Is that a "reversal"?
After weeks of negotiation and bipartisan votes of approval in the House and Senate, Trump on Tuesday unexpectedly slammed the COVID stimulus legislation but stopped short of saying he would veto it. The message upended Washington, drew bipartisan condemnation and threatened to end a chaotic year with a government shutdown.
Unexpectedly?
But after a growing number of Republicans pushed back on Trump's reticence – and Democrats quickly embraced Trump's idea of larger direct payments and used it as a cudgel against GOP lawmakers – Trump relented. The president, who has been spending the holidays at his Florida resort, hinted he had won concessions from lawmakers but it was not clear if that was actually the case.
Posts
87 comments:
Trump must have cut some sort of deal.
That was Trump’s concession. Farewell DJT
"But after a growing number of Republicans pushed back on Trump's reticence..."
Reticence: inclined to be silent or uncommunicative in speech, reserved
I deplore the use of reticence when reluctance is the correct word. Do the writers and editors at USA Today really think Trump is ... reticent?
He redlined a bunch of the crap out of it.....let it play out.
DEEBEE said...
That was Trump’s concession. Farewell DJT
And Hello to the same old tired old politics that have bankrupted us for life.....Some things will never change....
Blame him for doing things he has not done, refuse to give him credit for doing what they want him to do. Reluctantly, unexpectedly. Same old same old. He did, once again, expose the hypocrisy and corruption of Congress members.
@Wilbur You got me to look up the word. Definition #4 in the OED is "Reluctance to perform a particular action; disinclination, hesitation. Frequently with to (do something)." Examples go back to 1863:
1863 G. A. Sala Breakfast in Bed 258 With..sufficient reticence to burn his MS.,..he might in the end produce..such a work as would infinitely delight this generation.
1922 Stud. in Social Sci. 7 71 There was another reason for England's reticence to succor the Greek cause.
1972 Wall St. Jrnl. 19 Sept. 45 Retailers' reticence to place Christmas orders until late in the season.
1989 Marketing 25 May 9/2 Delaney feels that reticence about advertising sanpro and condoms is often the result of ‘hypocrisy and squeamishness’.
2003 Washington Post (Home ed.) 9 Apr. a11/2 Jordan's reticence to engage in the rubber-chicken affairs where much of Washington business gets done.
Looks like his Defense Bill veto is going to be overridden as well.
Not a lot of power remains when you are a lame duck.
Trump must have learned his negotiating style at Trump University. he still has plenty of power-He could go on tv before the vote and make a speech trying to persuade Republicans to vote for the $2,000.
The bully pulpit. He won't though- has to get 18 in.
You can focus your ire on Trump. Fair enough.
The U.S. Senate, an institution that holds itself up as "The World's Most Deliberative Body" is just one more American institution that has been exposed in the age of Trump.
I've been saying it for over a decade: My government, your government, is one of the most corrupt governments on the face of the Earth. The fact most people still thinks it's the most virtuous proves my point.
What does the USA Today pie chart say? I can’t stand the suspense.
The president on Sunday also invoked the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to demand “rescissions” be made to the spending measures. Under the Act, a president can seek congressional approval to rescind funds by sending a special message to Congress identifying the amount he proposes to cut, the reasons for it, and the economic impact.
“I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed. I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill,” Trump said.
"Trump's reticence"
If you could measure all the reticence in Donald J. Trump, how much would you get?
Pelosi stalled the payments for six months, til after the election. Then she was content with $600 (crumbs!) after inflicting all that anguish on the American people. Couldn’t wait to send billions overseas though! She should be vilified for this. The media protect her, but we know what happened here.
AA, I knew that was a definition about 4th in line for "reticent". It should not replace the clear word "reluctant" unless you're trying to sound smart, and no editor should let that pass. Just my opinion.
He had to pass it to allow something to get through. He's almost done in that office. But he will not be done with the fight. Not by a long shot. And his platform when he's free of office will be Yuge. He will make those who screwed the American people pay. And he'll have a very large following to rile up.
I'll be ready to be riled.
Commenter Wilbur's 5:43a and 7:34a remarks about the substitution of reticence for reluctance are on point. The fact that this solecism has become increasingly prevalent and is perpetuated in the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't make it any more palatable for educated native speakers. Etymologically, reluctance derives from Latin reluctari, meaning opposition, whereas reticence comes from reticere, meaning to keep silent.
