Open Thread

The Open Thread for November 29, 2017

President Trump cast doubt on avoiding a government shutdown, tweeting that he didn’t believe a deal could be reached with Democrats, and proceed to insult them at the same time.

So Democrats called his bluff and pulled out of their scheduled all show no tell meeting at the White House.  The purpose of the meeting was to begin negotiations on a new spending bill before the government runs out of money next Friday on December 8. As part of a funding bill, Republicans want military spending caps lifted. Democrats want immigration protections for the Dreamers, the passage of Alexander-Murray to stabilize Obamacare markets, and re-authorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The problem with Trump’s threat is that Republicans can’t pass a spending bill without Democratic votes. In the Senate, they need a 60-vote majority to pass a bill due to Senate rules. But even in the House, Republicans have needed Democratic votes to overcome the stiff opposition on passing any budget that doesn’t cut spending on everything from members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.  This gives Democrats significant leverage in any negotiations. In fact, Democrats have no political incentive whatsoever to provide any votes for a new spending bill without getting major concessions from Republicans in return.

Democrats won’t be seen by voters as obstructionist since Republicans control both Congress and the White House. If Republicans can’t keep the government open, it will only highlight their continued inability to govern.

First Read: “The smart money is that Congress will pass a short funding bill that will set up a government-spending showdown right before Christmas.   I don’t think so.   Dems should demand it all and now.



The Senate Budget Committee has voted to advance the Senate tax bill by a 12-11 margins, with only Republicans voting in favor, CNBC reports.

“Republican Senate leaders want to pass the plan later this week. As it holds 52 seats, the GOP can lose only two votes and still approve the bill under special budget rules, assuming all Democrats and independents oppose it.”

Two key Senate Republicans — Bob Corker (R-TN) and Susan Collins (R-ME) — told the Wall Street Journal that they felt more optimistic about supporting the GOP tax bill, increasing its chances of passing later this week after getting advanced by a committee Tuesday.

Axios: Where the tax bill stands.


President Trump told Republican senators he would support a new deal to stabilize Obamacare markets in exchange for repealing Obamacare’s individual mandate, the Washington Examiner reports.

“Trump met with the Republican conference on Tuesday during their weekly lunch to discuss tax reform legislation, which is expected to be brought up for a vote as early as this week. Several senators said after the lunch that Trump gave his support to a deal to stabilize the law’s exchanges, brokered by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA).”



Jonathan Chait: “The party has been organized for more than a quarter-century around the dogma of tax-cutting. Whatever hatred Republicans were able to build up against Obamacare starting in 2009, it cannot match the cumulative effect of 30 years of voodoo-economics dogma. The party’s entire governing class believes both that rich people are unfairly targeted by progressive taxation, and that tax-cutting will absolutely and necessarily generate prosperity. A handful of conservative dissidents question this theology, but they remain marginal to conservative thinking.”

“Cutting taxes for the affluent is truly what Republican politicians got into this business to do. In this way, it is more like the struggle to pass Obamacare than the struggle to repeal it. Democrats were willing to take risks to pass the law in 2010 because helping people get insurance is a core of their public mission.”


“A federal judge refused to block President Trump’s choice of budget director Mick Mulvaney from serving as acting director of the prominent federal consumer watchdog agency, denying a request by Leandra English, the No. 2 official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to serve in his stead,” the Washington Post reports.



The Senate confirmed Trump legal adviser Gregory Katsas “to serve on what is often described as America’s second highest court,” ABC News reports.

The vote to confirm was 50 to 48, with all Democrats present and Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) opposed.

“Katsas has worked on some of the president’s most contentious decisions, including his executive orders restricting travel for citizens of predominantly Muslim countries and his decision to end a program protecting some young immigrants from deportation.”

Jonathan Swan: “Katsas is the 9th judge Trump has placed on the federal bench. Barack Obama confirmed just three federal judges in his first year. Ronald Reagan had previously confirmed the most in recent history, with eight in his first year.”


Adding fuel to its growing feud with President Trump, CNN told Politico it will be boycotting the White House Christmas party for the media this year.

From a statement: “In light of the President’s continued attacks on freedom of the press and CNN, we do not feel it is appropriate to celebrate with him as his invited guests. We will send a White House reporting team to the event and report on it if news warrants.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders responded: “Christmas comes early! Finally, good news from CNN.”


