Trump in El Paso last night: "I'm guilty! I'm guilty! I also live behind walls, okay?"

"The biggest proponents of open borders are rich liberals and wealthy donors. These are hypocrites who oppose security for you, while living their entire lives — I do too, to be honest with you, I'm guilty! I'm guilty! I also live behind walls, okay? — They live behind walls and gates, and they have guards all over the place. Me too! Because I want to be safe and I want to make America safe, if you don't mind."

Here's the precise clip:



Meanwhile, in Congress (NYT):

House and Senate negotiators on Monday night agreed in principle to provide $1.375 billion for fencing and other physical barriers at the Mexican border, part of a broader agreement that would stave off another partial government shutdown without funding President Trump’s wall.

The agreement would allow for 55 miles of new bollard fencing, with some restrictions on location based on community and environmental concerns, according to two congressional aides, who requested anonymity to disclose details of the private negotiations. That is a fraction of the more than 200 miles of steel-and-concrete wall that Mr. Trump demanded — and 10 miles less than negotiators agreed on last summer, before Democrats took control of the House.

Bollard fencing? Does that mean those concrete and steel posts that stop vehicles (but not pedestrians)? Wikipedia:

A bollard is a sturdy, short, vertical post. The term originally referred to a post on a ship or quay used principally for mooring boats, but is now also used to refer to posts installed to control road traffic and posts designed to prevent ram raiding and car ramming attacks.

I'm sure you can picture bollards. I just wanted to show you these bollards from Geelong (in Australia):

"Trump Caves!"

So said the headlines — of left-wing media and right-wing media. But some righties are working on the "Genius!" theory.

I'm reading "‘Trump caves’ or ‘Genius’: Right wing splits after Trump ends shutdown with no wall funding" in the "Internet Culture" section of The Washington Post.

What exactly is the Genius! interpretation here? I know there will be one, and I was trying to sketch it out in my head, but I decided what the hell!, I have better things to do and so many people are going to work on this theory that what do you need me for on this project?

Fox News host Sean Hannity [said] “Anyone out there thinking President Trump caved today, you don’t know the Donald Trump I know.... He right now holds all the cards — he will secure the border one way or another.”

On pro-Trump subreddit r/The_Donald, users rallied to justify Trump’s announcement. A top post on the forum on Friday afternoon declared: “What President Trump did today was show that Democrats would rather starve government employees and watch our airlines crash to the ground rather than have meaningful border security. 3 Weeks. The Wall Is Coming!”

WaPo doesn't link to r/The_Donald, so I will. I see they have a rule — Rule #6 — "Trump Supporters Only. No Cucks or Leftists."

Here's the vibe there:

Trump's speech just now....

https://t.co/RUFlgMxOUq

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2019

As reported in the NYT (boldface mine):

President Trump agreed Friday to reopen the federal government for three weeks while negotiations proceeded over how to secure the nation’s southwestern border, backing down after a monthlong standoff failed to force Democrats to give him billions of dollars for his long-promised wall.

The decision paved the way for Congress to quickly pass spending bills that Mr. Trump will sign to restore normal operations at a series of federal agencies until Feb. 15 and begin paying again the 800,000 federal workers who have been furloughed or forced to work for free for 35 days....

The surprise announcement was a remarkable comedown for a president who made the wall his nonnegotiable condition for reopening the government. But Mr. Trump relented as the effects of the shutdown rippled across the Northeast, with effects far beyond paychecks, such as air traffic slowing Friday because of a shortage of air traffic controllers, who called in sick...

Trump won't do the SOTU anywhere other than in the House Chamber.

Trump tweets.

As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative - I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over. I am not looking for an....

....alternative venue for the SOTU Address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a “great” State of the Union Address in the near future!

The NYT's Sheryl Gay Stolberg calls this "seeming capitulation":

The president’s seeming capitulation came even as House Democratic leaders said they were prepared to give him a substantial sum of money for border security — perhaps even the $5.7 billion he has requested — but not for a wall and not until he agreed to reopen the government. That figure is roughly double what Democrats had previously approved.

Is it "capitulation" or maintaining pressure?

Trump plans to walk right up into Nancy Pelosi's space — Will she smirk and block his way?