In general, the OED is a less than optimal guide to contemporary American usage. We don't use spanner, bonnet, lorry, or gudgeon pin in discussing motor vehicle repair in this country. But conflating reticence and reluctance is simply wrong on either side of the pond. My Webster's 3rd Unabridged doesn't make that mistake.
Writing teachers and stylebooks promoted more of a difference between reticence and reluctance that wasn't always there. At least in the 80s they did.
I think E.B White was of that school.
Swamp things. All of them. Without shame.
1. Always make the best word choice you can, and not succumb to composition gymnastics to make your point. Just because there is there is a definition somewhere along the line doesn't mean you should use it. The exception is when use of the best word choice would require you to use the same adjective twice in a paragraph.
2. Though Wikipedia and others refer to Mar-A-Lago as a "resort", I suspect this word choice to be in line with the Trump bias evident in 99% of MSM. If it was a Dem, they would use the term "the winter White House".
THEOLDMAN
Getting ready for thosse "new year, new me" BS posts.
These Nancy bills are all "make top democrat insiders and their crook families richer"
"But after a growing number of Republicans pushed back on Trump's reticence"
If I had to guess - I would bet that is a total lie.
Teh democrats wrote the bill in the house. It's a crap sandwich. Teh R's are spineless to stop it.
I believe Mcconnell has a vero proof majority on this so it wouldn't have done any good to vero it. I think Trump did the best thing he could with this steaming pos of a bill.
Tell me again why I should vote Republican.
What Trump did is boringly typical DC. However, USA Today knows people like boring and will go with boring, so they made it seem dramatic. Oddly, despite their readers claiming to like boring, they actually prefer to read dramatic. I like true boring which I find dramatic enough.
Shorter article: We have no idea what happened.
Wait, was this the Kraken? Or is that next week?
Nancy's plan--$600 for citizens, $1800 for illegals.
Yeah, shit like this won over American voters. I hope they threw a few $ billion in that Bill for more lamp posts.
Wilbur @ 5:43 and 7:34: totally agree on the abuse of “reticent,” forcing it to do the work that should be done by “reluctant.” Or other perfectly good words, like “unwilling” or “obdurate” or “intransigent.” The effect of this practice is to weaken both “reticent” and “reluctant,” as if you were using an heirloom fork to pull nails or serving dinner with a crowbar.
>>Blogger Ann Althouse said...
@Wilbur You got me to look up the word. Definition #4 in the OED is "Reluctance to perform a particular action; disinclination, hesitation. Frequently with to (do something)."<<
Yeah, I know, you can find "reluctant" as a quaternary definition of "reticent" in various dictionaries. That is simply another one of those instances of lexicographers eventually throwing up their hands and "reticently' (sic) accepting the ignorant misuse of a word as an "accepted" definition - eg., infer for imply, nauseous for nauseated, comprise for compose, etc. I suspect the same philistine editors at USA Today think those are just fine, too. And they are...if one likes to appear unlettered.
Trump's “fuck you” to his voters.
This is disappointing. Trump appears to have caved to the swamp big time.
Reversal? Yes, it was a reversal. Indeed, a re-reversal. The White House made it clear that Trump would sign a finalized deal that Mnuchin helped to negotiate. Then Trump said the deal was terrible because it didn’t contain sufficient direct payments (which Democrats wanted but Republican Congressional leadership did not want) and because it contained pork-barrel spending that Trump said was silly and wasteful (but most of which had been in the Trump original budget proposal).
So yes; it was a reversal, and then another reversal, by Trump. And without any sensible negotiating strategy involved. He changed nothing in the bill. His gambit to invoke the Impoundment Control Act is a silly, meaningless attempt at face-saving. It will change nothing. All that Trump accomplished was to get the entire nation pissed off, scared and confused for a week’s worth of early voting in Georgia.
Blogger Mark said...
Looks like his Defense Bill veto is going to be overridden as well.
Not a lot of power remains when you are a lame duck.
Lefty Mark misses the fact the over ridding his veto means that the blame for the consequences will be directed to the right people. I hope he does not sign the porkulus bill.
USA Today = Enemy.
