Republicans' Refusal To Do Anything About The Border Costs Them A House Seat
The House seat once held by George Santos is back in Democratic hands once again, after an impressive 8-point victory in a special election last night. Once Tom Suozzi is sworn in, this will leave Republicans with a smaller majority, meaning Speaker Mike Johnson will only be able to lose two votes from his own party when passing purely partisan bills. This may not have that big an effect, since Johnson already struggles to pass partisan bills with the majority he's currently got (a bill on spying powers had to be pulled today, for instance, since Republicans can't agree among themselves over what to put in it). If Johnson had been wildly successful up to this point and his new smaller margin put that at risk then that'd be one thing, but the reality is the only bills he's been able to move with any chance of becoming law are ones with wide bipartisan support. Not much about that dynamic is actually going to change, even with one more Democrat in the chamber.
Still, last night was good news for Democrats. In 2022 Santos initially won the district -- which flipped the seat to the Republicans -- by eight points too. His odiousness had to have been a factor in the race to replace him, but it wasn't like Democrats won in a solidly red district or anything. They (obviously) won some voters back to their side, which is indeed good news for them heading into this year's regular elections. Democrats could retake control of the chamber by picking up only four seats in November, and New York may be the place where this happens. House Republicans had a very good cycle in New York in 2022, so if four or five more Democrats can win seats back (as Suozzi just did), that could be the whole ballgame.
One thing about yesterday's election was rather karmically satisfying for Democrats, since they did a much better job in the district of getting their voters to vote early. This has become somewhat normal, ever since Donald Trump began falsely badmouthing mail-in voting, as Republicans now tend to prefer to show up on Election Day and cast their vote in person. But yesterday a big snowstorm hit New York City, which had to have depressed in-person turnout to some extent or another. It's yet another example of Republicans shooting themselves in the foot over their baseless fears of banking votes early. The moral of this story: the more Trump rants about early voting being bad, the more something like the weather on Election Day can have a big impact.
The most interesting dynamic from the special election was the fact that the Republican candidate made immigration and the border the centerpiece of her campaign -- and she still lost. Suozzi leaned into the issue, especially after Republicans in the Senate tanked a bipartisan plan that had taken months to hammer out (and was largely Republican-written). "Republicans don't want to do anything on the border, they just want to play politics with the issue" can indeed be a winning message, in other words. Blaming Joe Biden for all the ills of immigration and the border doesn't work as well politically when your own party refuses to do anything to fix the problem.
Coincidentally, some members of the House are now proposing putting their own border deal together, rather than getting absolutely nothing done. The Senate tried to pass a foreign aid bill (with money for Ukraine and Israel) along with the border deal a bipartisan group had worked out, but Trump successfully undermined Republican support for it and it failed. The border deal, again, was heavily weighted towards GOP agenda items, but it didn't matter to Trump. All he was worried about was Biden "getting a big win" on the border and the issue fading from the political arena as a direct result. So the Senate passed the foreign aid bill without any of the border deal included -- which, again, is another excellent example of the GOP shooting themselves in the foot. Or tearing off their own nose to spite their face. Or face-planting. Choose your own metaphor, there are plenty of appropriate ones to pick from.
Perhaps realizing this, one House Republican is already working towards some sort of face-saving plan, as Politico reports:
House Republicans are planning to unveil a Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and border bill as an alternative to the border-free package that passed the Senate on Tuesday, a lawmaker leading the effort said Wednesday.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) told reporters the proposed pathway could be revealed as early as Thursday -- and that he will brief Speaker Mike Johnson on its contents prior to its release. He said he is working with "a handful" of colleagues from both parties in the Senate and House, but declined to name names or give details of the proposal.
"Stay tuned in the next 24 hours, I think you’ll see something that I think will be bipartisan," he said.
The alternative to doing nothing is going to be the Senate bill (with no border deal) passing, so this could be a way out of this self-inflicted Republican mess. Even though the speaker swears he won't bring up the Senate bill for a House floor vote, if enough members sign a petition they can force the bill to the floor anyway (Democrats would have to get a handful of Republicans to sign on to this effort, but at this point that's looking like a real possibility). But if they've got their own border deal to quibble over, then the Senate bill will likely not pass (or not as quickly, at any rate -- it will likely be put on hold until the new deal either passes or fails to pass the House).