"Trump says he’ll deliver State of the Union at the Capitol despite Pelosi’s request to postpone" (WaPo).

I'm picturing him entering banging a drum and walking straight up to her and standing there beating the drum right in her face. Because that is the state of the union.

ADDED: A more "serious" view:

This is right, IMO. Pelosi shouldn't have cited security concerns as a reason for disinviting Trump from giving the SOTU. It would have sent a stronger message just to say she wouldn't pretend it was business-as-usual with the government shut down. https://t.co/5vcx41HYzz

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 23, 2019

UPDATE: Nancy says no.

UPDATE 2: Trump reacts:

NEW: President Trump responds to Speaker Nancy Pelosi not authorizing his State of the Union address in the House Chamber until the shutdown ends: "I'm not surprised. It's really a shame what's happening with the Democrats. They've become radicalized" https://t.co/APBKrpLaeI pic.twitter.com/FPsqL6iJvp

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) January 23, 2019

"Last time I went to Davos, the Fake News said I should not go there. This year, because of the Shutdown, I decided not to go..."

"... and the Fake News said I should be there. The fact is that the people understand the media better than the media understands them!"

Tweeted Trump, quoted in "John Kerry, in Davos, says Trump should 'resign'" (WaPo).

Kerry, speaking on a panel at the World Economic Forum at Davos, also said Trump "doesn’t take any of this seriously,” and (as paraphrased by WaPo) and doesn't have "the 'ability' to have deep conversations."

"The Senate will vote Thursday on two separate bills that would bring an immediate end to the partial government shutdown..."

"... one backed by President Trump that includes $5.7 billion for his border wall and another that would simply extend funding for shuttered agencies through Feb. 8. The plan, a compromise between Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, offers the first hint of a path out of the partial shutdown, which is now in its fifth week and has left 800,000 federal workers without pay. The two announced it Tuesday afternoon on the Senate floor."

The NYT reports.

Did Trump just threaten Pelosi with a "big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally"?

No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3 year extension of DACA. Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else. Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2019

"President Trump plans to use remarks from the Diplomatic Reception Room on Saturday afternoon to propose a notable immigration compromise, according to sources familiar with the speech."

"The offer is expected to include Trump’s $5.7 billion demand for wall money in exchange for the BRIDGE Act — which would extend protections for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — and also legislation to extend the legal status of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, according to a source with direct knowledge.... Advocates for the plan argue that by offering the new proposal, Trump is showing he’s willing to negotiate while Pelosi remains unmoved. But even some top Republicans are skeptical Trump's overture will be enough to break the logjam."

Says Axios.

Even if its not "enough to break the logjam," it's enough to allow him to say I offered a specific compromise and you didn't... unless and until they do make a specific counteroffer.

Some weary sighers and defeated shruggers are telling The Atlantic that only a shocking disaster can end the shutdown.

I'm reading "Waiting for a Shutdown to End in Disaster/Aides on Capitol Hill fear that a dramatic government failure may be the only thing to force President Trump and the Democrats back to the table", from McKay Coppins:

The basic theory—explained to me between weary sighs and defeated shrugs—goes like this: Washington is at an impasse that looks increasingly unbreakable.... For a deal to shake loose in this environment, it may require a failure of government so dramatic, so shocking, as to galvanize public outrage and force the two parties back to the negotiating table.

[T]he one theme that ran through every conversation was a sense that the current political dynamics won’t change until voters get a lot angrier.... [O]ne congressional staffer who wondered aloud whether it might take a stressed-out air-traffic controller causing a plane crash to bring an end to the shutdown. And several aides worried that some kind of terrorist incident would end up serving as the catalyst to get the government up and running again....

If one thing unites most Republicans and Democrats on the Hill these days, it’s that there is little use in trying to negotiate in good faith with the Trump White House. The president is simply too volatile, too prone to change his mind in a fit of pique, too apt to reverse course after watching Fox News....

ADDED: I'm trying to understand "little use in trying to negotiate in good faith." I realize the author must want to say that Trump is in bad faith. But being "volatile" — or, redundantly, "prone to change" and  "apt to reverse course" — is not in itself in bad faith. It's a style of negotiating, and I suppose it's annoying and hard to match and beat, but "bad faith" entails deception and fraud. Perhaps the author means that Trump's negotiating style is so effective that those on the other side of the deal feel that if they "negotiate in good faith," they'll lose, and that's why there's "little use in trying" their usual techniques. 

