Disagree that “Democrats were unlikely to ever convince Trump to get to the negotiating table.” Political pain and his need to survive politically would have forced him to the negotiating table. It’s easy to explain to the public that he wasn’t negotiating — meanwhile, Americans would have been aggravated by the chaos at airports, and increasing widespread unnecessary hunger and health care costs. People don’t like disorder or physical pain, and Trump had been unsuccessful in pinning the blame on Dems — he was getting blamed. Trump was already publicly whining that the GOP was getting blamed, and he had just gotten booed at the DC football game.
People were rallying around Dems not just because of the threat to Obamacare, but for standing up to the whole disordered regime. But the declared aim and most unifying goal was about health care, i.e., the legitimacy of the shutdown was based on maintaining health care, which the Dems now have publicly shown to have failed to do.
I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
No more Mr Nice Guy.
Democrats have to make the traitorous 8 feel some pain. Don't go so far as MAGA by sending Pizzas and swatting them, but just about anything up to that point seems like the way to go.
They should be made to feel unwelcome and should resign if they are in a blue state where the governor can name a replacement more in line with the feelings of the base Democrats.
They still have until 2028 until they can be primaried, lets make it a very miserable 3 years if they don't do the honorable thing and resign.
Could be a blessing. MAGA will not be protected either, and they'll finally grasp that they're some of the biggest lovers from Trump's policies. They got a taste, wondering how they'd feed their families. Now, they'd better pray for good health, because their health care just got a lot more expensive, or becomes non-existent because it became too expensive. "Safe red seats", in both houses are now maybe not so safe. Texas believes it created 5 new Republican seats, but by watering down red voters by shifting some into blue districts and bringing blue voters into red districts could in fact create 5 new blue seats! Republicans are biting off their noses to spite their faces!
As to the eight, this could be their death knell in their seats. While I know why they did what they did, just the fact that they did it on the word of Republicans rather than something in writing shows just how naive they are. Republicans have kept their word maybe a handful of times since Newt Gingrich, at best. To think that there would be actual negotiated healthcare negotiations is patently absurd. Remember how the ACA was negotiated, with revisions (that actually hurt the bill) to assure bipartisan support? And just how many Republicans actually voted for it? That would be zero/none/nada! And the ACA was modeled after the design created by the Heritage Foundation! Things are even worse now with Trump's hold on the party. And the timing sucked, as well as the manner in which the eight caved. There was more damage to be done to the Republicans by continuing to hold out. That was not only cut short, it could be presented as Democrats caving, and another Trump "victory". Yes, some SNAP beneficiaries will thank the eight, but that's about all. And when the health care costs set in, those eight will have some explaining to do!
The real problem is that the “Affordable” Care Act requires COVID-era massive subsidies. A principal underpinning of the ACA was the individual mandate. When the mandate was voided, ACA became DOA. The young and healthy opted out, leaving the big health care users behind. That result has no future. The exchanges were supposed to control premium costs- but the opposite happened.
I’ve tried to see it the way Tim and Will see it, but I continue to agree with you, Andrew. I think Democrats should have kept going. They were the ones in the position of strength. The voters were (rightly) blaming Trump for the shutdown. There was a good chance the SNAP benefits issue was going to be resolved positively in the court. People were going to be getting their healthcare premium increases, further raising the issue and making Democrats look like they were on the people’s side. I would have liked to see Democrats hold out until they won some better concessions for the people or until Republicans killed the filibuster in order to pass their CR without Democratic votes.
I sense a shift in the wind at The Bulwark as they realize that rewarding Trump’s bad behavior this time means the pain next time will be that much worse. Trump doesn’t care how many people he hurts, or which people he hurts, as long as hurting people makes powerful people comply. The idea that the Senate Democrats as a group (those who voted for cloture were non-sacrificial lames, not a typo) have the desire, let alone the fortitude, to oppose Trump is laughable. There are a few, maybe more, current Senate Democrats worth keeping, and all should be treated as suspect. Schumer delivered this result for Trump, and nobody in his caucus broke ranks to communicate the “coup” before it was successful . That shit needs to end. Every single Dem senator was complicit regardless of how they voted. They chose who would vote for the CR to deflect the reality that the caucus on the whole wanted to cave, not to stop the pain the shutdown was causing, but to protect their own power. They need to get the fuck out of office or prove they deserve to stay there.
