191
'Accept that reality': Ex-GOP rep. predicts Republicans will need Dems to end infighting
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
191 points (97.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3790 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What many of you are missing is that the Speaker election is not a one-and-done deal. The Speaker sets the House agenda , but that is subject to a procedural vote every day and whoever votes for a Speaker is expected to support their agenda in those votes. After the Debt Ceiling deal, the Freedom Caucus withheld this support for a few days, and the House was almost as paralyzed as it is now.
So the Democrats would have leverage in whatever deal they put together. They can make the deal extremely simple, such as "We will schedule bills for a vote that have support in a majority of both parties". That will likely cover the military aid and overall budget bills that are coming. And Democrats would have leverage to throw a tantrum if they don't get their way, same as the Freedom Caucus used to. The only difference is that Democrats have legislative goals that go beyond "burn the place down", so will be easier for Republicans to work with than the Freedom Caucus nutters.
Logically, this makes the most sense for a decisions. Politically, I don't think it does. If Democrats come out of this with the speakership, stupid Americans (and republican "news" media) will blame the Democrats for not getting anything done, despite the Republicans still controlling the majority.
Leaving them floundering makes them look weak and incompetent. It is painful in the short term for Americans, but it may be better in the long term as the Republicans fall apart. Let them show their true colors to the American people and then let them decide what happens next.
This won't end up with Jeffries being Speaker, unless five or six Republicans decide to leave the party. As much as Jeffries wants to be Speaker, he wants to do it after getting a Democratic majority, and doesn't want to set the precedent that a minority party member could snag the position.
However, they could set the precedent that when the majority party doesn't have a functional majority, the minority party can help pick a member of the Majority that is more amenable to listening to them now and then.
Unfortunately, this ineptitude will never affect a large portion of their support. House Democrats and Biden are already positioned for blame by far-right media. Ignorant arguments like Democrats helped remove McCarthy or Biden can't get anything done abound.
Simultaneously, some on the far-right are actually happy that the house is dysfunctional because they see it as a way to stop spending increases or block other legislation. It's a very similar position that got Trump elected, where the goal for many was simply disruption, because they've been convinced that the government is constantly working against their interests.
It doesn't need to. The small amount that are somewhat able to be convinced are the ones to look for
This is so obvious and simple that I don't understand why it isn't a sufficient condition to schedule a vote on a bill even when there is no speaker.