DL Open Thread: Friday, May 22, 2026

The Honeymoon Is Finally Over.  Trump is officially a lame duck:

For much of President Trump’s time in office, Republican lawmakers have had little appetite to stand up to his brand of vindictive politics.

Through revenge primary campaigns, bullying social media posts and the threat that he can command the G.O.P. base to go after anyone at any time, Mr. Trump has brought lawmakers in his party under his control like no president in modern history. A single critical word against Mr. Trump or his agenda could result in a full-scale retribution campaign to force a disloyal Republican from office.

But this week, in a rarity in G.O.P. politics, Mr. Trump’s taunts, bullying and threats have backfired, at least for now. Senate Republicans, after the president targeted two of their own, stood up to Mr. Trump on two of his biggest priorities: money for his White House ballroom, and a $1.8 billion fund to reward Trump supporters who claim political persecution by Democrats, such as the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops?” said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky. “Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick.”

Then, in another sign that the party was pushing back on Mr. Trump, House Republicans canceled a vote on a resolution to halt the war in Iran, after it became clear they did not have enough votes to defeat it.

The cracks in the president’s dominance over Senate Republicans stemmed from two main sources. First, Mr. Trump asked Republican lawmakers to take up politically unpopular issues in a midterm election year.

Mr. Trump has also openly attacked and worked against the very people he now needs to pass his priorities. There are only 53 Republican senators, several of whom are already independent minded and unlikely to support the most extreme parts of the president’s agenda.

Mr. Trump did himself no favors when he supported a candidate to defeat Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana in a Republican primary, and endorsed a G.O.P. candidate against Senator John Cornyn of Texas. The result of those moves was to ensure that there would be fewer Republican senators who feel the need to be loyal to the president.

“You can’t underestimate the psychological impact of endorsing against Cornyn like that,” said Michael Ricci, a former top communications aide to Speakers Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and John A. Boehner of Ohio, both Republicans. “Cornyn is a big figure in the conference. He was a few votes shy of being majority leader. He has been doing events for all these members. I just feel like that was an accelerant on an already simmering flame.”

Let Roy Orbison tie a bow on this one:

A Trumpologist Parses The President’s Statement About Possibly Attending His Son’s Wedding:

“Uh, he’d like me to go, but it’s gonna be just a small, little, private affair, and I’m gonna try and make it. I’m in the midst—I said, “You know, this is not good timing for me. I have a thing called Iran and other things.” Uh, that’s one I can’t win on. If I do attend, I get killed. If I don’t attend, I get killed by the fake news, of course, I’m talking about. No, but he’s, uh, got a very, uh, person who I’ve known for a long time, and hopefully they’re going to have a great marriage.”

Now let us analyze.

You’ll enjoy the analysis, which I won’t recount in full.  However, just a taste:

This does not sound like the behavior of a man who is so paranoid about being seen as distracted from his war duties that he cannot take a few hours to attend his son’s wedding. It sounds more like the thought process of a man who, according to his first wife’s memoir, initially responded to the notion of naming his son Donald by saying, “You can’t do that! What if he’s a loser?”

The unstated possibility that Trump might skip this edition of Don Jr.’s nuptials and catch the next one is suggested by his qualified assessment of the prospects for marriage No. 2 (“Hopefully they’re going to have a great marriage”). The same hesitation comes through in his underwhelming summation of the bride: “He’s, uh, got a very, uh, person who I’ve known for a long time.” This description notably failed to cite any positive qualities of his future daughter-in-law—unless you count knowing Donald Trump as a compliment—or even mention her name.

To be fair, Trump has been more effusive in private, though only slightly. According to a “political source” who spoke to People magazine, “The president is happy with the way Bettina looks, and wants his son to be satisfied in his next mate.” If either of these comments previews the tenor of the president’s wedding toast, Don Jr. might be better off if his father skips the event.

Todd Blanche On The Slush Fund:

“Just to be clear, people who hurt police get money all the time.”

Why Is This Guy The Head Of The Democratic National Committee?:

Democrats’ long-awaited autopsy of the 2024 election backfired almost immediately after it was released on Thursday.

The Democratic National Committee’s biting and gloomy portrait of the party immediately kicked off a fresh round of infighting, with strategists and party officials lambasting chair Ken Martin for releasing a haphazard, typo-ridden report that failed to fully capture why, exactly, the party was crushed by President Donald Trump.

“Being a leader at any level means you own every single mistake — those of your creation and frankly those not of your creation. This was a major mistake. I own it,” he said, per a recording of the call obtained by POLITICO. “And now it’s time for us to move forward at the DNC, and I hope that you’ll move forward with me.”

The 192-page document — which the DNC only made public after it had been published by CNN — made no mention of Israel or Gaza and included sparse references to former President Joe Biden’s decision to run for reelection, two key elements that contributed to Trump’s 2024 win.

Martin released a lengthy statement apologizing for how he handled the autopsy, which was written by Democratic strategist Paul Rivera, although his name does not appear on the released copy and he is no longer working for the DNC. The DNC never received a finished report, according to a person within the party granted anonymity to share details, and the author did not turn over a list of interviewees or transcripts despite multiple requests. The post-election analysis contains interviews with hundreds of operatives from all 50 states.

In other words, the ‘report’ was as valuable as one of ex-State Auditor Tom Wagner’s ‘audits’.

What do you want to talk about?