Look on the bright side: this may be the very thing to catapult Schumer out of leadership, and maybe even his whole team who are as tone deaf and lost as he is. As shitty as this sounds, I think when 2026 comes around and ACA folks' premiums have left the stratosphere, they will blame Trump and the Republicans for the Big Beautiful Bill. There is so much political fodder in that bill that Dems would have to be in a collective coma not to capitalize on it. Think long term. That pain may be Dem gain, whether they planned it or not.
The democowards have shown time and time again they don 't have the balls to fight. They could have a conviction of the orange stain on a silver platter, and they would go before cameras and say "For the good of the country, we should not convict". They're cowardly losers that need to be voted out.
I asked AI “What would Lyndon Johnson do as Minority Leader during the current government shutdown. This is what came out:
If Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) were serving as Senate Minority Leader during a government-shutdown crisis today, we can imagine how he might steer his caucus — based on his known style and the institutional dynamics of the U.S. Senate. Drawing on his record as Minority Leader (he became Senate Democratic Leader in 1953) and later as Majority Leader, here’s a plausible sketch of how he would lead:
Likely Strategic Approach
Build personal relationships and prepare the groundwork
Johnson was famous for his deep knowledge of fellow senators: their ambitions, preferences, vulnerabilities.
As Minority Leader, he’d meet privately with key swing senators (both within his party and across the aisle), press their interest in ending the shutdown (constituent pressure, economic damage) and what they’d need to deliver a vote.
He’d use both persuasion and leverage: promises of committee assignments, funding for home-state projects, behind-the-scenes reminders of past favors
He’d be attuned to timing: knowing when to crank up pressure, when to offer cover, when to wait for public opinion-momentum.
Frame the narrative and apply pressure on the majority side
As the minority leader in a shutdown, LBJ would aim to turn public and media pressure toward the majority (and the White House) blaming them for inaction. He would cast his caucus as the responsible party ready to act.
He would bring sharp attention to the economic and human costs of the shutdown (furloughed workers, halted services) and use that to build urgency.
He might propose a “clean” continuing resolution or targeted funding fix to show his side is willing to compromise—but also prepare to hold firm if the majority insists on extreme demands.
Leverage procedural tools and Senate rules
Although as minority he has fewer formal tools than majority, Johnson knew how to exploit Senate procedure and the leadership role.
He would coordinate with his floor leaders and whip team to ensure maximum unity in his caucus, reducing defections.
He might propose amendments, motions, or procedural holds to force votes and draw clear contrasts with the majority’s position.
He’d make sure the minority caucus is visible, speaking floor time, engaging media, using the cloakroom/back-channel to map out every vote.
Offer a deal — but with clear demand for return
Johnson’s hallmark was combining deal-making with tough bargaining.
He’d likely hold that his caucus is willing to vote to reopen the government if certain protections or concessions are included (for example: funding thresholds, protections for workers, oversight of certain programs).
At the same time, he would push for the majority to concede first: “You bring the bill, you show you are serious, then we’ll vote it.”
He might apply brinkmanship: set deadlines, say “if you don’t act by X date the public will hold you accountable,” knowing the majority literally holds the keys.
Use media and public-pressure as amplifiers
Johnson understood the importance of shaping public perceptions.
His team would cede the high ground to the minority caucus: hold press conferences, produce reports showing how many workers are hurt, how many contracts delayed.
He would frame the majority as being obstructionist or extreme, while his caucus is being reasonable.
He might also bypass formal channels and drop hints/leaks about what concessions he could extract, encouraging the majority to move.
Key Challenges & How He’d Handle Them
Unity within his caucus: As minority leader, Johnson would face more internal dissent. He would keep strict discipline using the “Johnson treatment” — cajoling, threatening, rewarding.
Limited formal power: The minority cannot schedule bills or force the floor to act. Johnson would compensate by using his deep procedural knowledge and alliances to influence the majority’s agenda indirectly.
Risk of public backlash if shutdown drags on: He’d likely push for a resolution as soon as feasible, enforcing the message that “we are willing to end this now,” thereby shifting blame to the majority if things delay.
Media/social-media environment different from his era: Although LBJ operated in a very different media environment, his underlying instincts (message control, framing, pressure) suggest he would adapt — using television, online, and public speeches to his advantage.