Harry Truman said "If you can't stand the heat you better get out of the kitchen." Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says...

"It’s not the kitchen that’s popular, or the cooking that’s popular, it’s that I’m engaging people doing something I’m already doing." She was instructing her colleagues on how to do social media.

Here's the background on the Truman quote, from the Truman Library (where, if you click, you'll get a message that the site isn't being updated regularly because of the federal government shutdown, so this might not be the latest on Harry Truman):

One of the results of this system is that it gives the President a good many hot potatoes to handle--but the President gets a lot of hot potatoes from every direction anyhow, and a man who can't handle them has no business in that job. That makes me think of a saying that I used to hear from my old friend and colleague on the Jackson County Court. He said, "Harry, if you can't stand the heat you better get out of the kitchen." I'll say that is absolutely true.

For Truman, "the kitchen" was metaphorical. It meant the hard, complicated, stressful work of politics. For Ocasio-Cortez, it's literally the kitchen. She's talking about her highly successful Instagramming of herself in her kitchen:



And she's comparing herself favorable to Elizabeth Warren, whose stilted get-me-a-beer kitchen performance was so awkwardly wrong:



But AOC does pull out the old Harry Truman metaphor when cornered:



In my previous post, which is also about AOC's advice on doing social media, I focused on her word of wisdom: "If you’re an older woman, talk like an older woman talks." I wonder if she accepts the corollary: "If you’re a younger woman, talk like a younger woman talks." Because "If you can't stand the heat you better get out of the kitchen" is the way an old man talks.

Trump strikes back.

President @realDonaldTrump’s letter to @SpeakerPelosi concerning her upcoming travel pic.twitter.com/TtBCvwp080

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 17, 2019

AND: Politico characterizes Pelosi's disinvitation of Trump for the State of the Union as "a carefully crafted, old-school letter," in which she "played the political game on her terms and accomplished three important things."

But Scott Adams calls it a strategic blunder (because the House setting for the SOTU is boring and now Trump can give his speech somewhere else):

Scott Adams talks about Pelosi’s SOTU strategic blunder. https://t.co/En7MoYBome

— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) January 17, 2019

"The shutdown has in some ways underscored [some conservatives'] view that government can function with fewer employees."

"'There’s a moment when people say, "Did you notice what percentage of this agency was viewed as nonessential?"' said anti-tax activist Grover Norquist. Former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon called shutdowns 'blunt-force measures that certainly show what’s essential and what’s not.'...  The shutdown follows two years of contraction of the federal workforce under Trump. During his first 18 months in office, the government shrank by 17,000 employees...."

From "The shutdown is giving some Trump advisers what they’ve long wanted: A smaller government" (WaPo).

"They’re required to work without being paid — that is the essence of involuntary servitude. The government has absolutely violated famous constitutional rights."

Said Michael Kator, an attorney for the plaintiffs who are working without pay during the shutdown, quoted in "'The essence of involuntary servitude': Federal unions sue the Trump administration to get paid for shutdown work" (WaPo).

The judge just ruled from the bench, denying a temporary restraining order:

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon said it would be “profoundly irresponsible" to issue an order that would result in thousands of employees staying home from work. "At best it would create chaos and confusion,” Leon said. “At worst it could be catastrophic . . . I’m not going to put people’s lives at risk.”...

The union was seeking a temporary restraining order against the federal government for allegedly violating controllers’ constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. Those working without pay must show up because their positions are considered vital for “life and safety.” More than 17,000 others are furloughed....

"There is no doubt that real hardship is being felt,” Leon said. But “the judiciary is not and cannot be another source of leverage” in resolving political “squabbles."

There also doesn't seem to be any doubt that the workers will all in the end be paid for the work they are doing now.

"The Fakes always like talking Chaos, there is NONE. In fact, there’s almost nobody in the W.H. but me...."