Then Trump said the deal was terrible because it didn’t contain sufficient direct payments (which Democrats wanted but Republican Congressional leadership did not want) and because it contained pork-barrel spending that Trump said was silly and wasteful (but most of which had been in the Trump original budget proposal).
More lies from the compulsive liar.
Blogger MeMySelf said...
I believe Mcconnell has a vero proof majority on this so it wouldn't have done any good to vero it. I think Trump did the best thing he could with this steaming pos of a bill.
I disagree. Veto is the right thing to do.
He's the greatest click bait the American media has ever seen. Going fwd, it'll be 'Biden smelled a rose in the White House garden - something Trump would never stoop to do since he hates Nature.
idenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...
"But after a growing number of Republicans pushed back on Trump's reticence"
If I had to guess - I would bet that is a total lie.
Teh democrats wrote the bill in the house. It's a crap sandwich. Teh R's are spineless to stop it.
Bingo ! The over ride vote is the key to the GOP primaries next time.
Blogger MeMySelf said...
I believe Mcconnell has a vero proof majority on this so it wouldn't have done any good to vero it. I think Trump did the best thing he could with this steaming pos of a bill.
Trump could have held out with a pocket veto; Congress wouldn’t have had an opportunity for an override vote until after January 3, at which time the session would end and the bill would die.
No; Trump totally caved. Caved on what he said last week, which was of course a reversal of his position of two weeks before that.
Petulance; idiocy; insanity; call it whatever you want. Just don’t say that it was anything like “the best that he could do.”
the DNC newsletter called the NYT, always misstates the facts to make Trump look bad. Trump wants $2000 per person and less pork. Pelosi also want $2000, but with all the other spending and pork. The Congressional R's want $600, and are OK with all the other pork.
As you can see, there's no significant number of Congressional R's who get rid of the pork AND transfer the $$$ so we can get $2000. They literally hate the average American. They'd rather screw us over and give our tax money to foreigners and Big Corporations.
Guess who's the standard bearer for this "Hurrah for foreign aid and Corporations, to hell with the Average American" Position? why none other than the Establishment 'Moderates'! Including Mitch, Mittens, Miss Lindsey, Susan collins, Lisa Murkey, Ben Sasse, Lynn Cheney and McCarthy. That's what the R party stands for, when you take out Trump.
I must say Romney is consistent. He's always hated the average American. I can remember his 110% for TARP that gave the Banksters $800 Billion to cover their fraud and bad loans. But Mittens was 110% AGAINST bailing out the automakers. So what if 500,000 Americans would've lost their jobs? Romney didn't care, because "Muh Free Market".
This is how rich DC Republicans always act. When its about helping small business or the average American, they say no and cry: "what about the deficit?" and "Let the free market work its magic!" "Smaller Government!" But when it comes to foreign aid, cutting taxes for the rich and corporation and NOW just shoveling hundreds of $Billions$ to them, Mittens and his gang don't care about the deficit or "smaller Government". Hey, the Chamber of Commerce might get angry. And they don't want that.
Blogger Michael K said...
“Then Trump said the deal was terrible because it didn’t contain sufficient direct payments (which Democrats wanted but Republican Congressional leadership did not want) and because it contained pork-barrel spending that Trump said was silly and wasteful (but most of which had been in the Trump original budget proposal).”
More lies from the compulsive liar.
You nasty old pig. Name one thing I got wrong in that quote.
Notice that Sullivan - mr independent thinker and Edgy moderate - supports this monstrosity. why to oppose it would be "Populism" and we wouldn't want that, would we?
This will be a slow fuse that will undo the democrats so I am fine with it. Pelosi dragged her stiletto heels only to give out crumbs at the end.
Trump could have vetoed and died on this hill but I think he will be of more use pardoning Snowden and Assange and sticking it to the swamp in other ways.
When Mitch and Nancy agree on porkulus bills they get done. That's how things work in that garbage pile.
BtW, off-topic, Gateway pundit has an article about a mathematician who looked at the 2020 Pennsylvania voter roles and found 500,000 "Unique" names. This means people whose last name isn't found anywhere else in the Pennsylvania records. This means no other adult person with that name is found in the Pennsylvania voter records or government records. They are the ONLY person with that name. No adult sisters or brothers, spouses, parents, cousins, exist. This 500,000 represents 14% of the people who voted, and is an insanely large number, since Pennsylvania has comparatively little out of state migration or foreign immigration.