What a Blueprint Might Look Like
Day 1–3 of shutdown: LBJ convenes his caucus, identifies key swing senators (including moderate members of the majority party), sets clear objectives: fix funding for critical agencies, protect pay for federal workers, add modest oversight.
Day 4–7: He meets individually with undecided senators, promises home-state projects, arranges for visits/tours of impacted agencies in their states to generate local stories.
Day 7: He issues public statement: “Our caucus stands ready to vote to reopen the government,” releases a “Minority Leader’s Plan” for reopening with protections.
Day 8–14: He uses procedural motions for votes that force the majority to respond; holds press events in each senator’s state to showcase local impact; builds media narrative: ‘Majority refusing to negotiate.’
If majority gives in: LBJ orchestrates the vote, ensures his caucus fully unified, gets concessions, credits the minority for saving the government.
If majority resists: He ramps up pressure — perhaps threatens to link shutdown resolution to unrelated but popular measures, or to hold a lengthy floor speech that frames the majority as blocking for ideological reasons, thereby increasing the cost for majority senators.
The Bottom Line
If LBJ were today’s Senate Minority Leader during a shutdown, he would not sit back and issue bland statements. He would lead aggressively from the minority bench: cultivating allies, leveraging individual senators’ interests, building and controlling narrative, using procedure smartly, and pushing for a deal while signaling he has the option to withhold support and reap the political benefit of blame shifting. He would aim to make his caucus look like the responsible party, force the majority into a defensive posture, and extract concessions while maintaining unity.
If you read Master of the Senate by Robert Caro, we may never see a leader like Lyndon Johnson any time soon.
Thank you for highlighting the Kennedy Center article. After Trump's post about repainting the Center's golden columns with "luxuriant white enamel," I went over last week to see how bad it is, and it's bad. The Kennedy Center, with a beautiful terrace overlooking the Potomac, the Watergate, and Georgetown, was one of my favorite places in DC. Now it's so forlorn. The white columns fade don't stand out against the white marble, ruining the balance of the architectural design. The lovely willow trees are gone. The cafe was deserted. Why does Trump have to ruin everything???
I realize this isn't the most important issue but, like the sudden destruction of the East Wing, it's emblematic of his cruelty, egocentricity, and ugliness.
Lawrence O'Donnell is on right now saying that there was a D win with the vote as the Ds did manage to get Rs to grant some concessions. I'm not savvy enough to understand it all. I'll have to watch it tomorrow when I'm more awake on YouTube.
Listen to Tim's take on this. It makes a lot of sense. Dems were never going to get any policy change. They are getting a clean vote in which MAGA will be on the record as people are losing their health care. This isn't a legislative play. It's election groundwork.
There was no win. They literally just surrendered with no concessions while they had the most momentum in recent memory. And the worst part is that they telegraphed loud and clear that they will always capitulate to escalating threats. Anybody who supported this isn’t fit to be a Senator in the environment we are in.
My question to those who think the Dems did the right thing is what is the plan in January when this come up again? Because the GOP knows the Dems will back down now.
The plan is to issue a sternly worded consultant-generated statement about how Republicans tricked them and that’s not a very polite thing to do. They might go so far as to release a white paper. But they will ultimately keep the government open and let Republicans do what they want in exchange for nothing.
The “Affordable Care Act” should not be requiring massive subsidies. The underpinning of the ACA went away when the individual mandate, the heart of ACA, was voided. When the young and healthy do not have to participate, this thing does not work.
"The second was that the shutdown ultimately exceeded their pain threshold before it exceeded the Republicans’ pain threshold."
The republinazis have no pain threshold unless it affects their wallets and stock portfolio. They will happily let every poor person starve to death and everyone on the ACA die and not lose a minutes sleep over it.
It was just about to affect their wallets and stock portfolios. That’s probably a reason why a few Senators threw in the towel seemingly out of the blue. The courts were going to force SNAP payments to go through, so that excuse doesn’t hold water.
The Bulwark's had some great takes on the shutdown bills, just across the board. They've all been slightly different but still worse listening to. Here, I really like Andrew recognizing he's not the one most affected by the shutdown which might be coloring his reaction. That made me realize how true that was for me, too.
I'm not saying I agree with the Senators' move. I'm still making up my mind, honestly. But I have enjoyed all the great food for thought.
