What is the line in the sand?

This is quite serious. And quite bad.

In response to the news that refugee children were being held in concentration camps without adequate food, bedding, and sanitation Congress decided it was time to do something. The Democratic House put together a bill authorizing funding for better care of the children and requiring improved conditions. It passed the House.

And Democracy Gravedigger Mitch McConnell refused to let the Senate touch it.

The Senate crafted its own bill. It had $4.6 billion on strengthened border security (which is not and has never been the real issue) and nothing about the living conditions of the refugee children. This one passed the Senate. It showed that every last GOP senator agrees with and approves of the way the nasty guy is treating these children. Those GOP senators want that.

The Senate bill went to the House. Moderate Democrats, those from purple districts, pressured Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bring the Senate bill up for a vote. She caved to their pressure. It passed.

Melissa McEwan of Shakesville described it this way:

In other words, Donald Trump just got a $4.6 billion check to spend on his nativist malice, with zero restrictions, while he's torturing children in concentration camps.
…
Moderates in the Democratic caucus should be ashamed of themselves, but aren't — because they believe they need to look tough on border security be reelected.

Honestly, when you're voting to fund the abuse of children knowing that malice is Trump's agenda, I don't know what difference there is between you and a Republican, anyway.
…
Trump is now going to say, forever, that whatever he does to children at the border has bipartisan approval.

And anyone who is still saying at this point that Pelosi is a great strategist who's just giving Trump enough rope with which to hang himself has to understand that they are implicitly making an argument that children's lives are negotiable.

What is the line in the sand? What is it?
…
Pelosi should be launching impeachment hearings of Trump for his vicious nativism at the southern border. Instead, she's giving him what might as well be a blank check to escalate it.

I cannot believe I am saying this, but Pelosi must be removed and replaced immediately.

I read about this during my trip. I had to be very careful that night to keep myself from thinking about it so that I could get to sleep. I feel more frightened and angry and less hopeful about our future after this than I have since the nasty guy took office 2½ years ago.

Children’s lives should not be negotiable. Torture should not have any Democratic support (well, shouldn’t have GOP support either).

Up to this time there was always the hope that the Democrats would get it together and start impeachment hearings, better yet actually vote to impeach.

That hope continued even as the nasty guy violated norms of conduct, violated laws, violated the security of our country, and violated human rights. That hope continued even after each of those violations and the Democrats still did nothing, at least nothing meaningful.

And then this vote. It signaled that the Democrats – Pelosi and every Democrat that voted for this nasty bill – not only haven’t stood up to the nasty guy, but won’t.

I agree with McEwan. Surely, there is a line over which a humane person says no, that’s too far, we can’t let you do that. But we haven’t found such a line that will prompt Democrats to act. That line didn’t include massive corruption, proof of obstructing justice, evidence of being controlled by Russia, audio clips of praise for despots, orders that require pulling babies from refugee parents, or abuse after abuse. That line doesn’t even include torturing children. If that won’t do it…?

Hope has diminished.

Many of the comments wonder if Pelosi and some of the other Democrats have been compromised by Russian operatives or other outside influences. A few of the other comments consider that Pelosi has some sort of strategic plan to position her party for the 2020 elections. Adam Jones spells out what that strategy might be, then concludes:

I think it's a bad decision on Pelosi's part--frankly, if she has to appease people in her party with legislation that is this bad, then she doesn't really have a meaningful majority anyways.