Last night will certainly help motivate them, one would think. Republicans have been screaming: "There's a crisis! We have to do something!" for a while now, but the voting public is not going to reward them for (1) first forcing the Democrats to the table and making them swallow a mostly-Republican deal, but then (2) blowing up the deal because it would politically remove the issue for them. The Republican candidate put all her cards on making the border and immigration the central issue in the special election, but the failure in the Senate pulled the rug out from under her position in a big way. This should make a whole bunch of other Republican House members very nervous, since the same dynamic might just play out again in November in their districts if nothing gets done in the meantime.
House Republicans unveiling their own border bill might help them get out of the hole they've dug for themselves. It'd be easy to see a deal emerge that is very similar to the one the Senate rejected, with a little tinkering around the edges so they can say it is "a totally different plan." Then Republicans in the House could all get behind the deal "because we wrote it, not the Senate" and pass it with the help of Democrats (if the deal isn't too odious and if it still contains all the foreign aid for Ukraine and Israel). The Senate would very likely accept the deal as well and pass it so Biden can sign it into law.
But of course, there's a very big "if" in all of that. A new Republican border deal written primarily by a House Republican could indeed allow the GOP a face-saving way out of their mess... if Donald Trump doesn't come out against the new deal as well. If he does, it probably doesn't have a chance. However, if the House Republicans can convince Trump that the deal is "a tremendous deal" and that Trump himself inspired them to write it, perhaps they could flatter him into actually supporting it? That would be worth a try, at any rate.
But it's hard to see that succeeding, really. Trump's main complaint about the Senate deal wasn't based on this item or that which was included in the deal, instead it was that he didn't want to see Joe Biden get a win on the issue. And that dynamic won't change no matter how much tinkering the House negotiators do. So it'd be a lot more probable that Trump will come out against any emerging House consensus plan as well, and by doing so tank its chances of passing. Which could wind up with the foreign aid bill passing and no border deal passing.
If Democrats handle all of this right -- and so far, they have been doing a good job of that -- then they can successfully turn the issue against Republicans. When Republicans launch their political attacks about the border, all Democrats have to say is: "Your party did nothing to fix it, just so you could play politics with it. Vote for Democrats to get something done rather than just play politics with people's lives."
Representative-Elect Tom Suozzi just proved that can be a winning strategy.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Nice writeup, CW.
A 16-point swinger!
"Republicans don't want to do anything on the border, they just want to play politics with the issue" can indeed be a winning message, in other words.
In addition, revealing the fact that your opponent is nothing more than a hypocritical spineless rubber-stamp for "whatever Trump wants" is also a winner, particularly when DickTater Donald is a pathological liar who also alters his positions as frequently as he changes his diaper. It's also a fact that sitting idly by while Dear Leader claims he would "encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" isn't representation but subservience and an unbelievable shift in Republican foreign policy because they are so afraid to stand up to Trump that they're willing to stop aid to Ukraine on his whim/order and thusly hand Vladimir Putin a victory he has not been able to win on the battlefield. Appeasement/encouragement of a military aggressor generally creates a fertile environment for more war... not less.
That about sums it up.
But yesterday a big snowstorm hit New York City, which had to have depressed in-person turnout to some extent or another.
So, what was the turnout for that special election, anyways?
So the Senate passed the foreign aid bill without any of the border deal included -- which, again, is another excellent example of the GOP shooting themselves in the foot. Or tearing off their own nose to spite their face. Or face-planting.
Or face-sitting. Oh, wait ... hehehehehe
Choose your own metaphor, there are plenty of appropriate ones to pick from.
The next nine months, ahem, are really going to be hilarious ... unintentionally, of course. :-)
I suppose it's too much to hope for that Dems will, at long last, learn how to deal with Trump ... not to mention how to deal with the serious concerns whirling around their own presidential candidate. ;)
4 years ago today, an 80-year-old Chinese tourist in France died of covid taking the global death toll to 1, 000.
Pardon, that was not the 1000th death, it was the first death outside of Asia.