Its ANOTHER big red flag, that many of the mail-in ballots are from non-existent people.
rcocean;
Don’t try to put some sensible policy spin on what Trump did. If Trump wanted more direct payments and less “pork,” he shouldn’t have proposed all that pork in the budget he proposed to Congress in the first place. And he shouldn’t have sent Mnuchin to negotiate about it for six months without a word of protest.
The next step would be to see how many of these "Unique name" individuals voted mail in for Biden. If its a large percent, you have certified proof of massive fraud.
Chuck - who cares? you're statement is false, and I'm not interested in arguing with fakes.
Oh; and he should have talked to Congressional Republicans about the size of direct payments.
Blogger rcocean said...
The next step would be to see how many of these "Unique name" individuals voted mail in for Biden. If its a large percent, you have certified proof of massive fraud.
Yeah, get to work on that. Let us know how it goes. It should keep you out of trouble for the next four years. Good luck.
Trump could have vetoed and died on this hill but I think he will be of more use pardoning Snowden and Assange and sticking it to the swamp in other ways.
I'm now seeing the argument that a veto would have resulted in losing both GA Senate races. I suspect that is the answer. I see no other reason why he would change his decision. Of course, the two Senate races may be lost anyway, especially the Loeffler seat as she is an airhead whose rich husband bought the seat for her. The crazy Rev Wright type who would replace her would be a nice target.
I think the election will probably be stolen anyway. I'd give it 50-50.
He should have told them to fuck off and let the bloated federal starve for a bit, military included.
Trump is Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. He is Pro-American, and copes with Democrats, Humpty Dumpties, and the excesses of Republicans.
Blogger Joe Smith said...
He should have told them to fuck off and let the bloated federal starve for a bit, military included.
I agree but this is why I assume the GA election was used to pressure him.
that's a fair bet, she gives mcsally a run for her money, for vaccuous candidate,
Uh Oh! It looks like a Chuck thread.
I've got better things to do.
"I agree but this is why I assume the GA election was used to pressure him."
They won't steal those anyway?
Blogger narciso said...
that's a fair bet, she gives mcsally a run for her money, for vaccuous candidate,
McSally is a very smart woman and knows a lot about politics. She just was not a good candidate and in 2018 must have had the dumbest campaign manager in captivity. She was not attached to a rich husband like Loeffler.
You nasty old pig. Name one thing I got wrong in that quote.
Chuck being Chuck. I usually avoid you.
I'm guessing that was an early example of the steal, with or without dominion machines,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/12/illinois-restaurant-owner-refuses-to-close-slams-covid-relief-bill/
Chuck said" "...He changed nothing in the bill..." Really? The one I read showed numerous 'redlined' cutouts? But you and AA did not comment on the changes.
Spare a thought for the guy ordered to make red lines in a 5,593 page document.
Does it really matter anymore?
No.
Trump must have learned his negotiating style at Trump University. he still has plenty of power-He could go on tv before the vote and make a speech trying to persuade Republicans to vote for the $2,000.
The bully pulpit. He won't though- has to get 18 in.
Blaming Trump for bullshit Congress created is pretty weak, leftist.
Hey Pelosi said that $1,200 was "crumbs" and $600 was "significant". Trump is not the only self important lying bozo in Washington. He's right this bill is a disgrace. But then I doubt that a single Congress critter read it all---just wanted to read the parts where they'd inserted their personal political pork lardon.
Trump wanted a refundable credit and a public smoothing function (e.g. welfare) for Americans, first, to compensate for burdens induced by viral and social contagion. He will compromise with Democrats and other Republicans in a tripartite environment, a hostile Fourth Estate, and special interests. He should could go on record to note particular exceptions. Although, in a bill of over 5000 pages, and a Christmas to New Year holiday season, that may not be a viable choice.
Trump put the monkey back on congress’s back for this pork filled bill.
I agree with Mike - I see it as due to the Ga election.
Blogger rcocean said...
BtW, off-topic, Gateway pundit has an article about a mathematician who looked at the 2020 Pennsylvania voter roles and found 500,000 "Unique" names
I read the twitter feed as, of the half a million unique last names in the 9 million records looked at, 47% of those or 245k belong to a single person. And that.......is whack, or so it would seem.
