for humans, it’s exactly the same thing.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar
Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :