The WSJ editorialists relax with cigars, single malts, and small smiles, observing as Democrats Throw a Shutdown Tantrum. (WSJ gifted link)
Congratulations to the seven Democrats and lone independent who voted to advance a bill to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. They put the country first. But the unbridled anger aimed by other Democrats at the eight is a sign of the partisan times and more bitterness to come heading into 2026.
While Jim Geraghty goes for the poker table metaphor: Dems Finally Fold in Pointless Shutdown Fight.
I hear that if you call Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office, the hold music is Cheap Trick’s “Surrender.”
Last Tuesday night, Democrats were jubilant, convinced they had just inflicted the first of many consequential defeats upon their detested foes, President Trump and the Republican Party. And now here we are, six days later, and Democrats are once again disappointed, infuriated, and at each other’s throats.
There is, of course, a Granite State angle, since NH Senators Shaheen and Hassan were among the (according to Keith Olbermann) "Quislings" who voted to end the shutdown. At NH Journal, Michael Graham passes the popcorn: No Deal, Mom: Shaheen's Daughter Joins Charge Against Shutdown Compromise.
How unpopular is Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s decision to abandon Democrats’ filibuster of the GOP’s continuing resolution and cut a deal with Republicans?
Even her own daughter hates it.
“Improving health care has been the cause of my life. It’s why I am running for Congress. So I cannot support this deal when Speaker Johnson refuses to even allow a vote to extend health care tax credits,” Stefany Shaheen said in a statement. “We need to both end this shutdown and extend the ACA tax credits. Otherwise, no deal.”
The younger Shaheen is just one of many New Hampshire Democrats who have denounced the agreement. Not a single Granite State Democrat seeking federal office in 2026 — including U.S. Reps. Maggie Goodlander and Chris Pappas — supports Jeanne Shaheen’s actions.
And I wonder if that Cheap Trick song referenced by Geraghty above will be playing at the Shaheens' Thanksgiving table in a couple weeks. Because, as (again) Michael Graham points out: Sen. Shaheen's 'Surrender' Creates NH-01 Headaches for Stefany.
Stefany Shaheen’s rejection of her mother’s deal with the GOP to end the government shutdown garnered plenty of headlines. But the other Democratic candidates in the NH-01 Democratic primary have been far more brutal in their assessment of the senior Shaheen’s “unconditional surrender.”
“I didn’t serve our country in the Marines to watch leaders cave when healthcare for 9 million Americans is on the line,” said Maura Sullivan. “Reopening the government can’t come at the cost of people’s access to the care they need. Democrats should be standing firm, not surrendering when Americans’ health is at stake.”
Maura Sullivan seems to mention her Marine stint at every opportunity. Even when it has zero relevance, as above. But since it is Veterans Day, Pun Salad thanks her for her service.
But left behind in all the shouting is any honest discussion of the actual issue. Jack Salmon calls it, simply: Affluent Aid.
[…] the core fight remains unresolved: Democrats demand continued funding for the enhanced premium subsidies created via the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) during the pandemic, while Republicans want to let the subsidies expire. The compromise merely defers the showdown, with Republicans promising to hold a stand-alone vote in December on whether to extend the enhanced subsidies beyond their scheduled 2025 expiration.
One of the more misleading talking points in this debate is the deliberate conflation of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) original premium tax credits with the “enhanced” subsidies added under ARPA and later extended through the Inflation Reduction Act.
The original ACA credits were designed to help lower-income families, those below 400% of the federal poverty level. The enhanced credits, by contrast, eliminated that upper income cap, dramatically expanding eligibility to affluent households—some earning over half a million dollars per year. Removing the income cap was intended as a temporary pandemic measure, but like most “temporary” federal benefits, it has proven politically sticky.
Jack dives into the actual numbers involved, and concludes we're talking about "a temporary pandemic benefit that disproportionately aids upper-income households." The GOP should do a better job of making this clear to taxpayers.
Also of note:
-
Goalposts moved. Roger Pielke Jr. says we're living in strange times indeed, When Less Warming Means More Fear.
Something curious is going on in the world of climate advocacy. As THB readers know, projected future carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion have been consistently revised downward in recent years, resulting in less projected warming. Yet rather than acknowledge this encouraging development, climate campaigners have shifted the goalposts by lowering the threshold of what they promote as apocalyptic.
Once projected 4C, 5C, or even 6C global average temperature increases to 2100 were justifications for demands that the world undergo a rapid transition to much lower trajectories. With such large changes in temperature looking increasingly unlikely with every passing year, climate campaigners have simply changed the demarcation of catastrophe from large to smaller projected changes in temperature — while maintaining exactly the same apocalyptic rhetoric.
Why, it's almost as if the activists are more interested in obtaining political power than maintaining a liveable world.
-
Speaking of obtaining political power… Jonathan Turley notices some lefty loose lips. In Vino Veritas: Punch-Drunk Pundits Reveal Plans to Pack the Supreme Court.
“In vino veritas.” The Roman proverb — “In wine, there is truth” — reflects the fact that people are often at their most honest when they’ve had a few.
Elections can have the same effect for some to become drunk on even the prospect of power. Partisans can blurt out their inner thoughts with shocking frankness.
That was the case this week as Democratic luminaries discussed plans to retake power and then fundamentally change the constitutional system to guarantee they will never have to give it up again.
Dems are salivating over their opportunities to nuke the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, and almost certainly more.
-
Just fill in the blank for your instant headline: "Trump seems very confused about ". Eric Boehm does it this way: Trump seems very confused about 'affordability'
While speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, President Donald Trump claimed that "every price is down," including those paid at the pump. Gas is now "almost $2," he added.
Gas is not $2 a gallon. The national average is a little over $3 a gallon, about the same as it was a year ago, according to AAA. Even if you're giving Trump wide leeway for that "almost," this is what would have been called a gaffe in more normal political times. Remember when President George H.W. Bush didn't know the price of a gallon of milk?
When you zoom out to Trump's larger point, things get even more confused. Despite Trump's claim, prices as a whole continue to rise at politically inconvenient rates. Annualized inflation was 3 percent in September, the most recent month for which data is available. Prices for food and housing are rising faster than overall inflation. Most Americans say they are spending more on groceries now than a year ago.
Eric goes on, but you get the picture. I assume it's only a matter of time before Trump goes full Chico Marx: "Well, who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?"
![[Veterans Day 2025]](/ps/media/54644672214_12b3e1a017_c.jpg)
![[The Blogger]](/ps/images/barred.jpg)