Disagree that “Democrats were unlikely to ever convince Trump to get to the negotiating table.” Political pain and his need to survive politically would have forced him to the negotiating table. It’s easy to explain to the public that he wasn’t negotiating — meanwhile, Americans would have been aggravated by the chaos at airports, and increasing widespread unnecessary hunger and health care costs. People don’t like disorder or physical pain, and Trump had been unsuccessful in pinning the blame on Dems — he was getting blamed. Trump was already publicly whining that the GOP was getting blamed, and he had just gotten booed at the DC football game.
People were rallying around Dems not just because of the threat to Obamacare, but for standing up to the whole disordered regime. But the declared aim and most unifying goal was about health care, i.e., the legitimacy of the shutdown was based on maintaining health care, which the Dems now have publicly shown to have failed to do.
I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
No more Mr Nice Guy.
Democrats have to make the traitorous 8 feel some pain. Don't go so far as MAGA by sending Pizzas and swatting them, but just about anything up to that point seems like the way to go.
They should be made to feel unwelcome and should resign if they are in a blue state where the governor can name a replacement more in line with the feelings of the base Democrats.
They still have until 2028 until they can be primaried, lets make it a very miserable 3 years if they don't do the honorable thing and resign.
Could be a blessing. MAGA will not be protected either, and they'll finally grasp that they're some of the biggest lovers from Trump's policies. They got a taste, wondering how they'd feed their families. Now, they'd better pray for good health, because their health care just got a lot more expensive, or becomes non-existent because it became too expensive. "Safe red seats", in both houses are now maybe not so safe. Texas believes it created 5 new Republican seats, but by watering down red voters by shifting some into blue districts and bringing blue voters into red districts could in fact create 5 new blue seats! Republicans are biting off their noses to spite their faces!
As to the eight, this could be their death knell in their seats. While I know why they did what they did, just the fact that they did it on the word of Republicans rather than something in writing shows just how naive they are. Republicans have kept their word maybe a handful of times since Newt Gingrich, at best. To think that there would be actual negotiated healthcare negotiations is patently absurd. Remember how the ACA was negotiated, with revisions (that actually hurt the bill) to assure bipartisan support? And just how many Republicans actually voted for it? That would be zero/none/nada! And the ACA was modeled after the design created by the Heritage Foundation! Things are even worse now with Trump's hold on the party. And the timing sucked, as well as the manner in which the eight caved. There was more damage to be done to the Republicans by continuing to hold out. That was not only cut short, it could be presented as Democrats caving, and another Trump "victory". Yes, some SNAP beneficiaries will thank the eight, but that's about all. And when the health care costs set in, those eight will have some explaining to do!
The real problem is that the “Affordable” Care Act requires COVID-era massive subsidies. A principal underpinning of the ACA was the individual mandate. When the mandate was voided, ACA became DOA. The young and healthy opted out, leaving the big health care users behind. That result has no future. The exchanges were supposed to control premium costs- but the opposite happened.
I’ve tried to see it the way Tim and Will see it, but I continue to agree with you, Andrew. I think Democrats should have kept going. They were the ones in the position of strength. The voters were (rightly) blaming Trump for the shutdown. There was a good chance the SNAP benefits issue was going to be resolved positively in the court. People were going to be getting their healthcare premium increases, further raising the issue and making Democrats look like they were on the people’s side. I would have liked to see Democrats hold out until they won some better concessions for the people or until Republicans killed the filibuster in order to pass their CR without Democratic votes.
I sense a shift in the wind at The Bulwark as they realize that rewarding Trump’s bad behavior this time means the pain next time will be that much worse. Trump doesn’t care how many people he hurts, or which people he hurts, as long as hurting people makes powerful people comply. The idea that the Senate Democrats as a group (those who voted for cloture were non-sacrificial lames, not a typo) have the desire, let alone the fortitude, to oppose Trump is laughable. There are a few, maybe more, current Senate Democrats worth keeping, and all should be treated as suspect. Schumer delivered this result for Trump, and nobody in his caucus broke ranks to communicate the “coup” before it was successful . That shit needs to end. Every single Dem senator was complicit regardless of how they voted. They chose who would vote for the CR to deflect the reality that the caucus on the whole wanted to cave, not to stop the pain the shutdown was causing, but to protect their own power. They need to get the fuck out of office or prove they deserve to stay there.
