He couldn’t stand it when she had the limelight
Oh, interesting. It’s the House Speaker who gets to invite the president to come on over and wow them with a State of the Union address. He didn’t think of that, did he.
As House speaker, it’s on her to extend the official invitation to the president to come into her chamber and present his State of the Union. On Wednesday morning, she told him he best reschedule.
“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to President Trump.
“Sadly” – nice touch.
The brilliance in her latest move is that nothing will enrage Trump more than having a nationally televised speech where he gets to talk for 45 minutes about himself and his administration’s accomplishments taken away.
(Pelosi did note later that Trump could still give the address in the Oval Office if he wants to.)
Just not at her house. Sorry, you horrible little thug, you’re not invited.
Trump also failed in an effort to sow discord in the House Democratic caucus. He thought he could go around Pelosi and invite some rank-and-file House Democrats who won in Trump districts to the White House for a shutdown chat on Tuesday. Pelosi says she gave them her blessing to go (reportedly saying, “They can see what we’ve been dealing with. And they’ll want to make a citizen’s arrest.”) The Democrats rejected Trump’s offer.
Jennifer Rubin appreciates Pelosi’s cunning plan.
To say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has mastered the art of dealing with President Trump would be a gross understatement. She fact-checked him in the Oval Office on live TV and passed spending bills to reopen the government, thereby reinforcing Trump’s responsibility for the shutdown. To top it off, she’s taking away the president’s TV. More precisely, in response to Trump’s nearly month-long temper tantrum, she has told him he won’t get his prime-time State of the Union address on Jan. 29.
In a letter to Trump, she writes, “During the 19th Century and up until the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, these annual State of the Union messages were delivered to Congress in writing. And since the start of modern budgeting in Fiscal Year 1977, a State of the Union address has never been delivered during a government shutdown.” She then explains that both the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security, which are charged with security, “have not been funded for 26 days now – with critical departments hamstrung by furloughs.” Given all that, we couldn’t possibly have the speech, she says.
Couldn’t possibly, my dear.
You wonder why in the world Democrats ever considered replacing her. She knows she has power, she willingly and skillfully deploys it, and, as she has said, as a mother of 5 children, knows how to handle a toddler’s meltdown. She also knows what Trump craves most — attention and TV cameras. (Remember, he couldn’t stand it when she had the limelight on Jan. 3 so felt compelled to enter the White House briefing room — but take no questions.)
No limelight for Donnie. Lots and lots of french fries but no limelight.
Oh, nice punning!
Brilliant. As Jennifer Rubin says, why did the Dems ever think it might be a good idea to replace her?
And if this is the end of the SOTU, all the better.
I think reduced security is a terrible excuse for not going ahead.
On the other hand I suppose if he came to harm as a result, the consequences would not be as sweet as may appear at first blush.
So I take it back, nice one Ms. Pelosi.
I would have gone with “Sad!”, but perhaps that would be too obviously mocking.
I stand by my interest in having new blood in Democratic leadership… but given that that’s not viable Pelosi’s the best there is… and she’s got game.
BKiSA – I agree on the need for new blood, but I think that needs to be done without rejecting or ejecting the “old” blood. The experience of the people who have been there longer is a vital resource, and for some reason our current cultural ideal is to reject that and pretend that anyone who has been around long enough to be good at their job is too “old” and needs to move on to give it to someone who hasn’t got that.
In short, I love that the speaker is a middle-aged to elderly woman, a group that has been underrepresented in pretty much every aspect of our society outside the kitchen. I think she’s more than just the best there is in the sense of settling – I think she’s got a lot of ability coupled with fire, and what more could you ask?
I think the ideal situation is for Pelosi to do what she is doing, and mentor some of the newer, younger arrivals so they will be prepared to step into her shoes. I would like to see those she is mentoring be women, but that isn’t necessary. They can benefit from her experience; she can benefit from their different perspective, and things could get better (though I’m not optimistic, since it will take a lot more than that to get to better from where we are now).
I’d like to see Democrats move away from Corporate Centrism and move leftward and people-ward, carried out by whatever mix of blood will do it. They should stop chasing an illusory bi-partisanism with people who are never going to reciprocate or compromise. They should loudly call out Trump’s illegal and corrupt behaviour and make sure that the Senate Republicans’ complicity exacts a heavy toll. Try to peel off the less insane ones to vote against the lost cause lunatics.
I know. Dream on…