Chuck, he can't help himself.
Fun with numerology.
You rarely miss a chance to take some minimalist, good-for-nothing cheap shot at me.
Poor Chuck. One would never know of his importance in the Michigan Republican Party.
The only shots worth wasting on you are cheap ones.
Oh, and I did not "log on" to read your crap. We are visiting the OC "hot spot" of Chinese flu and had a lovely time with 25 friends and relatives Christmas Eve. But, due to the hotels being all closed by Governor Hair Gel, we are staying in my son's condo. He is out of town and cannot remember his WiFi password so I have to use my iPhone "Hotspot" which limits me to only a few blogs, this is one.
Someone needs to take their meds.
I read President Trump also put something in their about investigating voter fraud.
I hope the rest of you have managed to secure your future without the need of government checks. Otherwise, things might get a little thin in the future. Bless your hearts.
Orange Man Bad = TDS
Governor Hair Gel = Sparkling wit.
Kids, don't try to play this at home.
Blogger bagoh20 said...
I hope the rest of you have managed to secure your future without the need of government checks. Otherwise, things might get a little thin in the future. Bless your hearts.
Fox News had a segment about Biden's plan to stimulate unions. They then put up a graphic showing which unions. All, of course, are government employee unions. CalPERS used to be a well run retirement plan until the loonies started with "progressive" investment strategies. I just hope my son's pension survives.
Ann, I'm with Wilbur and Ice Nine on "reticent," especially "reticent to," which I'm sure is a product of contamination from "hesitant to." Yes, people are using it that way, and the more permissive dictionaries take note of the fact and supply the "new" meaning in their stocks. That doesn't mean any of us have to like it, or use it that way.
eg., infer for imply, nauseous for nauseated, comprise for compose, etc
"Infer" for "imply" is just wrong. An inference just isn't an implication; for one thing, the inference is something you make when looking at something, while an implication is something the thing itself possesses when you view it. Compose and comprise are a similar pair: a box of eggs comprises 12 eggs, or a box of eggs is composed of 12 eggs, but nothing "is comprised of" anything.
"Nauseous" vs. "nauseated" is more a UK-vs.-US thing. We generally say that "I feel nauseous," which to a Brit would mean "I feel repulsive." "Nauseated" is their word for "suffering from nausea," and "nauseous" their word for "causing nausea." In the US, I learned "nauseous" for the former meaning, and never used "nauseated" at all. I freely admit that their way makes more sense, and wish we could adopt it.
The swamp broke him. 3 glorious years, and then a phony cold virus scare broke him.
Imagine standing up to all the powers that exist. He exposed the rot of the US Media, the rot of our political parties, the stench of our Capitol City.
The worst of it is our politicians who represent us to the world, making the 'we'll give you money, if you slice us off a piece' deals.
This is the face that we Americans show to the world.
The Lindsey Grahams, the Joe Bidens, the Jim Risch's, the ...Dianne Feinsteins. Add all our Senators to the list.
We want to think we are a light to the world. We are a rotting corpse of the Senators who feed off of Trillions going through our cesspit Capitol. It's human nature.
"I agree but this is why I assume the GA election was used to pressure him."
Exactly, Trump took one for the team and walked into the ambush so the Senate would not be lost. You critics can piss off.
Democrats are all one horse ponies(R). They condemn you for not cooperating, then when you bargain with them they laugh and call you a looser. Such attractive people.
"The president, who has been spending the holidays at his Florida resort, " or from the past
"The president, who has been spending the holidays at his friends Hawaiian Beach house."
"The president, who has been spending the holidays at his Hyannisport compound."
The president, who has been spending the holidays at his Hudson Valley Estate,
The president, who has been spending the holidays at his Virginia Plantation."
Are these snide 26 year old mediapunks sober during the daytime?
Why is Chuck still here?
"cannot remember his WiFi password"
Sounds like a real rocket scientist.
When the Clintons gave secret missile technology to China in the '90s, Mitch McConnell was the Chairman of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee. He never said a word. He was looking for bucks. This is a game that none of us are invited to play.
Blogger Mutaman said...
"cannot remember his WiFi password"
Sounds like a real rocket scientist.
Yeah, leftist trial lawyer.
But I love him.
Post a Comment