Look on the bright side: this may be the very thing to catapult Schumer out of leadership, and maybe even his whole team who are as tone deaf and lost as he is. As shitty as this sounds, I think when 2026 comes around and ACA folks' premiums have left the stratosphere, they will blame Trump and the Republicans for the Big Beautiful Bill. There is so much political fodder in that bill that Dems would have to be in a collective coma not to capitalize on it. Think long term. That pain may be Dem gain, whether they planned it or not.
The democowards have shown time and time again they don 't have the balls to fight. They could have a conviction of the orange stain on a silver platter, and they would go before cameras and say "For the good of the country, we should not convict". They're cowardly losers that need to be voted out.
I asked AI “What would Lyndon Johnson do as Minority Leader during the current government shutdown. This is what came out:
If Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) were serving as Senate Minority Leader during a government-shutdown crisis today, we can imagine how he might steer his caucus — based on his known style and the institutional dynamics of the U.S. Senate. Drawing on his record as Minority Leader (he became Senate Democratic Leader in 1953) and later as Majority Leader, here’s a plausible sketch of how he would lead:
Likely Strategic Approach
Build personal relationships and prepare the groundwork
Johnson was famous for his deep knowledge of fellow senators: their ambitions, preferences, vulnerabilities.
As Minority Leader, he’d meet privately with key swing senators (both within his party and across the aisle), press their interest in ending the shutdown (constituent pressure, economic damage) and what they’d need to deliver a vote.
He’d use both persuasion and leverage: promises of committee assignments, funding for home-state projects, behind-the-scenes reminders of past favors
He’d be attuned to timing: knowing when to crank up pressure, when to offer cover, when to wait for public opinion-momentum.
Frame the narrative and apply pressure on the majority side
As the minority leader in a shutdown, LBJ would aim to turn public and media pressure toward the majority (and the White House) blaming them for inaction. He would cast his caucus as the responsible party ready to act.
He would bring sharp attention to the economic and human costs of the shutdown (furloughed workers, halted services) and use that to build urgency.
He might propose a “clean” continuing resolution or targeted funding fix to show his side is willing to compromise—but also prepare to hold firm if the majority insists on extreme demands.
Leverage procedural tools and Senate rules
Although as minority he has fewer formal tools than majority, Johnson knew how to exploit Senate procedure and the leadership role.
He would coordinate with his floor leaders and whip team to ensure maximum unity in his caucus, reducing defections.
He might propose amendments, motions, or procedural holds to force votes and draw clear contrasts with the majority’s position.
He’d make sure the minority caucus is visible, speaking floor time, engaging media, using the cloakroom/back-channel to map out every vote.
Offer a deal — but with clear demand for return
Johnson’s hallmark was combining deal-making with tough bargaining.
He’d likely hold that his caucus is willing to vote to reopen the government if certain protections or concessions are included (for example: funding thresholds, protections for workers, oversight of certain programs).
At the same time, he would push for the majority to concede first: “You bring the bill, you show you are serious, then we’ll vote it.”
He might apply brinkmanship: set deadlines, say “if you don’t act by X date the public will hold you accountable,” knowing the majority literally holds the keys.
Use media and public-pressure as amplifiers
Johnson understood the importance of shaping public perceptions.
His team would cede the high ground to the minority caucus: hold press conferences, produce reports showing how many workers are hurt, how many contracts delayed.
He would frame the majority as being obstructionist or extreme, while his caucus is being reasonable.
He might also bypass formal channels and drop hints/leaks about what concessions he could extract, encouraging the majority to move.
Key Challenges & How He’d Handle Them
Unity within his caucus: As minority leader, Johnson would face more internal dissent. He would keep strict discipline using the “Johnson treatment” — cajoling, threatening, rewarding.
Limited formal power: The minority cannot schedule bills or force the floor to act. Johnson would compensate by using his deep procedural knowledge and alliances to influence the majority’s agenda indirectly.
Risk of public backlash if shutdown drags on: He’d likely push for a resolution as soon as feasible, enforcing the message that “we are willing to end this now,” thereby shifting blame to the majority if things delay.
Media/social-media environment different from his era: Although LBJ operated in a very different media environment, his underlying instincts (message control, framing, pressure) suggest he would adapt — using television, online, and public speeches to his advantage.
What a Blueprint Might Look Like
Day 1–3 of shutdown: LBJ convenes his caucus, identifies key swing senators (including moderate members of the majority party), sets clear objectives: fix funding for critical agencies, protect pay for federal workers, add modest oversight.
