Trump’s giant and the new art of Republican surrender

What is the name? The appearance of Donald Trump is everything, thinking that it is just the only thing that matters. He called a major legislation related to his second term “a big and beautiful Bill,” a grocery brand that his supporters on Capitol Hill quickly became the official name of the measure. There are signs that he doesn’t earn much on the $4.5 trillion Megabill — at a last-minute lobbying meeting at the White House on Wednesday, Trump reportedly had to be reminded by Republican congressmen that, despite Trump’s Medicaid not touching, the measure actually did cut significant cuts to Medicaid. But this substance is by no means Trump’s focus. Optical devices are.

So, it shows that the only victory the Democrats have achieved during the dramatic time of the week until the tax tax that was finally passed Thursday, a tax on taxes, and the bill torture of fines is the last objection to Trump’s inappropriate name. The Senate has just gone to great lengths to vote on a series of democratic amendments, and in fact, when the Senate voted for the 45th vote Tuesday morning, it broke its previous record of a so-called vote-A-Ramas. All Democratic-sponsored efforts to revise legislation failed. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insists that the last-minute vote was called: parliament’s objection to Trump’s beloved name for the measure—a violation of Senate budget rules, Schumer said. Members agree; the name has been removed from the official legislative text. “It’s not a ‘big, beautiful bill’ at all,” Schumer told reporters soon after. “It’s indeed ‘big and ugly betrayal’.” However, his parliamentary victory was not much more of Bill Hick. If Americans may know that there is one thing about this huge bill, that’s not the stuff in it – that’s a striking title that Trump and everyone else will continue to use. You might think that in a decade, the opposition will learn not to fight Trump on brand. You are wrong.

But it’s not a story about the ruthless Democrats. Essentially, their votes and oppositions, no matter how hard or successful they are, do not matter. The bill passed on Thursday afternoon, just in time for any July 4 deadline set by Trump, which not only constituted a major victory for Trump, but also an illustration of his original power in today’s Republican Party. On Wednesday night, the original power was on Wednesday night, but in a few hours, it seemed somewhat unwelcome that they were actually in the situation of victory, and their attitude was probably in the situation of victory, and their attitude was certain. Have done it. He warned on social media feed shortly after midnight: “Margo is not happy.” Before dawn, the victory was his, and the House voted to approve the rules considered for the bill. “What a wonderful night,” he posted Thursday morning.

The most notable aspect of the rush to pass this week as a political issue is the extent to which the bill prevails, despite such unresolved concerns from so many Republicans who openly complain about everything, from a huge increase in budget deficit to potentially devastating consequences to potentially devastating consequences for rural entertainers, is actually a measure of Republicans, in fact, in the case of both men, both within the territory of both men, both under competition. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries gave a long passage in his speech on Thursday to oppose the bill (lasting the record for eight hours, forty-four minutes) to recite the Republicans’ own objections. There are almost too many examples of members such as Keith Self, of Texas, who said the program’s Senate was elected “ethical and fiscal bankruptcy” and then continued to vote for it. Even in a few cases, voting for the measure seems to be a clear case of political self-harm, and many do so. For example, David Valadao, a California Republican, represents a region where nearly 70% of voters rely on Medicaid for health care. Valadao made a statement on Saturday that appeared to be an absolute statement – he insisted he would vote if the Senate bill had a wider cut to Medicaid. But when they were, he still voted for it. Understanding the first principle of the Republican Party in the Trump era is to recognize that when Trump and even members of Congress most enthusiastically claim to be the default choice is that Republicans choose Trump.

There are many such default examples on the Senate side, such as those of Mike Lee, a Republican in Utah, who warned on June 18 that “if we don’t control the deficit, the deficit will keep us alive” and then a few days later, the vote passed a trillion-dollar vote. Just like in the House, it’s not about getting Republicans’ concerns, but about the time they admit to what it means to be a Republican in Washington. Swallow the bill, embrace hypocrisy or exit. Thom Tillis opted out. Likewise, he completely abandoned his seat in Congress. North Carolina Republicans raised concerns about many of their colleagues in the bill and Trump himself pretending that they don’t exist or, as JD Vance said, cutting in Medicaid cuts in the bill. Tillis announced on Sunday that he would not seek a reapply next year after announcing opposition to legislation and listening to Trump’s threat of political burial.

The decision freely gave Tillis one of the more attractive speeches against the measure, although he still insisted that Trump’s cuts on Medicaid cuts “misunderstood” his harm, and the harms would remind me of my time in Russia, my long-time judge and not taking any responsibility because his actions were good. Still, Tillis is not sure that Trump has broken his promise. “It is inevitable that this bill will betray Donald Trump’s promise,” he said.

The decisive vote in the Senate was conducted by Lisa Murkowski, who made some concessions in Republican leaders to help her Alaska escape some of the consequences of the measure. With the vote of three other Republicans, Mercoffs could basically sink with one hand. Instead, she turned it into a 50-50 tie and then broke it by Vance. Unlike some of her more exaggerated colleagues, she did not pretend she was happy about it. Indeed, it was after Murkowski’s vote that I will remember the statements she made, essentially, she rejected the bill she just made. “Although we’ve worked to improve the current bill in Alaska, it’s not good enough for the rest of our country and we all know it,” she said. She added: “My sincere hope is that this is not the final product. The bill needs more work in Chambers and is not ready for the president’s desk. We need to work together to get it right.”

Of course, this is not what happened. She claimed to vote for the bill, hoping that the House Republicans somehow had more courage than she had shown herself. Are anyone surprised they didn’t? A few hours later, the House had almost no four hours, all adopting the Senate version. House Speaker Mike Johnson thanked the “bold, visionary, fearless President Donald J. Trump” for winning the victory and then lubricate the Trump-style magical thought to explain the objection just a few minutes past Thursday. “With a big and beautiful bill, we will make this country stronger, safer, and more prosperous than ever before,” he insisted. If he had answers to his members, Medicaid or anything else, I couldn’t hear them. That’s OK – In the end, only two of the dozens of Republican members who filed a complaint in the House of Representatives voted against it, even fewer than the Senate.

I left it to Tillis, providing the right epitaph for Murkowski and many other Republicans, who chose the simple one this week. Their invertebrae is important. A few months ago, Murkowski brought home the real fear she and others felt when she opposed Trump. “We’re all scared.” Is this the real explanation for her vote now? Even so, I find myself wondering if she is fair to the fears she has for many Americans she admits? Trump is Trump, but his reckless attacks on American institutions and millions of the most vulnerable people would be impossible without the Republican surrender and active compliance. reporter Punchbowl News When asked if the newly liberated Tillis had room for disagreement. “If you have the courage,” Tillis answer. “If you don’t, you won’t.” ♦