In an extraordinarily frank discussion in the White House (13 June 2017), between President Donald Trump and Senators working on the upper chamber's version of the American Health Care Act, the president concluded that the GOP House version of the American Health Care Act could only be the result of the work of a "mean, son of a bitch" (excuse my French).
The president's reference was to the two principal architects of the House GOP health care bill, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Freedom Caucus member Jim Jordan (R-OH).
Jim Jordan, while being interviewed by Chis Hayes of MSNBC, and asked questions about the testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions before the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier that afternoon, seemed highly agitated. Jordan's degree of agitation was clearly disproportionate to the rather mundane questions Jordan was being asked by Hayes to respond to.
Jordan was in a state of high agitation because he had just learned, prior to going on air, that the president of the United States had just referred to his contribution to the House GOP health care bill, the American Health Care Act, as the work of a "mean, son of a bitch".
The discussion between the president and members of the senate proved open, honest and frank. The kind of discussions that can only follow the president being asked, "Mr President, may I speak freely." And, as a result, the president left that meeting knowing that Ryan's statement that his tax cut could only be realized if he was willing to make the types of draconian cuts to existing health care plans held by millions of Americans, was not only cynical, but a lie. There are a number of proven ways, several senators outlined, that will allow the president to keep his campaign promise to assure health care coverage for all (as he promised on the campaign trail), and have his tax cuts at the same time.
The president left that extraordinary meeting knowing full well that Ryan and Jordan knew that fully one-third of those who would lose their health coverage under the House GOP health care bill were rather staunch Trump supporters. Thus, a predicted fall in Trump's approval rating among his staunch supporters would ensue, setting in play what Ryan and his cabal in the House see as their opportunity to regain control of a post-Trump Republican Party, setting the stage for Ryan's own political ambitions.
There were also a number of subtle inferences exchanged between senators and the president in the White House meeting, and among them one of them in particular stands out as well worth repeating, to wit:
It was suggested to President Trump, and in no uncertain terms (although some thought is required to fully understand its importance) that the problem was not that the president had no alternative but to accept the legislative guidance of Paul Ryan along the lines and under the terms that Ryan suggested the president needed to in order to advance his legislative agenda. But that White House chiefofstaff Reince Priebus (who had been less than proficient in his previous job at the RNC) is no John Sununu. And, without the calibre of a John Sununu in the role of White chief of staff the president's legislative agenda would continue to suffer due to the lack the force of purpose from the White House needed for knowledgeable and meaningful relations with the congress.
This meeting stands as proof positive that even a subtle inference exchanged in the spirit of cooperation between the co-equal branches of government can advance legislation that is in the best interest of the American people, and not the self-serving nonsense interests of two ideologue, mean SOBs.
When Trump reads this book, US foreign relations will improve