Wait, what?

NICOLLE WALLACE: I think the president is a little too happy with himself. But some of the ways forward if he wants to continue to work with Democrats are to maybe do something on immigration. I don't see the DACA/wall deal. I've heard that from more Republicans than Democrats. But tell me if there is really any likelihood that Democrats will sit down and hammer out a deal for DACA where they actually fund a wall.

PETER BAKER, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, it's a great question. You're right. This is the smallest possible deal that uses the "d" word. Not even much of a deal. The Democrats took a position and Republicans took the Democrats' position. He didn't haggle or negotiate or get anything out of it. He just simply said, sure, let's do the three-month deal. All it does is postpone a fight for three months. Without actually resolving any substantive disagreements. In Washington, postponing a fight for three months constitutes kind of a victory because we're so used to fighting over every single inch. You're right. The idea of immigration, of a longer term financial or fiscal deal, it involves concessions and compromise. There's very little evidence to suggest either base of either party is really up for that. The Democrats could get away with doing this deal with him right now because he accepted what they offered. Let's wait three months and see if Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi can really come to the table and offer something that will make their own base go nuts because they have to make a compromise in order to get something else they really do want. That's the real test. Neither base of either party really wants their leaders right now, to compromise.

---------

I remember all those times, Peter Baker, that the base of the Democratic party insisted on shutting down the government rather than compromise. When leadership of the Democratic Party would filibuster their own bills rather than give on centimeter to the Republicans. When large groups of Democrats would meet in clandestine restaurants to plot how to obstruct absolutely everything a Republican president does, just because of "principle." When the Democratic Party leadership indulged their party's base as that group of voters fantasized about throwing the opposing candidate in prison as an evil murderer with whom "compromise" would be like aiding and abetting a criminal.

Oh wait, that's the Republicans.

Of course, we're never ever allowed to remember that the Republican Party actually has majorities in both houses of Congress, so Chuck and Nancy have no position with which to compromise, am I right? Or is the Republican Party so utterly dysfunctional as to need Democratic votes to win anything because of the far right non-compromisers in their own party?

And the New York Times Washington Bureau Chief wonders aloud what Chuck and Nancy will give up and anger their base in order to "get something done."

If Republicans don't fix DACA, they will lose huge numbers of their seats in Congress. That should be the Democrats "compromise" position going forward. Govern or watch your career in Washington die.

And about that wall:

#BothSidesDont, but never expect some Washington Bureau suit from the New York Times to say so.