US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4078

On October 05 2023 10:51 ChristianS wrote:

Uh, the vote they were presented with was “do you think Kevin McCarthy should be speaker?” What the fuck is an opposition party doing if they’re gonna vote yes to that? Or abstain? It’s not like McCarthy has been some centrist, he’s actively antagonized the Dems in every nakedly partisan way he could think of. He helped build a caucus whose primary mode of operation is parliamentary hostage-taking, why the fuck would Dems support the guy just because this time he’s the hostage?

(Edit: regarding those “unacceptable terms”): I bet the Dems would have agreed to vote present in exchange for a clean bill funding the government through the end of the year. But it wouldn’t matter because even aside from the terms themselves, merely having cut a deal with Democrats would have irreparably destroyed McCarthy’s standing among Republicans.

How else are they supposed to cover it? There wasn’t supposed to be a story at all. There was already a deal agreed to by both parties to fund the government. Then Republicans decided to renege and demand concessions, but they couldn’t even agree among themselves what concessions to demand. Finally McCarthy basically put up a clean CR anyway, it passed, and Republicans decided to revoke his speakership for it.

It’s kind of hard to imagine how you could blame any of that on Democrats, and yet here we fucking are, discussing whether Republican moderates are right to be mad at Dems for not *supporting the Republican for speaker* and you’re trying to tell me it’s media bias that people are mostly attributing this to Republicans?

Republicans decided to revoke his speakership for it.

On October 05 2023 12:02 ChristianS wrote:
Gonna have to leave the implied equivalence between this impeachment trial and the last two for another day, especially since I never implied principled Republicans should have supported Pelosi for speaker.

Ukraine funding was already supposed to be part of the existing deal, I was assuming “funding the government through the end of the year” included funding defensive aid to our allies, at least at the same levels we’ve been doing up to now. Is that the part that makes the terms unacceptable?

You need a majority of the House to support you in order to be Speaker! McCarthy had to agree to install an eject button in order to get the seat, and Gaetz pressed it. If McCarthy still had majority support in the House he could be speaker again tomorrow, but he doesn’t! True, that’s partly because the opposition party is, ya know, opposing him, but if we’re apportioning blame in this situation, you’re really going with “all this dysfunction is the Dems’ fault for not supporting a Republican for speaker”? They’re Democrats, they don’t need some special High Principle to not support a Republican for speaker, regardless of who proposed the vote. If they *did* support a Republican for speaker, well they’d be better described as Republicans, wouldn’t they?

The alternative, I guess, is something like “in the spirit of cooperation/unity/patriotism/bipartisanship, Dems should have put aside party loyalties and supported the Republican speaker to end the dysfunction/gridlock.” Thing is, I’m not aware of any negotiations with Dems by Republicans at any point in this process. If two sides disagree, and then with no negotiations or concessions one side just decides to just support the other one, that’s not bipartisanship, it’s just switching sides. Now if Republicans were offering terms, and Democrats were negotiating for better terms, we could argue over who was being more intransigent. But to my knowledge Republicans have offered *no terms,* of any kind (but, of course, any Dems are still welcome to vote with Republicans any time they want).

You can keep repeating that the Dems voted on the same side as Matt Gaetz (*gasp*), but fundamentally it’s the majority’s job to, well, form a fucking majority. In other parliamentary systems this is when the majority would fail to form a government, and new elections would be held. In ours, it just means I have to keep seeing Matt Gaetz’ gaunt mug in thumbnails until Republicans can decide whether Jim “molestation is fine actually” Jordan or Steve “David Duke but without the baggage” Scalise better suits the vibe they’re going for.

On October 05 2023 12:33 Introvert wrote:



I never said that stuff in the middle, in fact I said the opposite. I said dems had no obligation to lift a single finger to help anyone. I said any demands the dems would make would be unacceptable (Ukraine is prob a part of that but not all of it, as McCarthy personally was in favor of Ukraine funding). But to try and spin it as though they are innocent to GOP moderates and the GOP shouldn't be angry with them (or more particularly, the party leadership) is obviously dumb. They are angry at both Gaetz and Dems for different reasons stemming from the same action. Dems needed Gaetz and Co, and Gaetz and Co needed the dems. There is no reason for moderate Republicans to think making a deal with Jeffries is in their best interest. From the perspective within the GOP, yes the blame falls on the eight. From the perspective of the whole, everyone who voted to oust him is responsible. This really isn't that hard. You guys are focusing exclusively on the former. But I will continue to read with amusement the attempt to spin 208+8 vs 210 as "Republicans kicked him out." Not even the modifier of "some republicans teamed up with democrats to oust McCarthy"! lol

As to your aside about Ukraine, no new funding was in the 45 day CR. It was making dems, and may senators on both sides very cranky. For a while there Senator Bennet from CO was holding it up trying to get it sent back to the House with funding in it but that didn't pan out.

