Simmsy Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 Just now, Larry said: Disagree. There are times for bipartisanship. If that is what the Dems decide to do as a party, so be it. However, I don't want some rogue congressman mucking this up for whatever reason. Besides, why give Johnson what he wants without any reassurances? Sounds like a mistake to me. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 47 minutes ago, Simmsy said: If that is what the Dems decide to do as a party, so be it. However, I don't want some rogue congressman mucking this up for whatever reason. Besides, why give Johnson what he wants without any reassurances? Sounds like a mistake to me. I hear ya but, first, I think this particular Member is in an extremely swingy district (I think he's George Santos' replacement), so he's not going to be the guy to draw a hard line in public, there is no upside for him to do so. Second, he's a Congressperson, so what he says in public and what he does in the back room are not necessarily related. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 (edited) I absolutely understand the need/desire to leverage the situation to get things through. I’ll add - the republicans have a solid history recently of not holding up their end of the deal. That aside, I still absolutely understand why one would want that and that is the “correct strategy”. Im still rooting for a situation where the minority party holds the speakership and I don’t really care how we get there. if you’re going to make me watch a circus then make it entertaining. To be honest, not that I’m doing a good job of tracking it, it the things @PleaseBlitzsuggested seem to me to be a starting point of what’s owed for previous deal breaking. Then they should ask for more as part of a new deal. not that it could happen like that. I’m just saying, if you’re keeping score that’s how I believe the scoreboard reads currently. Edited April 16 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmsy Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said: I hear ya but, first, I think this particular Member is in an extremely swingy district (I think he's George Santos' replacement), so he's not going to be the guy to draw a hard line in public, there is no upside for him to do so. Second, he's a Congressperson, so what he says in public and what he does in the back room are not necessarily related. I get that, but that is usually for bills, not speaker votes. Also, you don't need to come out and say you're going to support him, why so eager to show your hand? I don't know how "honorable" Speaker Johnson is, but it sounds like the Dems want to save him, so why agree to anything? Sounds like the Dems need him to be speaker as much as he wants to be speaker, why give away your leverage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 I'd prefer Dems stick to not commenting on if they'd help save him, and rather focus on the dumpster fire that is the ruling party in the house that already is the least productive perhaps ever. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 Can the Dems propose a rule change to get rid of the "Only takes one person to shut down Congress" rule? And can Johnson bring it to a vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 12 minutes ago, Simmsy said: I get that, but that is usually for bills, not speaker votes. Also, you don't need to come out and say you're going to support him, why so eager to show your hand? I don't know how "honorable" Speaker Johnson is, but it sounds like the Dems want to save him, so why agree to anything? Sounds like the Dems need him to be speaker as much as he wants to be speaker, why give away your leverage? I guess I'd just say that, given the tweet on Suozzi's position is from a Bloomberg reporter, it sounds like he was asked the question directly, and so he answered it. My personal read is Suozzi is a seasoned pol (he's in his 4th term), and knows that he can give a milquetoast answer that doesn't offend any of his constituents and then can go along with whatever Hakeem Jeffries negotiates. And I think the Dems have made the (in my view very reasonable) determination that Johnson is the best they are going to get out of the GOP caucus. The most obvious next pick is Jim Jordan. Then it's like Emmer and Scalise. Jordan said he didn't want it last time, but I get strong Shiv Palpatine vibes from him. Speaker Jordan would be a downgrade for Dems. Emmer would also be worse. BUT, the Dems shouldn't save the GOP from another few weeks of chaos (AGAIN) during an election year without extracting a price. Assessments on what price is reasonable may vary. Finally, I don't really see how one person saying he doesn't have preconditions gives away the Dem's leverage, you'll need to explain that to me. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmsy Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: Finally, I don't really see how one person saying he doesn't have preconditions gives away the Dem's leverage, you'll need to explain that to me. As far as I concerned, Suozzi is laying the path for other Dems to vote Johnson in for speaker. If this is the Dem's plan, so be it. However, if he's speaking out of school, he's telling Johnson that he has at least one (now I'm hearing two) Dem votes no matter what. Just say you're open to it, don't say you're going to vote for him no matter what happens. Dems should've said they're sticking with Jefferies and see how the cards fall. Of course, they could already have a deal in place, but with the way Johnson is freaking out, I'm going to say that they don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Simmsy said: As far as I concerned, Suozzi is laying the path for other Dems to vote Johnson in for speaker. If this is the Dem's plan, so be it. However, if he's speaking out of school, he's telling Johnson that he has at least one (now I'm hearing two) Dem votes no matter what. Just say you're open to it, don't say you're going to vote for him no matter what happens. Dems should've said they're sticking with Jefferies and see how the cards fall. Of course, they could already have a deal in place, but with the way Johnson is freaking out, I'm going to say that they don't Oh, I see. Yes, I agree with all of that. I just don't see this as a situation where one Dem vote is going to matter. I