Speaking of "foreign aid", did Israel use misleading images to claim it wasn't blocking aid deliveries to Gaza?
Yes, yes it did.
Despite firm assurances to the contrary from president Biden while in Israel early on in this war - and a lot of US handwringing since - the US-empowered IDF continues to hamper and otherwise block the flow of humanitarian aid to the civilian Palestinian population in Gaza and that deteriorating situation only promises to get worse.
Of course, the only thing that is flowing free is propaganda.
These days, face masks are making a comeback in my neck of the woods...
Today's free flowing anti Israel propaganda brought to you by the William Bradley foundation for the promotion of willful ignorance.
Get serious, Joshua.
Joshua[9]
You know, there are people in this world who love the democratic state of Israel and the idea of a Jewish state and who hope that neither will ever fade or vanish from the earth. These people understand enough of the history - modern and ancient - to know how important it is for the US and other freedom-loving nations of the world to support Israel in its own defense and ongoing quest for peace and freedom. For these people, there isn't anything in the realm of geopolitics more important than the security of Israel and its citizens and the right of Israel to self-defense.
I am one of those people. My criticism of the Israeli government and of the IDF comes from a place of love. I take the time to voice my criticisms because I care so much about the future of Israel and of its security in a very dangerous neighbourhood. There is nothing I want to see more in the region than the elimination of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Israel living in peaceful coexistence with all of its like-minded neighbours.
Please stop running away from serious discussions about Israeli actions by making such simple-minded and wholly misguided comments like your [9]. It's unbecoming.
i've tried to have serious discussions with you liz, and you don't seem to process any information that might make your current opinions seem as naive as they actually are.
No, you have not. You deny what is happening on the ground and when you aren't able to engage seriously and cogently, you tap out comments like the one above.
[11]
Too bad that your support for Israel’s right to exist in peace isn’t matched by your support for Ukraine’s right to exist.
Why is your William Bradley afraid to post his work? Please tell me that you’re not actually paying for this guy’s nonsense.
And I agree with poet — you don’t engage with Weigantia’s feedback to what you post. It’s a waste of my time to even try anymore.
unintentionally hilarious
Caddy, you keep asking the same questions over and over again and I am finished answering them.
The obsession with Bradley is amusing. I would suggest broadening horizons to include a wide variety of reliable information sources is advised.
I'll engage when the feedback to what I post is cogent and not non-serious repetitive ramblings.
In other words, grow up!
I keep asking you the same questions over and over because you utterly refuse to answer them!
You’re acting like a fucking Trumpanzie who refuses to answer questions that there IS NO answer and therefore they don’t even try.*smh*
I'll engage by having some pie.
Caddy,
Too bad that your support for Israel’s right to exist in peace isn’t matched by your support for Ukraine’s right to exist.
Too bad you don't know that it is.
Macron demands a ceasefire in Gaza,
France joins Canada, Australia and New Zealand in an effort to prevent an unmitigated human catastrophe.
Caddy,
Why is your William Bradley afraid to post his work? Please tell me that you’re not actually paying for this guy’s nonsense.
Why do you keep bringing him up? It's been quite some time since I posted any excerpts.
For the last time I will answer your question like you are a six-year-old because that is how you are acting.
Read carefully.
William Bradley has long retired from writing in public forums. But, he hasn't given up his interest in geopolitics or in commenting on events or in open discussion among a select list of people on his mailing list.
In other words, his writings are only available through personal email. If you are on his email list, then you get to read what he writes and may even be able to have a little back and forth with him.
Now, stop asking about it! At least until I post another Bradley excerpt here. :)
Great, macron can add his name to the list. It's a catastrophe already, but not one that's avoidable, except by releasing the hundred or so surviving hostages.
Elizabeth Miller
7
Of course, the only thing that is flowing free is propaganda.
The Russians call this dezinformatsia. Those who disseminate it are referred to as "useful idiots." They have no idea they're regurgitating false talking points.
nypoet22
9
Today's free flowing anti Israel propaganda brought to you by the William Bradley foundation for the promotion of willful ignorance.
Yes... exactly what I meant in [24].
Elizabeth Miller
13
No, you have not.
Patently false, Elizabeth. The blog and comments are archived, you know.