On October 05 2023 12:56 ChristianS wrote:

I think all our disagreement is coming down to this: “Some Republicans teamed up with Democrats to oust McCarthy as leader of the House Republicans” is, in my opinion, a fundamentally confused characterization for reasons that are, in my opinion, so obvious I’m a little mystified at needing to enumerate them. When we use terms like “majority leader” or “minority leader” those refer to being leader of *that party,* you know? If some angry Dems tried to remove Chuck Schumer as majority leader in the Senate, it wouldn’t even occur to me to be mad that Republicans didn’t try to save him, or be upset headlines didn’t phrase it as “Republicans and a few Dems remove Schumer as majority leader.”

I mean, as a rule, our system is supposed to look something like:

Step 1: The parties meet separately, decide who their leaders are, and what their priorities will be in coming negotiations.
Step 2: Each party’s leaders meet to hash out a compromise both sides can agree to.
Step 3: An outcome is reached somewhere in the middle – nobody got everything they wanted, but everybody can live with the result.

If Republicans stall out at step 1, why the fuck should we take them seriously if they blame Democrats for it? If the “Republican leader” actually needed Dem votes just to get the job, doesn’t that fundamentally undermine his position as the “Republican leader”?

You’re not saying the Democrats were *obligated* to support a Republican for speaker, but you are saying they were unprincipled, that moderate Republicans are right to feel mad, etc. Near as I can tell your idea of “principled” means Republicans should support Republicans and Democrats should support Republicans. I *strongly* doubt you’d be questioning the principles of Republicans if AOC had blocked Pelosi from being speaker and they refused to bail her out.

On October 05 2023 12:34 Taelshin wrote:
@kwark so your opinion is that the only way there could be a centrist is if its chosen from the minority party.... and you expect that person to be voted on by only 70% of their own party? Got any idea's who's gonna close that ground right now? Mcarthy himself is likely closer then most.

Don't understand the argument over dems ousting him vs gop ect. Of course they voted against the gop dude they are the dems. They had nothing to lose(maybe). It was the 8 GOP that voted him out that's impactful.



My bad I was editing towards introvert god I'm bad at this.

On October 05 2023 12:56 ChristianS wrote:
If the “Republican leader” actually needed Dem votes just to get the job, doesn’t that fundamentally undermine his position as the “Republican leader”?

We’ve had borderline a decade of ‘oh well we can dance with wolves and it’ll be fine’. Unfortunately we’ve also had borderline a decade of ‘oh, it won’t, who could have predicted this?’

Many people have, emboldening the crazies is not a good idea, we’ve seen it over and over. The idea that nudging your political rival into crazy territory will see some centrist rebound in your favour just keeps on losing and losing, it’s a terrible idea.

You’re going to end up with a more intransigent speaker than you’ve had before, you’re going to end up with an even more emboldened base that is seeing results from their own myopia

On October 05 2023 13:28 Introvert wrote:



Ok I tried to cut some out hopefully I didn't lose any clarity.

There is a Majority Leader in the House, who is voted on only by his party, and that's Steve Scalise. Speaker is a separate office chosen by the whole House. The Speaker is actually chosen by the entire body, but normally the parties whip votes and know who they are voting for before hand. The whole House is what elected McCarthy, and it's the whole House that voted him out. It doesn't work like the Senate. To be senate majority leader you only need the votes of your caucus. So in that case, your framing would be appropriate but in actuality your example sentence isn't how it works. I think this confusion on your part is quite helpful, really. IF the House worked like the Senate, then what you are saying is true! but since it doesn't...

And again, dems didn't have to vote against McCarthy, they could have voted present. But dem voters would see that as tacitly backing McCarthy. They wanted to kick him out, saw their opportunity, and took it. Again, pretty straight forward imo.

Let me put it this way. Dem leadership actively made sure that members voted to vacate the chair. That obviously counts as a deliberate choice. And it's obviously true, esp in light of that fact, that I can say dems+reps removed him, because they did. I, in turn, am mystified by the idea that because dems were always going to vote against him that somehow it doesn't count and therefore we can say factually untrue things like "Republicans decided to revoke his speakership for it." Considering that the GOP vote was 210 to 8, that statement and it's variations is just obviously, factually wrong. As a Republican I/ GOP reps can reserve most of the fury for the eight, and it is. But nothing in the way dems behaved gives any reason for GOP moderates to make a deal with dems, which is what I was originally talking about. And maybe it's not just the siding with Gaetz thing that is what is making people so stubborn here, maybe it's this back-of-the-mind long shot that a Dem speaker comes out of this. People want reasons to believe it's more likely than it is.