I just watched a Fake reporter from the Amazon Washington Post say the White House is “chaotic, there does not seem to be a strategy for this Shutdown. There is no plan.” The Fakes always like talking Chaos, there is NONE. In fact, there’s almost nobody in the W.H. but me, and...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2019

MEANWHILE:

There is only one right answer to the incredible question: Are you a foreign asset? And it doesn’t take 2 minutes to explain... pic.twitter.com/tb76DPP8D1

— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) January 13, 2019

That tweet is a wonderful demonstration of where Trump derangement syndrome takes you. Campbell apparently can't see that the question is sarcasm and not a serious effort to pin Trump down. And if Trump thought it was serious and was a "foreign asset," he would be far more likely to say "no" than to say anything else. How could anyone think that if he were a "foreign asset," he wouldn't lie? It makes no sense!

Who's losing the shutdown?

2 charts — averaging the polls at Real Clear Politics:

"And, most important, Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear — compromise."

"But Trump did. That is why the president won the night. Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans."

Writes Marc A. Thiessen in The Washington Post.

Here's the text of Trump's speech, if you want to look for where Trump used the word "compromise." He uses it twice, but both times it's about not compromising. First, there's a criticism of those who oppose the wall and won't compromise:

How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job? To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: Imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?

Second, there's a refusal to compromise "safety and security":

My fellow Americans, there is no challenge so great that our nation cannot rise to meet it. We can re-open the government and continue to work through disagreements about policy. We can secure our border without an expensive, ineffective wall. And we can welcome legal immigrants and refugees without compromising safety and security.

But perhaps he does, overall, sound conciliatory.

I watched the speech in real time last night, and it was much more moderate than I expected (because I was expecting him to announce that he was going to use "emergency powers" to build the wall). I haven't watched the Pelosi/Schumer response. But I will.

ADDED: I've now watched the Pelosi/Schumer response. I observed my emotional reaction, and I can tell you for sure that the line that reached me was "The fact is: the women and children at the border are not a security threat, they are a humanitarian challenge – a challenge that President Trump's own cruel and counterproductive policies have only deepened" (spoken by Pelosi).

The word with emotional resonance for me was "humanitarian." So I went back to the text of Trump's speech, and I see that he used the word in his first sentence:

My fellow Americans: Tonight, I am speaking to you because there is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.

And, to skip ahead to the 6th paragraph:

This is a humanitarian crisis — a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.... 

"Trump’s Best Shutdown Move Is to Fold Now/It’s time for the president to quit while he’s behind."

So says Bill Scher at Politico. He calls the shutdown "boring."

Here we are in Day Whateverteenth of the shutdown, and it’s much like the day before. Congressional leaders meet and get nowhere. Democrats insist Trump will never get his wall. Trump treats “steel slats” over concrete as a magnanimous gesture of compromise....

Trump is losing this shutdown—which is why his best strategy is to fold without demanding any concessions from Democrats. He needs to move his presidency onto another subject before it gets canceled in 2020....

You'd never know it...

You’d never know it from much of the coverage but no federal employees have missed a paycheck yet.

— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 8, 2019

And I still don't feel that I "know" it. There's no link to an article in this tweet. Mainstream media is a horrifying wasteland.

Isn't it to Trump's credit that only 3 have died in the National Parks during the shutdown?

The anti-Trumpism of The Washington Post is on display in "Three dead in national parks as shutdown wears on":

Three days after most of the federal workforce was furloughed on Dec. 21, a 14-year-old girl fell 700 feet to her death at the Horseshoe Bend Overlook, part of the Glen Canyon Recreation Area in Arizona. The following day, Christmas, a man died at Yosemite National Park in California after suffering a head injury in a fall. On Dec. 27, a woman was killed by a falling tree at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which straddles the borders of North Carolina and Tennessee.

It's not as if a federal worker would have been there to catch them. What is even the theoretical connection between the shutdown and these fatal falls?

The deaths follow a decision by Trump administration officials to leave the scenic — but sometimes deadly — parks open even as the Interior Department has halted most of its operations. During previous extended shutdowns, the National Park Service barred access to many of its sites across the nation.

Oh, I see. If only the parks were closed, they wouldn't have been there at all. This would argue in favor of permanently closing all the national parks because if people go there, they might die. But the real argument, thinly veiled, is that if only the parks were closed (like in past shutdowns), the shutdown would affect a lot of real people who could be shown complaining about their wrecked vacation.