It was the worst night for Democrats since November 8, 2016. After President Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress, Rachel Maddow looked as though a loved one has just died – the same face she had on Election Night. Her fellow panelists, desperate for something to criticize, focused on the president using two hands to pick up a cup.
I'm not kidding:
You could see it in the behavior of Democrats in Congress as most remained silent and seated as the President called for the destruction of ISIS:
The estimable Roger L. Simon explains the grim face and wonders if the Democratic Party died last night:
The Democratic Party members watching that speech looked like a party of the living dead. They didn't know how to react. They didn't know if they were Americans. They didn't know who they were.The Democrats' response was simply pathetic, delivered by a former governor of Kentucky who was replaced by a Republican. The party that is obsessed with identity politics chose an old white guy with white hair who reminded every cable TV viewer of a pitchman for products and services sold to seniors. Sundance hilariously summed it up:
Every time Trump called for bipartisanship for the good of our country, they winced. They couldn't stand it and didn't know how to react because they are the least bipartisan people in the world and they scarcely know what cooperating is. Working together is not in their natures.
So Democrats in Congress now have a choice of alienating their base if they cooperate with the president’s initiatives – particularly Obamacare repeal/replace, the budget, the infrastructure program, and rebuilding the military – or driving away centrist elements of the electorate who traditionally vote Democrat but who saw a lot common sense solutions to problems that worry them.
Having revealed that there is a statesman living within a complex personality that also contains a street fighter, President Trump can execute a series of squeeze plays on Senate Democrats facing the voters in 2018. He will need 8 Senate votes to pass legislation supporting his agenda. Does anyone doubt that a man who loves campaign rallies would fly to North Dakota or anywhere else represented by a Democrat senator and campaign against re-election of those who stand in the way of economic growth, health care reform, defeating ISIS, or any of his other very popular goals?