What you call me dancing around is quite clearly you producing strawman arguments.
Let’s pause here. Did you think at the time that Ted Cruz had any chance at success? Because the vast majority of Republicans in Washington knew it was stupid from the start. If you really thought that Cruz had a chance of convincing Obama to destroy his signature achievement by closing the government, then I have to say that I sincerely doubt that Ted Cruz honestly believed he could succeed. I think his stunt was about making a name for himself as a firebrand, not having anything to do with achieving any substantive policy.
How do you know that Dems would have shut down the government? It didn’t happen. You’re projecting your bias onto events that never happened.
If the Flint aid wasn’t in, the next most likely scenario was that flood relief funding would have been delayed, and then both the Flint and flood money would have been dealt with later. McConnell said that this was a possible outcome. The next most likely scenario was NOT government shutdown.
Seems like your version of events skips over details that you may not be aware of.
I didn’t think at the time that Cruz had a chance. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t. Because he actually is a firebrand, and is not just playing one on TV. Problem for him is that not enough other Republicans are firebrands.
You already agreed upthread that you can’t pressure the other side for concessions unless they believe you will carry out your thread. So you’re saying that you alone managed to figure out that the Democrats were bluffing and the Republicans were all fooled. I also didn’t see the media commenters all thinking it was clear the Democrats were bluffing. So it’s the bias of me and everyone else, and only you know the real truth. OK.
So you didn’t think he would succeed… but you can’t go as far to say that his whole non-strategy and total lack of common sense constituted a “tantrum?” My, I think we are splitting hairs might find now.
I’m not saying I figured out some seekrit Democrat plan that nobody knew about. I’m saying that I’ve followed this issue closely and kept up on the state of negotiations by reading the news.
What became clear over the last few days was that this was the most likely series of events:
Dems demand Flint be in. If R’s agree, no shutdown.
If R’s don’t agree to put Flint in, then the flood money gets pulled. No shutdown.
If that didn’t work, there were some kind of general assurances that Flint would be taken care of in another bill. This is what happened.
If that didn’t work, then we’d have two more days before a shutdown, and who knows what would happen then. Maybe if everything else failed, then perhaps I’d get worried about my next paycheck.
Last year’s Planned Parenthood defunding and this year’s Flint relief funding arguments are budget issues. Just because something is partisan and contentious doesn’t magically make the discussion of whether to commit funds for it in the budget off limits.
Not only do you have “some seekrit Democrat plan that nobody knew about” but you also seem to have your own version of events that contradicts what the media are reporting.
For example, your second point above was “If R’s don’t agree to put Flint in, then the flood money gets pulled. No shutdown.” From the WP article linked in the OP, that was a proposal by McConnell which was rejected by the Democrats. And your third point also misrepresents the facts - it was not “general assurances” which mollified the Democrats, but adding the funding to an actual bill which passed the House.
I’ve linked to a couple of mainstream and reputable sources in this thread, and my discussion is predicated on them being correct absent evidence otherwise. You, by contrast, have shown nothing, and are insisting that the discussion reflect your alternative version of the facts based on nothing more than your own assertions. I’m not up for that.
Rejected in the negotiation, but not to the point of causing shutdown. Their intentions can’t be proven now that they “won”, but if they were bluffing and not willing to actually cause a shutdown, then I believe Ravenman’s sequence of events is correct.
Nothing was rejected to the point of causing shutdown, because the Republicans eventually gave in on the core issue so there was no shut-down.
I get that you keep claiming the Democrats were bluffing. I keep not responding because it’s hypothetical and because it was not the assessment of the Republicans or outside political observers. If you think you’re right then that’s fine, but it’s pointless to argue about.
They’re not even bluffing, they’re trying to shame the other side into capitulating.
Shutting down the government over Obamacare is political grandstanding.
Holding up must pass legislation so you can get some press about how the Republicans don’t want to pay for a disaster in Flint (a mostly Democratic city) caused by Republican policies but are fine with paying for natural disasters from red states; all in an effort to shame them into paying for the consequences of Republican policies (and where there is no actual chance that the government gets shut down) is fine.
The details matter. Some things are worth shutting down the government over. Authorizing the Iraq war? Shut the mutha fucka down.
You want to make a political point about how much you prefer your policy over the current policy, then you can threaten to shut the government down all you want but if you actually do it, then you are putting your politics ahead of your country.
It’s also hypothetical that they weren’t bluffing. We can’t know because there was no shut down. If you’re only talking about this issue in the hypothetical certainty that they weren’t bluffing, then I’ll bow out, but I think you should make that clear.
Mostly in the hypothetical that they weren’t bluffing. But again, that’s not some hypothetical that I just made up - it’s conventional wisdom.
But it’s also worth noting whether it’s believed that they were bluffing is more important in one sense than if they actually were bluffing. Because that sets a precedent for future actions by either side.
If you really believe that some course of action is “off the table”, then bluffing that you’ll do it is not much better.
That’s a reasonable discussion to have. For me, the line of what’s okay (except maybe for truly beyond-the-pale stuff, like a law trying to bring back lynching or something) is between the bluff and actually shutting down the government.
Lord, it’s being made out like there’s a black-and-white distinction between “bluffing” and “ultimatum.” As if it is either the Dems had zero principles and were lying about their bottom line, or they had 100% Ted Cruz-like principles and were on the verge of driving the car off the cliff to prove a point.
To say my thesis in another way, the Dems were negotiating for the best deal. IMHO, there almost certainly was no strategy to either bluff and cave, or shut down the government. It certainly seems like this was all about getting the best possible deal, short of losing all face and caving and short of slamming one’s shoe on the table and demanding blood.
Again, in contrast to Ted Cruz’s strategy of intending to shut down the government to prove a point.
I think another big difference is how big the poison pill is.
The flint funding was on the order of 170 million out of a 3 trillion dollar budget, and spent towards something that the Republicans agree with in principal (clean water for Flint) even if they don’t want to pay for it. Republicans could support this without any major political fallout.
Compare that with threatening to shut down the government unless Democrats agree to effectively repeal the landmark legislation of the Obama administration. No Democrat could possibly agree to that, so insisting on it basically guarantees a shutdown. The planned parenthood funding was similarly ideological but with slightly lower stakes.
Planned parenthood is similarly an ideologically charged issue, which no Democrat could support without major revolt from their base.
If Republicans demanded 170 million in funding for abstinence education. I would have gritted my teeth at such a waste of money, but if Democrats refused to give in and the government should down, I would have been irate that they shut it down over such a petty request.
On the other hand if the Democrats shot down the government by demanding the repeal of the Hyde amendment, that would be entirely on them they would have to realize that no Republican could ever support such a repeal, and so shutdown would be inevitable.