According to Jason330 and his fellow Pelosi-supporting misogynists at the other site, she got it perfect the first time.  In fact, if she is to be criticized, it is because she was not more forceful in her support of Conyers.


“The political future of Congress’s longest-serving member, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), appeared precarious late Tuesday as leaders pressured him to resign over allegations he sexually harassed multiple female aides,” the Washington Post reports.

“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are encouraging the veteran lawmaker to step down as soon as this week after a fourth accuser came forward Tuesday morning.”

Detroit News: Calls for Conyers to resign intensify.

Good.  It is time for him and Franken to resign and for Jason330 and his fellow Pelosi-supporting misogynists at the other site to admit their horrible failings in defending and excusing sex harassers.


New York Times: “As the issue of sexual harassment has swept through the news media, politics and entertainment industries, Mr. Trump has persisted in denying allegations that he, too, made unwanted advances on multiple women in past years. In recent days, he has continued to seed doubt about his appearance on the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, stunning his advisers.”

“Mr. Trump’s falsehoods… are part of his lifelong habit of attempting to create and sell his own version of reality. Advisers say he continues to privately harbor a handful of conspiracy theories that have no grounding in fact.”

“Mr. Trump’s journeys into the realm of manufactured facts have been frequent enough that his own staff has sought to nudge friendly lawmakers to ask questions of Mr. Trump in meetings that will steer him toward safer terrain.”



“One day after a group of local Republicans met privately with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) about a nude photo of him that ended up online — and his political future — a number of Tarrant County Republicans are calling on the longtime congressman to not seek re-election,” the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports.

“Barton told the crowd that he’s gathering feedback and that a consulting firm is polling many party faithful to see if his behavior and the nude photos would make a difference in whether they would support him in the primary election next year.”


A new Change Research survey in Alabama finds Roy Moore (R) has regained his lead over Doug Jones (D) in the U.S. Senate race, 49% to 44%.

“What has changed? The largest difference is turnout: many Republicans who ten days ago said they might not vote, now say they plan to show up on Election Day and vote for Moore.”

Also important: “Compared to ten days ago, fewer Republicans believe the allegations against Moore. While all voters believed the allegations by a 46–30 margin ten days ago, they now believe them by only 42–38. Among Trump voters, the split was 16–51 (believe-don’t believe) in the middle of the month, and it’s 9–63 now.”



Stuart Rothenberg: “I’ve been watching evangelical voting behavior since I worked for Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation in the 1980s, and I’ve come to believe that, in most cases (though certainly not all), white evangelicals get their religion from their politics, not their politics from their religion.”

“That is, many evangelicals are first and foremost political conservatives drawn to a church (or a pastor) that confirms their worldviews and, in turn, their political views.”

“They gravitate to evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches that are spread across the American landscape, particularly in rural and small-town America, because those churches hold views about the Bible and human behavior that are traditional rather than pragmatic. Not surprisingly, most of those church members are politically conservative, particularly on social/cultural issues but increasingly also on the role of government.”

Delaware politics from a liberal, progressive and Democratic perspective. Keep Delaware Blue.

47 comments on “The Open Thread for November 29, 2017

  1. “According to Jason330 and his fellow Pelosi-supporting misogynists at the other site, she got it perfect the first time. In fact, if she is to be criticized, it is because she was not more forceful in her support of Conyers.”

    look, I dont want to be that guy, but seriously… Is this just a fucking game to you people?
    You were 100% behind Pelosi as a website until this happened. People who made the case that she should go were called…. wait for it….miso…..
    know what, nevermind. Glad you finally agree.

    • Delaware Dem

      I wouldn’t say 100%. She was the most successful Speaker in terms of managing her caucus and passing legislation since Tip O’Neill, and we still do not have an obvious leader to replace her. So while I condemn her pretty abhorrent immediate response to Conyers and Franken, I’m NOT calling on HER to resign just yet. But we do need new leadership. I nominate Pramila Jayapal.

      • I think this episode makes her vulnerable from the left in her home district. 2018 would be the time to do it. Everyone… even BD/DL is going to have to make nice for 2020.

        She has been successful in managing her caucus, yes. You are right I will not argue that.
        She also has seen (and so has the Senate leadership) too many losses to her caucus. I realize it might not be her job to get or keep dems elected, but this is whats happening. She is SEEN as the figure head and leader by most voters and that is the unfortunate reality in which we must operate.

