Usage Note: Stay away from split infinitives. Whether or not they are un-grammatical (they are), they are poor writing. “Ryan tries to put down House GOP immigration rebellion quietly” would be a much better headline.
Having said that, why not, “Ryan tries to repress Republicans who want to show a little humanity?” That would be a lot more accurate and pertinent.
Not exactly Profiles in Courage are they?
This isn’t about expressing humanity at all. Its a last ditch effort to stem the tide that is coming at them in November. I doubt if many of these “vulnerable” republicans even care if this bill passes the House, much less that it eventually become law. They only want the political cover of saying they voted for keeping DACA.
Ironically, republicans getting behind and passing immigration reform would be an amazingly smart political move. But they have locked themselves into such deep anti-Other posturing that there is zero chance of such a thing actually happening.
Yeah, you’re probably right, but your comment reminds me of what a professor of mine said a long, long time ago: The best thing is when someone does the right thing for the right reason. The next best thing is when someone does the right thing for the wrong reason. The worst thing is when someone does the wrong thing for the right reason, because there’s no reasoning with him. So, if Republicans are supporting DACA for their own self-interests, well that’s how politics is supposed to work, but hasn’t for the past few decades.
I’ll just leave this here:
Note to Paul Ryan–an immigration bill Trump will support will make things worse.
Like I indicated, I wouldn’t get my hopes too high that this thing will pass.
But what it does indicate, is how weak Lame Duck Ryan actually is. If he was still safely in his Speaker seat, they wouldn’t even be making this motion. But they are doing it because…“What the F are you going to do about it, Paulie??”.
For rest of the year, this sort of thing is going to play out. Which is why no major legislation is going to happen. Lame Duck Ryan means the House is essentially leaderless.
i see the GOP humming along like a well oiled machine.
Well, huh. The ship’s not going to sink for another (checks watch) six months, and the panicked passengers are already rushing the lifeboats, ignoring the crew’s shouts to keep calm and proceed in an orderly fashion.
I’m thinkin’ Little Paulie (also Meadows, see other thread) has gotten confirmation that there will be subpoenas and/or indictments for money-laundering.
Oprah: “YOU get an indictment! and YOU get an indictment! and YOU get one! and YOU! and YOU! and YOUUUU!!!”
OT
7 Signs of Submissive Behavior in Dogs
- Lying Belly Up or Rolling Over
- Peeing When Greeting
- Moving Ears Backward or Flattening Ears Against the Head
- Grinning Submissively
- Tucked-In Tail or Wagging Tail Low and Fast
- Avoiding Direct Eye
- Licking Another Dog’s Muzzle
Well, Pauly SureHatesAmerica, maybe it would be less embarrassing if you just brought the bill to the floor and let folks vote on it?
I mean, it’s not like you’re running for Speaker again - and I doubt it’ll hurt your plans to run for governor or senator (after a few years in your overpaid Koch Bros sinecure, of course).
Democrats should run against the Do-Nothing Republican Congress. (I’m serious.)
Considering the level to which their political ideology has sunk I much prefer that they do nothing than actually learn how to govern.
And we couldn’t possibly risk the Wrath of Donald, now, could we? Ryan continues to prove himself a spineless toady, acceding to Trump’s every demand. I wonder if he is even remotely aware that the Congress could conceivably override a veto? Not that it’s likely to happen given the GOP stranglehold on both houses, but the possibility exists. Stop treating the Current Occupant like a king or emperor.
No, you pass a bill and then let the President sign or veto it. Otherwise, you are abdicating your responsibilities.
they’re perfectly grammatical. re-read that part about why you can’t split infinitives in latin and romance languages. besides, everybody who read that hedder understood exactly what it meant. if you were meant to be an editor, you’d be an editor.
I disagree that for Republicans it is a smart political move to support immigration reform. If the overwhelming support by Evangelicals for Donald Trump proved anything it is that “values” in front of the word voter is and has always been code for race.
The Republican party represents a small minority on economic issues. As a result the Republican party has become dependent on one issue voters or the party of "God, guns, gays, race (above all), abortion (in words only). To support immigration and settle this issue would turn many immigrant hating voters into economic voters or as the are otherwise known, Democrats.
Hence well it may be good for an individual member of congress here and there to support immigration reform, it is an absolute necessity for the GOP to remain anti-immigrant at all costs.
Of course the crew has already bored holes in the bottom of the lifeboats, but what the hell?