You deny what is happening on the ground and when you aren't able to engage seriously and cogently, you tap out comments like the one above.
Said the uninformed Canadian who literally admittedly puts words in people's mouths while repeatedly failing to address their points. It's you who is wholly unserious:
https://www.chrisweigant.com/2024/02/09/friday-talking-points-a-disservice-to-actual-working-clowns/#comment-207007
Elizabeth Miller
17
I'll engage when the feedback to what I post is cogent and not non-serious repetitive ramblings.
What you've actually done here is proven MtnCaddy's (as well as multiple other commenters here) point. It is definitely you who refuses to respond to anything that doesn't fit your regurgitation of quite a large heaping pile of misinformation on endless loop.
You won't respond to anything that doesn't fit your worldview. Own it.
In other words, grow up!
You can stop digging; you've proven his point.
[22]
Elizabeth you have yet to answer a single point about Ukraine that I’ve brought to your attention. You know who else likewise wouldn’t (or couldn’t) answer? The douchebag formerly known as michale.
Not only that but you don’t post any links or quote anyone who supports your reasoning. I’ve posted multiple links — a real pain on my smartphone — and you give no sign that you have read a single one.
Ireference Bradley because you’re a big fan of someone who’s so confident of his conclusions that he, what, hides behind a paywall? Are you paying for this guy’s crap, Elizabeth?
@caddy,
why are you picking on michale? first of all, he hasn't been here in months. secondly, he actually does understand the need of ukraine and israel to defend themselves effectively against opponents seeking to end their existence.
liz gets the bradley comments from an e-mail list. those generally aren't paid, and probably aren't publishable.
Caddy,
You responded to my [22] but you obviously didn't read it if you're asking about a paywall! And, I have explained this before for you. I'm at a loss as to how to make you understand...
Caddy and Joshua,
I've been meaning to clear something up and your comments here in this thread remind me to do it.
I'm pretty sure that there isn't anyone in Weigantia who doesn't believe that Ukraine and Israel have every right to defend themselves from efforts to end their very existence. That much SHOULD go without saying. But, I have found that very little around here actually does goes without saying and that everything must be spelled out, explicitly.
With regard to Ukraine, I am in agreement with most of what you guys post about Ukraine's right and obligation to do whatever it can to defend itself against Putin's latest aggression. Ukraine also has every right as a sovereign nation to apply for membership in NATO.
Where I differ from the rest of you is in thinking that Ukraine SHOULD be in NATO and that NATO should know better than to want Ukraine in NATO. Ukraine's membership in NATO has never made any sense to me, even when I was a supporter of NATO expansion in Europe. Ukraine is a special case - not at all like Sweden or Finland or even Poland - when it comes to how far NATO should go in advancing toward Moscow.
If there hadn't been a push by the US over the course of the last three decades or more to expand NATO through Ukraine and if Ukraine had declared that it would accept neutral status and act as a buffer between NATO and Russia, then Ukraine might be in a much better place today and in control of the totality of its territory. Do I think that Putin's actions in 2014 and his all out invasion in 2022 could have been prevented if the last thirty years had been different? I think it's possible but I can't know for sure.
What I do know is that the US and its NATO allies have supported Ukraine only so far as to prevent it from losing this war, not to win it. All the West seems to really care about is weakening Russia which is all well and good but not at the cost of sacrificing Ukraine. And, that is what I call despicable and duplicitous and disingenuous behavior on the part of Ukraine's supporters - especially when these supporters know how unlikely it is that Ukraine will ever be a member of NATO, for a whole host of reasons.
Of course, I think Ukraine has already 'won' by preventing Putin from taking over the entire country in the first few months of this war. That was pretty impressive. That was the time for Ukraine to engage in negotiations aimed at pushing Russia back to where it was before the invasion. And, from that point, Ukraine would have been in a very good position to move forward, over time, to possibly regain the rest of its territory through diplomatic means.
Yes, I have always leaned towards the diplomatic solution to geopolitical crises though I am hardly a pacifist. It's just that wars fought in favour of supporting and expanding democracy in my lifetime have not gone well, to put it mildly.