I leave the principles discussion to the side because that wasn't actually my point and maybe it was the wrong word.

edit: added some detail back in lol

On October 05 2023 13:54 Taelshin wrote:
@kwark Ya I more or less agree I guess, I think the smarter move was for a few purple state Dems to vote to keep Mcarthy. Either your crushing the "8 far right Gop people* or your maintaining a person whom you know you can work with and whos more likely to work with you now that they are gunning for him. Again I think Mcarthy is terrible but the strat here for both sides seems off. Obviously the same could go for some more heavy red state republicans.

Pretty evident people don't understand a key piece of House Dems' thinking on McCarthy and governance of the House. The idea that we acted out of schadenfreude or pique with no thought to the legislative outlook is, of course, silly nonsense. Here's what the takes are missing-

On Saturday morning we had no idea what was happening. Scalise told the GOP they were moving bills that signaled imminent shutdown. This is what we expected. Then McCarthy suddenly and unexpectedly did an about face and announced a vote on a CR. We didn't know what to make of it. How to interpret this? McCarthy has resisted doing this all along, the wingnuts threatened to kick him out if he did it and he was running every play at their call. My immediate read was he wanted and expected us to vote against the suspension so we would be blamed for a shutdown. I said this at the time:
"The only way that I can make this idea make sense from their point of view is if they think Democrats in either the House or Senate would prevent it from passing. It doesn’t work as a good faith move but you could see logic to it as a bad faith one, to shift blame."
And our members believed it, in fact without naming names I can say I heard it from multiple members yesterday as they were weighing how to vote, and that was with hindsight about what happened. And what signals is McCarthy sending us?

Dems: "We would like to read the $200 billion, 71-page bill we've never seen. You promised 72 hours but we'll settle for 90 minutes."
McCarthy: "GFY"
Dems: "well we are going to take that time, but we are satisfied, we'll pass your bill to help you get out of the jam you created for yourself"
McCarthy: "the Democrats wanted to shut down the government and f*ck the troops"

People want us to give the guy credit for stopping a shutdown but it is still not clear to me right now sitting here writing this that he *intended* to do that. This really matters and not just on an emotional level- the resolution set up not one but two new legislative problems. Now we have to pass an omnibus or face a shutdown again by Thanksgiving AND we have to fund military assistance to Ukraine pretty soon. But we are told McCarthy is going to help us there, he has made an agreement to help Ukraine. And what does McCarthy say about that? "There is no side deal." And what is McCarthy signaling to us on funding? He's going to steer us directly back into the crazy cuts and abortion restrictions, the Freedom Caucus setting the agenda, breaking his deal with Biden, and driving us towards a shutdown in November.

Ok we are reasonable people, maybe he's just telling them what they have to hear and he'll screw them at the last minute. So what's he saying to us privately? What reason is he giving us to think any of this is going to turn out well if we help him? None. The supposed "institutional interest" would have us not only put out Republicans' many fires for them, it would have us do so based on our specific belief and trust that *McCarthy is lying*. Like, his lying is supposed to be a good thing, and what sells the arrangement for us. A speakership founded upon Democrats' trust that McCarthy will lie to his own guys and not to us is not rational, folks! It isn't sustainable or reasonable and it's no way to run the House. We needed him to give us any reason to help him and he very intentionally did not do so.

People say "he couldn't make a deal it would compromise his power" and they're just wrong, that was a solvable problem. He could've publicly or privately given us a sense the CR was good faith and we were going to get through the omnibus, stave off a shutdown, and help Ukraine. This came down to trust, and that's the word I saw and heard from House Democrats more than any other word. We did not trust Kevin McCarthy and he gave us no reason to. He could have done so (and I suspect saved his gavel) through fairly simple actions. He chose not to do that. Even after all that happened - January 6th, the debt limit crisis, his vengeance against our members, breaking his word to the President, impeachment, empowering the right wing - there were Democrats who were imho willing to help McCarthy if he had given them a reason. He didn't.

On October 05 2023 18:13 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is a view point from the Democrats that might be helpful for some people to explain why the Democrats did not consider saving McCarthy viable.

from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Democratic Representative Don Beyer (D-VA):
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...488976279.html