Day 4–7: He meets individually with undecided senators, promises home-state projects, arranges for visits/tours of impacted agencies in their states to generate local stories.
Day 7: He issues public statement: “Our caucus stands ready to vote to reopen the government,” releases a “Minority Leader’s Plan” for reopening with protections.
Day 8–14: He uses procedural motions for votes that force the majority to respond; holds press events in each senator’s state to showcase local impact; builds media narrative: ‘Majority refusing to negotiate.’
If majority gives in: LBJ orchestrates the vote, ensures his caucus fully unified, gets concessions, credits the minority for saving the government.
If majority resists: He ramps up pressure — perhaps threatens to link shutdown resolution to unrelated but popular measures, or to hold a lengthy floor speech that frames the majority as blocking for ideological reasons, thereby increasing the cost for majority senators.
The Bottom Line
If LBJ were today’s Senate Minority Leader during a shutdown, he would not sit back and issue bland statements. He would lead aggressively from the minority bench: cultivating allies, leveraging individual senators’ interests, building and controlling narrative, using procedure smartly, and pushing for a deal while signaling he has the option to withhold support and reap the political benefit of blame shifting. He would aim to make his caucus look like the responsible party, force the majority into a defensive posture, and extract concessions while maintaining unity.
If you read Master of the Senate by Robert Caro, we may never see a leader like Lyndon Johnson any time soon.
Thank you for highlighting the Kennedy Center article. After Trump's post about repainting the Center's golden columns with "luxuriant white enamel," I went over last week to see how bad it is, and it's bad. The Kennedy Center, with a beautiful terrace overlooking the Potomac, the Watergate, and Georgetown, was one of my favorite places in DC. Now it's so forlorn. The white columns fade don't stand out against the white marble, ruining the balance of the architectural design. The lovely willow trees are gone. The cafe was deserted. Why does Trump have to ruin everything???
I realize this isn't the most important issue but, like the sudden destruction of the East Wing, it's emblematic of his cruelty, egocentricity, and ugliness.
Lawrence O'Donnell is on right now saying that there was a D win with the vote as the Ds did manage to get Rs to grant some concessions. I'm not savvy enough to understand it all. I'll have to watch it tomorrow when I'm more awake on YouTube.
Listen to Tim's take on this. It makes a lot of sense. Dems were never going to get any policy change. They are getting a clean vote in which MAGA will be on the record as people are losing their health care. This isn't a legislative play. It's election groundwork.
Interesting. I tend to agree with Tim: Take the win.
I ask this honestly: What would a win be in this situation?
There was no win. They literally just surrendered with no concessions while they had the most momentum in recent memory. And the worst part is that they telegraphed loud and clear that they will always capitulate to escalating threats. Anybody who supported this isn’t fit to be a Senator in the environment we are in.
My question to those who think the Dems did the right thing is what is the plan in January when this come up again? Because the GOP knows the Dems will back down now.
The plan is to issue a sternly worded consultant-generated statement about how Republicans tricked them and that’s not a very polite thing to do. They might go so far as to release a white paper. But they will ultimately keep the government open and let Republicans do what they want in exchange for nothing.
The plan is to let Trump consolidate more power and capitulate even harder next time.
The “Affordable Care Act” should not be requiring massive subsidies. The underpinning of the ACA went away when the individual mandate, the heart of ACA, was voided. When the young and healthy do not have to participate, this thing does not work.
"The second was that the shutdown ultimately exceeded their pain threshold before it exceeded the Republicans’ pain threshold."
The republinazis have no pain threshold unless it affects their wallets and stock portfolio. They will happily let every poor person starve to death and everyone on the ACA die and not lose a minutes sleep over it.
It was just about to affect their wallets and stock portfolios. That’s probably a reason why a few Senators threw in the towel seemingly out of the blue. The courts were going to force SNAP payments to go through, so that excuse doesn’t hold water.
The Bulwark's had some great takes on the shutdown bills, just across the board. They've all been slightly different but still worse listening to. Here, I really like Andrew recognizing he's not the one most affected by the shutdown which might be coloring his reaction. That made me realize how true that was for me, too.
I'm not saying I agree with the Senators' move. I'm still making up my mind, honestly. But I have enjoyed all the great food for thought.