Dana Mathewson

More support to Trump for signing the Omnibus:

Clarice Feldman at American Thinker:


It is dispiriting in the face of so much administrative agency corruption to see on the internet so many people critical of the president for not vetoing the bill. He needs us now, for if he fails in the sweeping out of this evil, we are truly doomed, with the Constitution relegated to a merely historic document from a better age. he bill, as it turns out, was truly bipartisan:
Extraneus explains:

The House passed the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill, 256-167, with 145 Republicans and 111 Democrats voting "yes." The "no" votes came from 90 Republicans and 77 Democrats...
In the Senate it was 25 Rs and 39 Ds for, with 23 Rs and 8 Ds against.
So, a majority of Rs voted for the bill in both chambers.
I think a veto would have been a bad move, even if sustained. It was a bipartisan bill and Trump would clearly have been responsible for any resulting shutdown, and would have been without the backing of either chamber's leadership, who were enthusiastic supporters of the bill.

And the refusal to veto was a responsible choice, for, among other things, our military is in desperate shape, and the Democrats had a hook – funding it only through this bill.
Tom R lays it out::

When I was in the Army my entire career was spent as a logistics/maintenance officer. I was in Desert Storm and saw firsthand what kind of negative impact a long-term deployment, especially in harsh desert conditions, had on the materiel readiness of the equipment. IMO GEN Mattis is not exaggerating when he says the military is in desperate need of this funding.
Obama and the Democrats knew full well the significant negative impact that resorting to continuing resolutions every year would have on long-term military readiness. The sequestration on spending they imposed was brutal. I think the Democrats with malevolent intentions refused to agree on annual fiscal year budget deals because they knew the continuing resolutions were damaging military materiel readiness and national security.
Last night I was watching Rand Paul on Fox News and I felt like reaching thru the TV screen and b----slapping him. He may not like all the spending he felt was unnecessary (that he documented in his tweets yesterday) but he knew full well that the $700+ billion allocated to the Pentagon was justified.
I don't know if Trump intended to veto the bill or not but if he did intend to veto it, my guess is that GEN Mattis talked him out of it.

I'm with Don Surber on this:

Now to discuss why President Trump did not veto the budget bill.
This is a battle he cannot win.
The power of the purse belongs to Congress, and every presidential budget is dead on arrival.
Every year, the opposition party reminds the president of that.
This budget is the first truly bipartisan measure to pass during the Trump Era when America became great again.
The children got to order the meal, and it is all candy, candy, candy.
Funding for the Democratic Party via money laundered at Planned Parenthood continues. The abortionists get the money to cover "free" abortions (billed as women's health services) and then donates [sic] much of it back to Democrats. The Hyde Amendment be damned.
Republicans have done this for years. They never stopped. Why should they stop now?
Ryan stiffed funding for the wall, causing Ann Coulter to have palpitations.
But what was the president supposed to do? Really shut down the federal government for two weeks until surrendering. He has no base in Congress. His base is among the American people.
So the swamp critters won a round.

By failing to abolish the filibuster and riding the pork train, the Republicans in Congress have handed a minority party the governing oar.
They are saying we have a majority, but we don't want to act as if we do – you do what you want. And the Democrats did.

A few lines up is a crucial quote: "He has no base in Congress. His base is among the American people." We need to remember that!



From David Dickinson:


I have a hunch that the House midterm elections are not going to turn out well. Sure, something can happen to reignite conservatives' passion, but that Omnibus sucked the energy right out of the Party faithful. House Republicans are retiring in droves, some of it is normal rotation, but some of it is because they see the writing on the wall, and to quote from above: "He has no base in Congress. His base is among the American people." So why support the people who don't support the President and by extension US?

This from Tim:

I agree with you David, and it's why I disagree with the arguments put forward by Feldman and those she quotes. Their logic works but only at one level. Trump had a duty to save the GOP from itself, or at least distance himself from this insanity. He should have been in contact with Ryan and Dinomac before this thing came out and promised the Hammer of God on them if they pulled some stunt like this. Now Pelosi and the old schu are crowing, the left is energized, and the GOP base disspirited. This drives home the point that no matter who we send to Washington we wind up with the same stinking methane-laced swamp.

And of course Trump won the last shutdown, and would probably win this one too. The notion that he couldn't afford this is a lie from hell aka inside the D.C. beltway.

I think Trump figures he got part of a loaf here. That works in business where you largely have control of things, but it's different in politics where you haven't the time or the indulgence of the public to whittle away to your objective. The Dems can do that because they own the media - we can't.

Trump was elected as a hail mary pass. You don't expect your QB to then run up the middle for the rest of the game.

Here is a decent, well, not exactly rebuttal to Feldman's piece but a disagreement of sorts, and I concur. 

From Veritas blog:

"But how does it come to this from Republican leadership in Congress with tools at their disposal in conjunction with Trump? Clarice is too taken of "bipartisan” in her effort to defend Trump. It is not bipartisan, it is one party big-government with different facades. We think Trump could have safely vetoed with an appropriate veto message and protected himself politically and better exposed the one party system to conservative advantage. Maintain his creds by "insisting” that this first run-through was unacceptable without more "good will”.


This from Dana;

Who else are we gonna support? Yeah, I'm not all that happy about "Party faithful," but there's new blood out there that wants to be part of MAGA. Let the old farts retire; let the ones who don't like or understand Trump find something else to do. What have they done for us recently anyhow?

Wouldn't you love to see a REAL Republican knock Paul Ryan off his king-of-the-hill position?

David replies:

The rumor is that Ryan is going to resign the Speakership, although rumors in DC are as cheap as Stormy Daniels' reputation. Ryan's main opponent in the primary this summer is a guy named Paul Nehlen who as it turns out is a rabid anti-Semite and a bit of a nutcase.

From Dana:

The rumor is that Ryan is going to resign the Speakership, although rumors in DC are as cheap as Stormy Daniels' reputation.


Ryan's main opponent in the primary this summer is a guy named Paul Nehlen who as it turns out is a rabid anti-Semite and a bit of a nutcase.

From Tim:

Nothing Gouda, I assure you! Something smells in the stinky cheese state!

By the way, I had a hard time finding the link to the AT article by Feldman on Google. Came right up on Duckduckgo.  New "fake news" protocols?  Looks like the scheme to censor conservative thought is up and running.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:42 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1378 words, total size 9 kb.