think either the GOP caucus is going tell MTG and the other guy to **** off, or it's going to completely fracture and the Dems will get to decide if they want to save him, and that will take at least a majority of Dems. But things can certainly change from where they stand now. Edited April 16 by PleaseBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmsy Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 16 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: Oh, I see. Yes, I agree with all of that. I just don't see this as a situation where one Dem vote is going to matter. I think either the GOP caucus is going tell MTG and the other guy to **** off, or it's going to completely fracture and the Dems will get to decide if they want to save him, and that will take at least a majority of Dems. But things can certainly change from where they stand now. True, but I had fun watching the first Speaker vote, I wish they were all that much fun. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmirOfShmo Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 (edited) Edited April 17 by EmirOfShmo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 No doubt they deleted the post because they misspelled "wreck" lol... 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 The article itself is still up on Fox News. I won't link to it because, even though it does say MTG is an idiot, the reasoning for getting there is pure, uncut Fox News bull**** like "Because [President Biden] dithered, Ukraine is now losing ground and urgently needs weapons and ammunition." Like, what? 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 I've been paying a lot of attention to the House's drama this week, but I've gotta admit, I'm struggling to understand it. Not sure if this is because the reporting sucks at explaining it, I'm just missing it, or if Speaker Johnson's plan just doesn't make any logical sense. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/17/house-speaker-mike-johnson-ukraine-israel-motion-to-vacate/ Quote House Speaker Mike Johnson is moving ahead on a foreign aid plan that has roiled his conference and prompted two Republicans to push an effort to oust him from the chamber’s top job. But instead of the complex four-part plan he floated this week, Johnson now intends to try to pass five bills — one each for aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Indo-Pacific allies — as well as a GOP wish list of foreign policy priorities and a fifth stand-alone bill to address widespread Republican demands to strengthen the southern U.S. border. The new approach is risky and could blow up on the speaker, whose six-month-old hold on the gavel is being threatened by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (Ga.) promise to move a motion to topple Johnson (R-La.) if he puts Ukraine aid on the floor, something many far-right Republicans object to. Johnson told Republicans in a text to colleagues Wednesday morning: “After significant Member feedback and discussion” this week, the House will move ahead with his plan, with some significant changes. He intends to release bill text on Ukraine, Israel and for Indo-Pacific allies earlier Wednesday, and language for the GOP wish list and border later Wednesday. The three separate bills that fund military aid for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan largely mirror the $95 billion Senate-passed supplemental. It turns a portion of the aid, the money sent directly to Ukraine, into a loan, which attempts to satisfy Republicans. It also includes just over $9 billion in humanitarian aid for Gaza, the West Bank, Ukraine and other places in need, which was a demand of Democrats. Success is anything but guaranteed for Johnson, both on the foreign aid package and keeping his job. Timing on the votes, also, is up in the air — even as members were slated to head home for a one-week recess Thursday. ... Keeping border security separate from the foreign aid package is an attempt by Johnson to give both pieces of legislation a greater chance of passing. The national security bill will likely need Democratic support because of the large number of Republicans who don’t want to fund Ukraine — while Johnson aims to pass the border security bill with just Republican support, hoping to satisfy demands from all corners of his conference and send all bills to the Senate. If I'm the Dems, I want to pass some kind of border security bill to take that off the table as a political issue ahead of November. But they've already tried to do that and Republicans tanked it because they don't want action, they want the issue. Other than that, I don't currently understand who wants to fund Israel but not Ukraine, Ukraine but not Israel, both but not Taiwan, etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 I don't trust Mike Johnson. Or... has he delayed enough to cover doing the right thing? Will be interesting to see if he keeps his Speakership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 MTG nodded to her infamous 'Jewish space laser' theory in an amendment meant to mess up sending aid to Israel Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene made clear her opposition to sending extra money to Israel in a weirdly self-referential way. The Georgia Republican filed an amendment to a $26.38 billion Israel aid bill that would divert some of that funding toward "the development of space laser technology on the southwest border" of the United States. It was a not-so-subtle reference to a lowlight of her political past, when she suggested in a 2018 Facebook post that a Jewish-financed laser beam ignited one of the worst wildfires in California's history. Click on the link for the full article 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 Margie trying to block Israel funding? Here I thought the R's were all gung ho to demand that Israel gets trillions. And Palestine and Ukraine get nothing. And claiming that people who want to fund all of them are being antisemitic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 Amazing. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 Hopefully this is a good omen: 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 1 8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 “Tubby” as in obese? Cause, uh… 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now