And, before Putin's war began, I found it hard to believe how Ukraine could come out of such a war better off than before - which, as hard as it is for some to admit, is what is coming to pass on the ground as this war grinds on to who knows what outcome.
So, finally, let me say that I hope Putin gets ALL of what is coming to him for the dubious and unwise and unjust actions he has taken with regard to Ukraine. I also hope that Ukraine will find a way to bring this war to an end and, with the help and support of the West, continue to work towards a future Ukraine that has been able to regain full sovereignty over all of its territory.
I'll get to Israel, another day ... :)
Oh, I almost forgot ... here is video of a discussion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that took place recently on the question of whether Ukraine should have kept nuclear weapons. That is actually a rather moot question that misses the point but I found the discussion to be very interesting and the book that is referenced sounds like a really fascinating read!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e8vLmqoEFY
Elizabeth Miller
31
And, I have explained this before for you. I'm at a loss as to how to make you understand...
What I don't understand is why you find it necessary to belittle your fellow Weigantians with mean-spirited responses.
^^^ It's my Elizabeth Miller impression. :) ^^^
Elizabeth Miller
32
I'm pretty sure that there isn't anyone in Weigantia who doesn't believe that Ukraine and Israel have every right to defend themselves from efforts to end their very existence. That much SHOULD go without saying.
On the other hand, you keep making posts ad nauseam that (at their very core) claim Ukraine shouldn't be joining NATO. For the love of God and all that is holy, what is it going to take to convince you that joining NATO falls under the heading "every right to defend themselves" that you insist you believe Ukraine has? Rhetorical question.
But, I have found that very little around here actually does goes without saying and that everything must be spelled out, explicitly.
Okay then, I very explicitly reiterate that Ukraine joining NATO is indisputably one of those "every rights" you keep claiming they have.
Where I differ from the rest of you is in thinking that Ukraine SHOULD be in NATO and that NATO should know better than to want Ukraine in NATO.
If you don't think Ukraine SHOULD be in NATO, then you actually don't believe they have every right to defend themselves and/or are simply failing inextricably and repeatedly to grasp the simple meaning of "every."
Ukraine's membership in NATO has never made any sense to me, even when I was a supporter of NATO expansion in Europe.
Here let me help you: Ukraine's membership in NATO doesn't have to make sense to you, but it definitely falls under the "every right to defend" heading. Not rocket science.
Ukraine is a special case - not at all like Sweden or Finland or even Poland - when it comes to how far NATO should go in advancing toward Moscow.
It's Ukraine's call, and you either believe in Ukraine's every right to protect themselves or you don't.
As for the remainder of your assessment, I reiterate the fact you keep missing the forest in favor of the trees, and you repeating yourself again and ad nauseam on an endless loop on this forum is a gargantuan waste of time.
What part of Putin/Russia doesn't acknowledge the very existence of Ukraine is confusing to you?
What I do know is that the US and its NATO allies have supported Ukraine only so far as to prevent it from losing this war, not to win it.
Incorrect. Also, war isn't always going to (and probably will never) occur on a timetable acceptable to Elizabeth Miller.
All the West seems to really care about is weakening Russia which is all well and good but not at the cost of sacrificing Ukraine.
Russia is (still) the aggressor here that does not believe in the existence of Ukraine and can obviously avoid "weakening" of itself by "the West" by ceasing their aggression against Ukraine.
And, that is what I call despicable and duplicitous and disingenuous behavior on the part of Ukraine's supporters - especially when these supporters know how unlikely it is that Ukraine will ever be a member of NATO, for a whole host of reasons.
And that is what I call ignorance on a grand scale and repetitive loop.
Of course, I think Ukraine has already 'won' by preventing Putin from taking over the entire country in the first few months of this war.
So you're saying they're winning but can't win.
Stop digging. Just stop.
That was pretty impressive.
No thanks to "the West," obviously. Sarcasm.
That was the time for Ukraine to engage in negotiations aimed at pushing Russia back to where it was before the invasion.
Ukraine did engage in negotiations, and you're naive and have failed repeatedly to grasp the simple concept of a "pretext" for war by an aggressor who doesn't believe in the very concept of Ukraine's existence.
