No. of Recommendations: 3
Not really. What I am most upset over is the opportunity missed. A one-time, take it or leave it offer, was an insufficient effort in my opinion. I wanted to see some real debate over the various provisions leading to acceptance of an improved result.
Johnson killing it prematurely was a huge mistake, whether or not instructed by Trump, it was rejecting an opportunity. He should have taken up the bill in the house, offered some amendments, send it back to senate, keep the dialogue going, and be optimistic about actually making a deal.
You mean TRUMP killing it prematurely. My thinking has evolved, but it seems that if a committee was receptive, the development of the bill would have happened in the committee. Instead the development of the bill happened in receptive people outside the committee. So any claim that it should've gone that rout ignore that, in general, solving the problem of the border isn't received well by many in the Republican party. That's from what I've gleaned and filling in gaps with logical inferences.
So we didn't have debate early due to that. We all know that Trump killed it before it got out. Johnson went along with Trump. Introducing a bill this way is one way of doing it - then you get some discussion - but every lawmaker criticizing it is helping out Trump, just distracting from his action of killing the bill. The distractions to aid Trump include characterizing at as a one time take-it-or-leave-it bill, because that isn't so. Trump killed it so he'd have an easy issue to run on.
