[guest post by Dana]

[I pulled this post out of the trash where I had sent it after seeing JVW had already posted about this. With his approval, am re-posting it.]

After the Senate voted to re-open and fund the government for three more weeks, Chuck Schumer gave a bitter, childish blame-game concession speech. It’s quite a piece of work. You can read it in full here.

With that, Democrats were not happy with Schumer for folding like he did:

House Democrats opened fire on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), among others. Rep. Luis Guttierez (D-IL) grumbled, “They caved. They blinked. That’s what they do.”

…

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) even jumped into the fray: “I don’t see that there’s any reason — I’m speaking personally and hearing from my members — to support what was put forth.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) fumed, “The Majority Leader’s comments last night fell far short of the ironclad guarantee I needed to support a stopgap spending bill. … I will do everything in my power to continue to protect DREAMers from deportation.”

Also reacting harshly to the news were various groups representing the progressive wing of the party:

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a political action committee that focuses on electing “bold progressives” from the “Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party” to office, blasted Schumer and Senate Democrats for striking a deal with the GOP.

“.@TheDemocrats caved led by weak-kneed, right-of-center Democrats–is why people don’t believe the Democratic Party stands for anything. #TrumpShutdown #DreamActNow” the organization tweeted.

From Democracy for America:

Today’s cave by most Senate Democrats was not only a stunning display of moral and political cowardice, it was a strategically incoherent move that demonstrates precisely why so many believe the Democratic Party doesn’t stand for anything…

Ouch!

From Justice Democrats:

Dear Democrats, We don’t want your empty platitudes, we want you to stand up to the GOP and protect DREAMers from deportation.

From MoveOn.org:

This is a bad, outrageous deal. Trump and Republicans in Congress stood with their anti-immigrant, nativist base and too many Democrats backed down, abandoned dreamers, and failed to fight for their values…

And then there was this brutal slap in the face:

Credo political director Murshed Zaheed blasts the vote: “It’s official: Chuck Schumer is the worst negotiator in Washington – even worse than Trump.”

More reactions by Democrats at the link.

A look at what both parties gained:

Republicans:

They’ve gained the perception that they can govern; combined with the tax cut bill, Republicans in Congress have done their job and forced Democrats into a position of irrelevance. Furthermore, the White House now says that it will not sign the Graham-Durbin proposal, a Senate bill to legalize illegal immigrant children and their parents, and hand citizenship to the kids.

Unfortunately, Democrats didn’t come out ahead in this:

Democrats:

[T]he perception that Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had outlasted them at the negotiating table; the understanding that Democrats will be unable to fight Republicans using a government shutdown as leverage, at least on the issue of illegal immigration; the impression that Democrats care more about illegal immigrants than military members; a Democratic base that now believes the Democrats are on the run; the impression that Democrats were responsible for the shutdown.

–Dana

[guest post by JVW]

Note from JVW

At this point I encourage everyone to immigrate (ha ha, just having some fun here) over to Dana’s excellent post which provides reaction to how the hard-left Dems perceive the developments from earlier today.

It’s kind of hard to close comments in a post once they are underway, but if I can figure out how to do so I will.

——————-

You know it’s bad when even CNN agrees that Schumer and the progressive wing of the party got worked over in the three-week extension. Apparently there is a plurality, if not a majority, of Americans who don’t think granting amnesty to DACA recipients is important enough to shut down federal government operations. The network of Jim Acosta sees Senate Democrats up for election this year as benefitting from the compromise, while Senate Democrats up for election in 2020 and 2022 end up being (far-)left in the lurch (pardon the pun). Indeed, it notes that the most strident progressives in the Senate such as Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, and Bernie Sanders — all of whom have higher ambitions — were among the 18 who voted against the compromise (along with Republicans Mike Lee and Rand Paul).

As usual, in the matter of reconciliation the House is at the mercy of what the Senate does. Pelosi and Hoyer have vowed to vote against this bill, but Politico reports that the Democrat whips are not seeking unanimous opposition. In return for being frozen out of the compromise, the House leadership will likely push for new restrictions on chain-migration and national visa lotteries, so the battle lingers on. But it has to be very troubling for Democrats that their attempt to have the GOP take the heat for the government shutdown — which prior to now has always been how these things go — backfired so badly.