        If being “the party of Pelosi” hurts dems THAT badly in flyover country, we have to ask ourselves, is it worth it keeping her there just to prove a point?
        There are many other talented leaders and legislators in the dem caucus.. there friggin better be, the entire leadership is over 70. If the Dems re-take the house in 2018 I would like to see someone younger and newer as speaker. A we saw with Clinton, even the most unfair and made-up baggage can really do damage. Pelosi has this baggage and just bought herself a nice new travel set of Conyers Delux.

        • Delaware Dem

          I agree.

        • cassandram

          Unless Conyers resigns and then she looks smart for holding her fire — letting this “icon” go on his terms.

          Pelosi is Speaker because her caucus votes for her to be Speaker. The unfair and made up baggage hurts our female politicians because the male Dems don’t have the cojones to call it out. The majority of the knock against Pelosi is her “San Francisco values” . That gets to live its own life among people who are already not interested in an “Other” of any kind. So instead of dealing with the genuine strengths of leadership (and Pelosi is the only one I would defend at this point), we watch Democrats make their decisions by calibrating whether or not people who are not Democrats will freakin’ approve. This is not a popularity contest and there is no need to choose your leaders based upon how much virtue to signal to everyone else. You want leaders who can manage a caucus and get shit done. And leaders who you can push to be closer to your politics.

          No problem with getting new leadership. Leadership that can get the votes to be Leader. Because Pelosi won’t be able to just hand it off and nor would you want her to. And if you end up with Tim Ryan as Leader after all of this just know that we are all screwed.

          • there are people other than Nancy Pelosi and Tim Ryan. Why is dissatisfaction with Pelosi always assumed to be support of that DINO shitbag?

            • cassandram

              Because that DINO shitbag gets you the approval of “flyover” country that you crave so much. The people who actually VOTE for Dems won’t be too thrilled about this, but if you want someone acceptable to “flyover” country, you are asking for a DINO shitbag. With a few exceptions.

              • “Crave” is a strong word…. You cant deny that dems need at least 50.001% of the vote in MIchigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and/or other Obama-won states that Clinton did not win. Convince a very smal number of them that their selfish self interests will be catered to and you got em.

                Sure, we could save the nation by getting Florida, PA, and one other back, but a massive electoral wave is needed to take back our country.
                Hell, they dont even really have to care about midwsterners… as long as those folks are made to THINK they are cared about, they will show up and vote.

                • cassandram

                  The pointed weaponization of Nancy Pelosi is meant to be a distraction from any real issues. Are you *seriously* not getting this? If a Midwesterner is going to base their vote on Nancy Pelosi, they were’t going to vote for a Dem anyway. We are just never going to get to any issues or problem solving here if we keep pretending that who is Dem leadership is a big factor on why anyone (outside of their constituents) vote.

                  • I get that it seems easier to get rid of an effective weapon against “us” than it is to try and change the nature of said weapon.
                    I also get that Pelosi hasn’t gotten the memo about purging creeps and she is defending one… that makes her weaponinziable (?) against those who also are against guys like her BFF, Conyers. And this doesnt end with Pelosi… Schumer is also joining the ranks of creep apologists.

                    • cassandram

                      Do you get that you are still not paying attention? We have real issues at stake here and this is you working on *their* narrative. Here is one thing I do know — I better not EVER see you whinging about the Dems not having a message in this space ever again. Because you are delighted to ignore any effort at messaging just to deal with the cable news BS. Which means nothing. Pelosi’s biggest mistake is that she is a woman who you feel that you need to supervise. She isn’t defending Conyers. She is letting a process work. And it is remarkable that you do not know the difference.

                    • They’ll just substitute another weapon, most probably a woman (My money is on Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris), and then demand their removal. There are reasons for wanting new leadership – wanting it because Republicans have villainized someone or because we think we’ll win over voters who bought into the villainization just sets the stage for the next chosen villain. Getting rid of Pelosi does not equal getting more votes.

                    • cassandram

                      Exactly. And it will be a woman and it will spark the same “people think we LOOK bad” conversation. Which has not one damn thing to do with getting anyone to vote.

                    • I love how no one ever questions the motives for wanting schumer out as well. Do you think I dont like Pelosi because she is a woman? serious question.