Lastly, Russia/Putin actually published their draft agreements with NATO and the United States during "negotiations," which demands were deemed basically knowingly "dead on arrival":
Russia’s draft agreements with NATO and the United States: Intended for rejection?
There are multiple URLs contained in the above article from Brookings that literally link to (among other things) Russia's published demands (straight from the source) regarding NATO and demands of the United States, which can be easily translated with a mouse click.
The prattling misinformed right-wing talking points being repeated on loop are wholly unnecessary; please educate yourself.
Kick,
Yes, Ukraine has every right to want to join NATO. And, NATO has every right to decide who should be a member.
What I am saying is that it makes no geopolitical sense for Ukraine to be in NATO. My view on that, by the way, was formed from following one of my favourite US foreign policy thinkers, Zbig Brzezinski.
My argument all along has been that if the US had not been pushing NATO expansion all the way through Ukraine for the past many decades and if Ukraine itself had chosen neutrality over seeking NATO membership, then Ukraine may not be in a state of war today.
Now, would all of that so dramatically have changed the situation over the years that Putin would not (or could not) have invaded? Who the heck knows how the last many decades would have unfolded if those kinds of decisions regarding NATO were not made.
The insistence by NATO that it has an "open door policy" for new members and the insistence by president Biden that Ukraine's membership in NATO was a subject not up for discussion (a very duplicitous stance, on both accounts, by the way) coupled with the level of support they have provided to Ukraine that is just enough to sustain a forever war has led to a predictable situation on the ground with none of the objectives of Ukraine or US/NATO being realized.
What I don't understand is why you find it necessary to belittle your fellow Weigantians with mean-spirited responses.
Classic projection, Kick. Almost all of your comments here are mean-spirited personal put-downs. I'm sure it's one of the reasons why so few comment here. Which is a shame for a blog of such high caliber.
I would urge anyone who is enjoying Chris's commentary without participating to join the commenting crew because we really could use some new blood here!
Elizabeth Miller
36
Yes, Ukraine has every right to want to join NATO. And, NATO has every right to decide who should be a member.
State the obvious; now stop right there and allow yourself not to be self-contradictory.
What I am saying is that it makes no geopolitical sense for Ukraine to be in NATO.
That obviously would depend entirely on whose geopolitical fortunes you are actually concerned with, and you have either knowingly or unknowingly (useful idiot-style) disseminated such a plethora of misinformation in multiple commentaries that it isn't as clear from your comments as you seem to believe it is whose geopolitical side you're promoting.
My view on that, by the way, was formed from following one of my favourite US foreign policy thinkers, Zbig Brzezinski.
That certainly explains some of it, Brzezi?ski's beliefs regarding the expansion of NATO and common knowledge of the Kremlin's ambition to restore Russia's global power status that could not occur without turning Ukraine into a territory under the control of Russia:
My argument all along has been that if the US had not been pushing NATO expansion all the way through Ukraine for the past many decades and if Ukraine itself had chosen neutrality over seeking NATO membership, then Ukraine may not be in a state of war today.
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. *laughs* Also, you've gone right back to spewing the Kremlin's talking points, which you definitely wouldn't be doing if you actually had a firm grasp of Brzezi?ski's views on NATO and foreign policy.
Can you seriously not grasp the concept that there is no one on this blog who doesn't already fully understand your views by now? I promise you that no one else on this forum is going to suddenly agree with this claptrap if only you type it out one more time.
Classic projection, Kick.
Not really... not when it was a dead-on-balls-accurate example of that hypocrisy on full display wherein you've lectured other people on this forum for essentially using the same language you use. I also made it clear that it was "my Elizabeth Miller impression" since it was literally me posting a direct quote of yours (word for word) right back at you.
Almost all of your comments here are mean-spirited personal put-downs.
That is demonstrably incorrect unless you are Donald Trump, and you're not him.
I'm sure it's one of the reasons why so few comment here.
And I'm sure you're a board mothering type who promulgates rules for others that you won't follow yourself, and I know this forum is archived with ample examples of your hypocritical handiwork, and I will add your nugget above to the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do evidence pile. *laughs*
... unless you are Donald Trump, and you're not him.
Well, thanks for that. Wish I could retort with same. Heh.