UPDATE: Here is the roll-call vote on breaking the filibuster. Much of it is expected: joining Paul and Lee in voting no were both Senators from lefty states like Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Jersey. Jon Tester of Montana was a surprising “No” vote, seeing as how he is up for reelection this year in a red state and had been considered to be a foe of illegal immigration in the past. I would be interested in knowing what Tester’s motivation is here — is he worried about a challenge from his left flank, even knowing that he faces a tough fight in the general election?

Also worth noting is that both of Minnesota’s Democrat Senators voted to end the shutdown, as did both Democrat Senators in New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Virginia, and Washington.

Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.

– JVW

You thought campuses were going crazy when California enacted its “affirmative consent bill” that requires couples to give one another explicit affirmative ongoing consent for sexual activity? (“Yes, it’s still OK; yes, it’s still OK; yes, it’s still OK…”) You hadn’t seen anything yet! Now Princeton is telling students that ongoing affirmative consent is also necessary … to dance:

If this were a spoof, I’d be laughing. But it’s not alas.
https://t.co/zOCO30owL3

— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 22, 2018

Campus Reform has the backstory:

Princeton University wants to ensure that students know how to ask each other to dance, and so recently issued instructions for obtaining “consent on the dance floor.”

The guidelines came in the form of a Facebook post shared by Princeton’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources, & Education (SHARE) office and created by the school’s UMatter initiative in anticipation of the annual Orange and Black Ball (OBB) that took place last Friday.

“Hey, are you still into this? We can stop if you aren’t.”

“Going to OBB this Friday? Planning to have a great time tearing up the dance floor with your friends?” the post asks. “Great! Check out some tips about what consent on the dance floor looks like!! #OBB #RespectMatters #ConsentIsCool #DoYouWannaDance?”

The post indicates that “Do you wanna dance?” is an appropriate opening, and that responses such as “Absolutely!,” “Yeah! Let’s do it!,” and “I’d love to!” are all ways of consenting to the question.

Beyond simply “asking & waiting for an answer,” the post also asserts that “frequently checking in with your dance partner” is required in order to maintain consent until the music stops, suggesting that the person who extended the invite periodically ask “Hey, are you still into this?” and volunteer that “We can stop if you aren’t.”

Although the story is from November, we haven’t talked about it here, and there are parallels between this story and the recent Aziz Ansari controversy. Both illustrate the lack of common sense that is increasingly absent in the debate over the nature of ongoing consent.

You have the right to begin dancing with a guy and then to change your mind. However, signaling that you have changed your mind typically requires you to either say something clear, or to stop dancing and walk off the floor. Continuing to dance, while sending overly subtle nonverbal cues that you’re just not into it, may not send a clear enough message that you have withdrawn consent. If you can later complain of assault because the guy continued to dance with you, despite your indirect and understated signals that you weren’t enjoying it that much, normal people will not take your complaint seriously.

By the same token, if you accompany a man back to his place after a date, you have the right to begin to get physical with him and then change your mind. However, if you get undressed with him, accept oral sex from him and perform oral sex on him, you have already sent several nonverbal cues that you are interested in sex. Therefore, any nonverbal signals to the contrary have to be stronger than they otherwise would be, in order to overcome the clear cues that you have already sent.

Put more simply, you can always say no — but if you say it with his d[vowel deleted]ck voluntarily inside your mouth, he’s going to have a harder time understanding you.

All of this used to fall under the category of what we called “common sense.” But we’ve now reached a point where we have to pretend that long-held societal norms don’t apply any more. We have to act as if every woman is presumptively appalled at this precise moment by what she seemed to be enjoying five seconds ago, whether she tells us or not.

I take very seriously the notion that women have an absolute right to consent or not consent to anything at all. I take very seriously the notion that they can change their minds at any point. But if they want society to continue to take this right seriously, we all have to recognize that the need for clarity in cues changes with the situation and with past behavior.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]