                    • Also, there is very little Warren can do to lose me. I dont care how she is painted or what they try to say about her. She, through her actions and positions, has won the closest thing to loyalty I will ever give a politician.
                      And this… “Getting rid of Pelosi does not equal getting more votes.”
                      By that math, neither does getting rid of Franken, Weiner, or Conyers, right? Or am i wrong there too?

                    • cassandram

                      The thing you can do to answer your Schumer question is to go back through your comments on this thread and count the number of times you have been discussing Pelosi (you started with her here) and how many times you talked about Schumer (by my count just once and as an aside). Then you will know why people question your motives re: the women.

                      And as you well know, the weaponization is focused on Pelosi (and is the only reason you have any concerns here). Show me where Schumer has been as roundly demonized.

                    • cassandram

                      I’m in this conversation, on this thread. In this conversation you have been specifically focused on Pelosi. Noted that you could not show how Schumer has been demonized in the same way Pelosi has.

                    • “I’m in this conversation, on this thread.”
                      Im sorry your perceptive capabilities exist in such a small vacuum. It’s a shame.
                      I dont think we are able to effectively communicate if you can only operate thread-to thread.

                    • cassandram

                      Nope. You do not get to redefine the boundaries of this conversation just because you can’t manage what is going on in this one. No one cares what you said somewhere else. Everyone here is responding directly to what you have said in this thread. It is how internet discussion threads work. You may think that expanding the playing field covers your ass, but it does not. If you are hand wringing about Nancy Pelosi in this thread, then we are talking about said hand wringing in this thread.

                      It would be remarkably easier on everyone if you would just stop when you have nothing left to say. Seriously. This business of always redefining the rules of the discussion game are so much bullshit and it is just stunning that you do now know that never works here. So stop it.

                    • Who’s redefining the rules? I never got a memo about how every thread is a different universe… although Im happy to operate that way. Let’s see, Schumer, Schumer , Schumer… Schumer sucks because he is a corporate schill, just like Carper, and Coons. Have I called out enough people not Pelosi to balance you ledger?
                      And no. I will not stop it, you insufferable hack. (Oh, btw….did you make sure to tally my praise of Pelosi (ON THIS THREAD 🙂 ) for calling for Conyers to resign?
                      I refuse to allow discussion to be so compartmentalized that everything re-sets once a new window is open. Screw that…. That is childish and counterproductive. Also, NO ONE put you in charge in internet rules. If you dont like how I argue… stop responding to me. You know most of my “non contribution” is because you are VERY predicable. SO be the bigger person and stop trying to chest-thump every time you think you “got me”. I stand by my call for a change in dem leadership (not just the person I dare not name, but also Perez, Schumer, and Dems not in the leadership… like our Dino Delaware senators (make sure you add that to your ledger)

                      And you’ll have to ban me to shut me up. I dare you. I know it’ reserved to threats and spam, but let’s see if you’ll ban someone you just find annoying and cant cow into towing your hack-party line.

                    • cassandram

                      Don’t need to ban you, just need to make sure that everyone gets that this juvenile business of redefining the terms of the conversation as that conversation is not going your way is SOP for you and making sure that I am still calling it out. A new example — telling me not to respond to you here. In *my* house. A reminder that you make no rules here. And that if you don’t much like being called on your juvenile BS, then you know what to do.

                    • Actually, I suggested you stop responding to me if you wanted me to shut up. I should have been more clear. I would NEVER presume to tell you what to do in “your’ “house”…. even if i did, Id be pretty disappointed if you did anything other than react with FIRE.
                      If you like this back and forth as much as I do, please, by all means keep it coming.
                      Again, so predictable.

                    • cassandram

                      This began when I told you that you could do yourself a favor by stopping digging when you clearly have nothing more to add. And here you are — telling me to ignore you. You could have avoided this embarrassment if you had just heeded this advice. But here you are — not even addressing the items left unaddressed in this thread — but arguing that you “DO TOO BELONG AT THE GROWNUP TABLE”.

                      We earn our participation trophies in this space.

                  • “:Pelosi’s biggest mistake is that she is a woman who you feel that you need to supervise.”
                    Nevermind, the answer to my question was right there.

                    • The whole discussion is more than just this thread, dude. You are right (ghasp) I have said the word “Pelosi” more in this threat than any other name… GOOD MATH SKILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess that makes me, what… Trump?
                      I am critical of schumer all the time… and Perez.. and was critical of Reid. Pelosi is in charge, so she gets the criticism. That is how it works.
                      I dont even think you disagree that it is time to change up the democratic leadership, but for some reason, it’s wrong to say so if it involves being critical of a speaker who lost THEIR majority pretty quickly.


                      Hey, Well done, future-speaker Pelosi. Thank you, sincerely, for taking this important step in cleaning up the Dem party. This is the kind of leadership I want to see from the party leader.. and the kind of leadership I will support.

      • “She was the most successful Speaker in terms of managing her caucus and passing legislation since Tip O’Neill,…” – Delaware Dem


        Once the Dems took control of the Congress in 2006 as a revulsion against Bush’s Iraq war, Pelosi successfully had appropriations passed to continue Bush’s Iraq war.

        When betraying her base, Pelosi can be really successful.

        • You will find few people of any party who advocated immediate withdrawal. Yourself excluded, of course.

          • Because Pelosi failed to lead on an immediate withdrawal, 11 years on, we are still there.

            But that’s okay with you.

  2. RabCNesbitt

    Why don’t “Chuck and Nancy” prove Trump wrong? Why not dispute the claims that they “want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked”, and that they are “week on crime”? Why not show the people that they can make a deal, and that they aren’t what Trump is saying that they are?
    In all the government shutdowns, and threats of shutdowns, it’s always been the fault of the Republicans, right? Pretty much without exception….It’s a charade, and in reality, everyone knows that a “government shutdown” is just a paid vacation for non essential federal employees anyway.

    • Because only fools play games with fools. Why would Democrats make a deal with residents of a dung heap like you?

    • cassandram

      The GRIFTUS is the one making the claim here and since he’s the one with a track record of lying every time he opens his mouth, you should ask *him* to prove his statement.

  3. Me too, Pelosi is a drag on the party and is just too damn old. So’s Joe Biden, there! I said it!

    • agreed. The thing they are most successful at is convincing us that we need them.

  4. Better a misogynist than a hysteric.

    • “It is time for him and Franken to resign and for Jason330 and his fellow Pelosi-supporting misogynists at the other site to admit their horrible failings in defending and excusing sex harassers.”

      Yeah, sure. Or you’ll what, advocate shooting us all? I’ve never seen someone less capable of reaching rational conclusions. By the way, “realists” is the word you’re looking for, not “misogynists.”

      This is politics, not your male consciousness-raising session.

  5. I know Alby is persona-non-gratta here, but What ABOUT Tom Carper? Are the allegations over at “that other site” true? Is he an abuser? If so, why arent we going after him? … Not being cheeky, I want to know the answers to this.

    • I’ve only ever heard whispers of this. Not sure how to go after a person with whispers. All the other cases we’ve been discussing have had accusers.

    • cassandram

      Alby is not persona non grata here — it is why he comments here at will.

      So WHAT about Tom Carper? Does he have an accuser that no one is paying attention to? Like the 16 women who accused the GRIFTUS?

      • He hit his first wife. It’s in a sworn deposition. He admitted it to Celia Cohen in 2012 after hiding from it for more than 20 years.

        I challenged your colleague about his high standards, calling for immediate resignations of others who are accused, before their day in court. I wonder about the silence about an acknowledged case of abuse by a prominent Democrat right here in Delaware, where someone could theoretically call for his removal, too. Groping women, fondling a 14-year-old, hitting your wife — is there a difference here I’m missing? Because I’m wondering why immediate resignation is the only answer that will do for Franken when we’ve all been complicit in electing Carper.

        • @Alby, How come now? Did you bring this up at election time? Did Carney not give you a post or something?
          Do I think what he did is inappropriate, yes? But, I did not vote for him.

  6. RabCNesbitt

    Conyers has been in congress for a long time, and he probably knows a whole lot of little secrets that the Democrat leaders would prefer to remain clandestine. Not so sure about Franken, but he probably has to have some shit on someone of consequence……Conyers’ lawyer has been reported to have made some sort of veiled threat regarding this path.

  7. For all those talking trash on Sam Guy look at what he doin now. I told yall that Guy knows Guv. After states senators he is goin to be Guv. I bet nobody has anything to say now.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: