Passing The Torch In The House
There was a historic passing of the torch today, as Hakeem Jeffries was unanimously voted leader of the House Democrats in the next Congress. He will become the first Black leader of a political party in either chamber of Congress, which is an enormous milestone to achieve. Meanwhile, over on the Republican side, Kevin McCarthy is still scrambling to get enough votes from his caucus to achieve his goal of becoming the next speaker. This should all be seen as a harbinger of things to come, for both political parties. So let's take a look at where both of them are and what we might expect to see in the 118th Congress.
Republicans
First, the Republicans. Kevin McCarthy has made no secret of his ambitions to wield the speaker's gavel, and he has had plenty of time to build his own power base within the Republican caucus. The fact that he hasn't successfully achieved unanimity quite likely shows the troubles he is going to have even if he does manage to corral the 218 votes necessary (the speaker, unlike all the other partisan leadership decisions, has to be voted in by the entire House, which won't take place until the new Congress is sworn in early next year). Assuming McCarthy wins, he is going to face exactly the same dynamic as the previous two Republican speakers, both of whom eventually got fed up with the factionalism within their own ranks and wound up deciding not to even seek re-election. So even if McCarthy reaches out to John Boehner and Paul Ryan, it's doubtful they'd have much in the way of good advice for him to be a successful GOP leader.
Boehner and Ryan had to deal with the Tea Partiers, but the radical right caucus has left that name behind and now rallies together as the "Freedom Caucus." Other smaller groups may appear as well (it wouldn't surprise me to hear that some GOP House members were forming a "MAGA Caucus," for instance). Whatever they are called, the radicals have one thing in common, which is an insistence on absolute purity from the rest of the Republicans -- to the point where they torpedo bills that would have taken giant steps towards enacting a very conservative agenda, because these efforts are deemed insufficiently pure or radical enough.
Since the dawn of the Tea Party, the radicals have shown no interest in compromise or working with the rest of their party to incrementally advance their own pet agenda. They refuse to accept a half a loaf, or even 90 percent of a loaf -- for them, it is all or nothing. And that's just within their own party -- compromise with Democrats is unthinkable to them. Previously, this has been a recipe for absolute gridlock in the House, even when they had a Republican Senate and a Republican president. The only thing they've really been able to get through was more and more tax cuts for the wealthiest and for corporate America. This is what the conservative agenda has been whittled down to, at least in terms of actually enacting anything.
This intransigence has only gotten worse after Donald Trump's arrival on the scene. The flavor of radicalism has shifted from the Tea Party's original agenda to now being "whatever Trump tells us he wants to do," and the refusal to actually compromise even within their own party has only gotten stronger.
This is what McCarthy will face, assuming he can even get enough of them to vote for him to be speaker. That is currently an open question, as there are enough incoming GOP House members who are now saying they won't vote for McCarthy to deny him the majority he needs. McCarthy has his work cut out for him before early January, trying to convince the holdouts to get on board. The only thing which could change this dynamic is if Trump himself issues a public plea for all his devoted MAGA followers to support McCarthy's bid -- which hasn't happened yet (and might not).
If McCarthy does wind up winning the speakers' gavel, his problems will only have begun. Republicans are going to have a razor-thin majority (of only perhaps four seats, depending on the outcome of two outstanding races), which means it will only take a very small group of them refusing to play ball to sink any particular bill. And not only will there be various flavors of radicals demanding absolute purity in all legislation, McCarthy will also have to handle the moderate Republicans who won in swing districts who are already pushing back at the agenda of vengeance the radicals have proposed. They know that endless partisan investigations without any actual tangible progress on any of the issues they ran on (solving inflation, fixing the border, reducing crime, etc.) is going to mean they're going to have a very hard time getting re-elected in two years.
McCarthy will have to try to keep everyone happy, or happy enough to follow his lead. This may prove to be an impossible task, however, especially considering how weak McCarthy's leadership as the minority leader has already been. Any congressional leader sinks or swims by how effectively they can whip the members of their own party into shape, which traditionally has meant both enticing members with goodies (like committee assignments or campaign cash or floor votes on pet bills) as well as exercising a firm discipline over members who refuse to get on board (which can mean a lot of things, both subtle and quite blunt). McCarthy will probably do fairly well in offering carrots to get individual members to work with the rest of the Republicans, but he is an abject failure at exercising any discipline whatsoever, especially since the radicals in his caucus have been championed by Trump. McCarthy can't effectively threaten members who have the full support of Trump, because Trump himself will denounce any such punishment against his devoted followers.
This is most likely going to lead to either utter chaos or a House that only does exactly what Trump wants them to do -- which is, essentially, "wreak vengeance on all the Democrats all the time while pushing for all of Trump's shifting and unhinged whims." Trump could wind up being more of a leader of the House Republicans than McCarthy, in other words. This is going to be most acute when Congress faces must-pass legislation like the budget -- which will probably only pass with some moderate Republicans voting with Democrats to get bills across the finish line. Such things are actually pretty historically normal, but each and every time a bill makes it through in such a fashion, Trump is bound to erupt in seething anger. A stronger GOP House leader might be able to stand up to such an onslaught, but Kevin McCarthy is going to find it very tough to do so (due to his own inherent weakness and lack of any appreciable disciplinary skills).
Democrats
The Democrats, on the other hand, are in total array. The current leadership is stepping down and a new generation will now seamlessly take over. There were no hard-fought contests for the top three jobs, and the party already stands united behind their next leaders. Outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi has shown a mastery at herding the Democratic cats and keeping her caucus together to pass all kinds of important bills. The question is whether the party can continue to stay so united under the new leaders, or whether the factions will begin to squabble even more, now that Pelosi is handing off the torch.
One thing which might work in favor of Democratic unity is that they will be in the minority once again. Minority parties in the House are largely powerless to advance much of their own agenda (much more powerless than the minority in the Senate). So the political stance of the Democrats is going to be one of fighting back as hard as they can against Republican overreach -- which is actually a dandy concept to unite behind. They won't have the burden of setting the floor agenda or deciding which agenda items to tackle next. Democrats will go into reactive mode, constantly providing a foil for whatever McCarthy's Republicans are up to. That's a lot easier than uniting behind any contentious issues that have engendered lively debate among Democrats.
Jeffries and the rest of the incoming leadership team will actually benefit from being in the minority, because it would have been much tougher for them to be effective if Democrats had indeed held control of the chamber in the midterms. Had that happened, the progressives and the moderates would now be busy arguing over what the party's priorities should be next year. Being in the minority takes this problem off the table, at least to begin with.
Pelosi managed to hold her caucus together while they were in the majority and while they were in the minority, of course. The real test of leadership for a minority leader comes with the bills that absolutely must pass -- when Kevin McCarthy is going to be reaching across the aisle in order to get enough votes to pass a budget or increase the debt ceiling, for the most part. McCarthy will be looking to peel off just enough Democrats to add to the agreeable members of his own caucus to pass a bill. And he'll try to pass the most right-wing budgets he can, with the support of moderate Democrats who have to get re-elected in swing districts (who always like to tout their bipartisanship on the campaign trail).
Pelosi was incredibly effective in shaping Republican-written bills in two ways: by identifying things which were completely unacceptable to Democrats, and by demanding small concessions from the Democratic agenda be included before Democrats would offer their support. That is the challenge for Jeffries. He'll have to draw a firm line in the sand over the most extreme and radical ideas Republicans come up with (and there will probably be a lot of these) and decide which issues could be acceptable enough to the moderate Republicans to insist be included in the final bills. Whether he can effectively do either of these things will depend on how tightly he controls the moderates in his own caucus. In the days before Pelosi's leadership, Democrats would often splinter and refuse to show unity behind their leadership, with dozens of them defecting to support Republican bills. Whether House Democrats return to this dynamic or continue showing the unity under Pelosi is still an open question. Jeffries himself is seen as a moderate, but he has been reaching out to the progressive faction within his ranks already, which could be a good sign of things to come.
In the case of both the Democrats and the Republicans, we are already seeing that leadership does indeed matter. The unity shown in the seamless transition among Democrats can be seen as the final testament to Pelosi's remarkable control over her caucus. The disarray and factionalism already splintering the Republican Party has been there all along too, it's just been a lot less noticeable while they've languished in the minority. When the control of the House of Representatives does take place at the start of next year, all of this is quite likely to become a lot more obvious to even the casual observer.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Now America gets to see if there’s any drop off in effectiveness between Pelosi as Speaker and McCarthy and all the MAGAt crazies.
One unremarked upon additional benefit of the Uber Nuclear Biblical Shellacking that wasn’t is that Corporatist Democrats who haven’t actually tried Bernie-level Progressivism are not now blaming Progressives for a bad election. Maybe even watered down Progressivism was enough to carry the day. Maybe America was more afraid of Repug crazies than of our Dem crazies.
Michale, what do you think happened? Why no Red Tsunami? Do you care to comment on Ye and Fuentes and a Trump Thanksgiving? Mike Lindell reportedly wants to become Chairman of the GOP — do you support him? What’s your take on Kari Lake refusing to concede? What’s up in your right-wing world?
Republicans are going to have a razor-thin majority (of only perhaps four seats, depending on the outcome of two outstanding races), which means it will only take a very small group of them refusing to play ball to sink any particular bill.
Iddn't it funny how when DEMRATS have a "razor thin" majority in the House, it's a GOOD thing..
But when the GOP'ers have a "razor thin" majority in the House, it's going to "sink" the Party.. :D
I find that hilarious.. :D
1/20
An atheist was seated next to a dusty old cowboy on an airplane and he turned to him and said, “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”
The old cowboy, who had just started to read his book, replied to the total stranger, “What would you want to talk about?”
“Oh, I don’t know,” said the atheist. “How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?” as he smiled smugly.
“Okay,” he said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”
The atheist, visibly surprised by the old cowboy's intelligence, thinks about it and says, “Hmmm, I have no idea.”
To which the cowboy replies, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don’t know shit?”...........
Baa daa da... :D
Michale [3]
Does this signal you have become a Christian? Typical ignorant Christian humor. They try to dunk on the atheist but end up dunking on the poor cowboy instead. An "intelligent" cowboy would know that though a deer can eat grass they prefer leaves, bark, acorns or in the case of my property, any ornamental plant I happen to favor...
WOW, Bashi... Yer scar is showing...
Yunno.. The scar where you had your sense of humor surgically removed at birth.. :eyeroll:
Does this signal you have become a Christian?
And then you gots to go be all insulting... :^/
3/20
Right wing and Christian "humor" has always sucked. Try coming up with something actually funny...
Gods knows what Cop/America hating Demrats find "funny"... :eyeroll:
And what have we here!!??? :D
Hakeem Jeffries, House Dems' new leader, said Tara Reade's Biden accusation should be 'investigated seriously'
'This is a serious allegation raised by a serious individual,' Jeffries said of Reade during 2020 presidential election
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, who was elected Wednesday by House Democrats to succeed Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said during the 2020 presidential election that Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against President Biden "needs to be investigated seriously."
Jeffries made headlines in April 2020 after he broke with his party to lend credibility to the claims made by Reade, a former Biden staffer who accused Biden of cornering her in a Senate office building in 1993 and sexually assaulting her.
"It’s got to be taken seriously because this is a serious allegation raised by a serious individual and needs to be investigated seriously. We’ve probably got to hear from him [Biden] at some point directly," Jeffries told WNYC at the time.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hakeem-jeffries-house-dems-new-leader-said-tara-reades-biden-accusation-should-investigated-seriously
Yes..
*LET'S* fully and completely investigate the sexual assault accusations against Dementia Biden!!! :D
4/20
[3]
Michale, what I find hilarious is...
You've written that you used to be neutral/pro-choice but because you came across shoutyourabortion.com you are now forced-birth/pro-life.
I've looked SYA over and, yes, it IS an abortion rights political advocacy website.
And bad words like Democrat or Liberal are to NOWHERE to be seen.
So in essence you were triggered into going all Christian regarding abortion...because of a website's name?
ICYMI
Michale, what do you think happened? Why no Red Tsunami? Do you care to comment on Ye and Fuentes and a Trump Thanksgiving? Mike Lindell reportedly wants to become Chairman of the GOP — do you support him? What’s your take on Kari Lake refusing to concede? What’s up in your right-wing world?*
*Okay, besides the lengthy boldified quote that I automatically scroll through. Something about Hakeem.
Look, how about answering some or all of these? I'm trying to engage with you here, man.
And how about some Trump worship, for old times sake?
Soon it will be a thing of the past. You will bail on His Orangeness (or you see the writing on the wall and have already bailed) and you'll be like Trump? The name sounds familiar but I don't know the man...
MC,
You've written that you used to be neutral/pro-choice but because you came across shoutyourabortion.com you are now forced-birth/pro-life.
Not factually accurate..
So in essence you were triggered into going all Christian regarding abortion...because of a website's name?
Not factually accurate..
It's because of what that website promotes and encourages..
Which is for ugly human beings to be PROUD of killing babies...
Only a DEMRAT would think that THAT is something to be proud of.. :eyeroll:
5/20
What BS. You read the URL name and then made up something in your head about what it was about (or misinformed by one of your opinion pieces...). If you had actually read the "shout outs" you find them to be a good representative cross section of how women feel about getting an abortion. Happy, sad, serious, regretful, guilt, giant weight lifted. It's all there. I found the place quite melancholy...
It's a web site about killing babies and wanting people to "SHOUT OUT" about... :^/
OF COURSE you would find it "melancholy"..
NORMAL people would find baby killing disgusting and perverse..
But we're talking about Demrats after all, so.... :eyeroll:
6/20
Moose poop. Forcing women to give birth against their will ain't gonna help any babies, real or imagined. I'm of the opinion that most people would prefer not to have abortions in most circumstances. But governments shouldn't be making the decision to force birth on every pregnant person no matter what the circumstances no matter how many or few people decide such a thing is worth celebrating.
"THE LAW IS CLEAR" Federal appeals court strikes down Special Master
Trump, whom the Justice Department suspects violated the Espionage Act, has vigorously fought the FBI's actions as well as the warrant that it lawfully obtained, arguing that the documents were his. But Trump also maintained that he declassified them through telepathy. His attorneys, meanwhile, have failed in numerous attempts to prove their case – that Trump, as an ex-commander in chief – is shielded by immunity and executive privilege.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals flatly rejected that claim.
"In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents,” the court said in its opinion as reported by The Washington Post. “We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed.”
"The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant," the judges said, per Reuters. "Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so."
This is a devastating blow to Trump. As former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner pointed out in The Daily Beast on Monday, "if the 11th Circuit rules against Trump, I would expect an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, which would be quickly denied. As soon as that happens, I expect that newly appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team will indict former President Trump on multiple counts."
You know Traitor Trump was crapping his adult diapers when he first heard of this!
Now that’s a judicious use of the boldify feature, Michale, just saying.
NOT the shouting that I scroll through but rather being educated, right?
FACTS. Not OVERSOLD nonsense. Michale this should be easy peasy for you. Puh-lease!
You HAVE bailed on Trump, haven’t you Michale? C’mon you can tell a friend…
C’mon Michale.
Is Trump dead to you yet? Has he been a gift to the Dems the last three elections, or not?
And once you stop loving Trump and switch to DeSantis-Facist-Alternative will you be HATING TRUMP/AMERICA?
Is there a risk that reconciling all of the above will ASPLODEYOURHEAD? I want to be there for your transition away from TDS…
Because the only TDS has always been YOUR/rabidly anti Democratic self delusion that this New York douchebag actually cares about anyone but himself…and maybe Ivanka, if only she would spread ‘em.
Are you going to ignore all of this at 0400? C’mon this should be easy peasy Michale, amirite?
Oh, but let me help you PRAISE Trump, because he UNDENIABLY got some things quite right, to wit:
1- Fucking with China. Even though the tariffs came out of Murica’s pockets I notice that Joe has largely left them in place. All this works IMO because we only need wait a decade before China implodes and these Chinese fuckers play dirty, so fuck em.
2- Fucking with numerous NATO deadbeats to make them pay as agreed (2% of their resources — yeesh what a deal ‘cuz we’ll cover the rest…)
3- Trump’s highly unpopular tax cuts gave our Obama economy the predictable sugar boost. And that lasted right up to the point where Trump decided the stock market closing numbers in January 2020 were more important than protecting Murican lives from Covid.
4- Trump did NOT start a new war, full stop. Excluding the Afghan government with talks with the Taliban set up the debacle* of our withdrawal. *BUT was it a debacle? We pulled way over 100,000 people out and suffered casualties. From a war that Dubya failed to win because invading Iraq was more important.
Of course Joe was a dummy for believing the intel guys that had been preaching just a few more troops and just a little more time…for DECADES. Who then assured that Afghans would lay down their lives to protect us Muricans as we bailed on them…
But that’s what you get when you spend only $800 billion for a WHOLE year on National Defense.
Michale,
What Joshua said in [14]!
Caddy,
Of course Joe was a dummy for believing the intel guys that had been preaching just a few more troops and just a little more time…for DECADES. Who then assured that Afghans would lay down their lives to protect us Muricans as we bailed on them…
Actually, Biden didn't believe the intel guys on that score and a few others.
[23]
Yes, agreed. This is a matter of privacy slash personal freedom.
[24]
Again, yanking over 100,000 allies out of the country with one regrettable suicide bombing is Dunkirk-level SUCCESS, not FAILURE. Let them Repugs go after Joe over this, for I think he did fine.
But Elizabeth how could Joe/the West have prevented Putin from invading Ukraine? What did they do wrong?
Seriously?
of course not seriously, but you're sorta insane on the topic.
Moose poop. Forcing women to give birth against their will ain't gonna help any babies, real or imagined. I'm of the opinion that most people would prefer not to have abortions in most circumstances. But governments shouldn't be making the decision to force birth on every pregnant person no matter what the circumstances no matter how many or few people decide such a thing is worth celebrating.
JL,
Your "forcing women to give birth" analogy is very flawed..
It's akin to a woman taking a baby in a baby carrier on a long walk and then, because she is tired halfway thru the walk, the analogy makes it permissible for the woman to pitch the baby over the cliff because she is not allowed to be "forced" to fulfil her responsibility of carrying the baby all the way home.
I'm of the opinion that most people would prefer not to have abortions in most circumstances.
If that opinion were factually accurate, then SAFE, LEGAL and RARE would still be how baby killings are viewed today..
But you and I both know that is NOT how Democrats see baby killing any more..
NOW Democrats want to #CELEBRATE their baby killings.. NOW Democrats want to #SHOUT OUT their baby killings..
But governments shouldn't be making the decision to force birth on every pregnant person no matter what the circumstances no matter how many or few people decide such a thing is worth celebrating.
And, once again, that's like saying governments shouldn't be making the decisions to FORCE parents to properly care for their children until they are 18...
When you have a child, you agree to accept responsibility for the safety and welfare of that child.. YOU want to call that being "forced" to care for the child, fine.. You can call it that..
I simply call it being responsible for the choices you make..
Using your "FORCED" analogy, there is no difference between killing a baby a month BEFORE birth and killing a baby a month AFTER birth..
I mean, YOU are saying that government shouldn't FORCE the woman to accept the responsibility of of their decision. Right??
Seriously, JL..
Morally, ethically and even (in many cases) LEGALLY, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between a government "forcing" a woman to care for a baby a month BEFORE birth as there is a government "forcing" a woman to care for a baby a month AFTER birth..
Why is one acceptable to you and one is not acceptable to you?
Hmmmm???
Baby Jane, a month before birth..
Baby Janice, a month after birth..
Why is it morally permissible in your opinion that Baby Jane can be summarily executed on a whim ("Oh I just don't feel like being a mommy now" or "Wow, I got this new job offer. I can't have a baby now!!") but for Baby Janice, it's perfectly acceptable for the government to "force" the woman to care for the baby?? It's perfectly acceptable for the government to "force" the woman to be a mommy..
Such a moral contradiction demands clarity...
Michale
3
The old cowboy, who had just started to read his book, replied to the total stranger, “What would you want to talk about?”
Okay, first off, old cowboy reading a book!? That's literally going to be one or two in a hundred. Closer to factual would be "dusty old cowboy refuses to remove his nasty old smelly hat and is sprawled out taking up all of his own airline chair space and half of yours too."
“Okay,” he said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”
Duh. Wasn't much of an actual "cowboy" if he made the asinine claim that those animals "all eat the same stuff" and that a cow "turns out a flat patty."
The atheist, visibly surprised by the old cowboy's intelligence, thinks about it and says, “Hmmm, I have no idea.”
"Intelligence"?! So you're saying the "atheist," who by definition is a doubter, actually does believe the words of a "dusty old cowboy on an airplane" who is a "total stranger"?
Just goes to show you how one man's definition of "intelligence" is another man's absolute example of "shit for brains." :)
nypoet22
14
Moose poop.
Cow patties too... which aren't flat if the cows are actually eating grass/hay (dried grass).
Forcing women to give birth against their will ain't gonna help any babies, real or imagined. I'm of the opinion that most people would prefer not to have abortions in most circumstances. But governments shouldn't be making the decision to force birth on every pregnant person no matter what the circumstances no matter how many or few people decide such a thing is worth celebrating.
Exactly correct. Points to JL.
Michale
29
Your "forcing women to give birth" analogy is very flawed..
No, what JL wrote isn't an "analogy" at all; that happens to be exactly what they are legislating. Why do I get the feeling you are going to follow what you are calling an "analogy" with an actual straw-man fallacy analogy?
It's akin to a woman taking a baby in a baby carrier on a long walk and then, because she is tired halfway thru the walk, the analogy makes it permissible for the woman to pitch the baby over the cliff because she is not allowed to be "forced" to fulfil her responsibility of carrying the baby all the way home.
There's your analogy... straw-man fallacy, also.
Swing and a miss, too.
When you have a child, you agree to accept responsibility for the safety and welfare of that child.. YOU want to call that being "forced" to care for the child, fine.. You can call it that..
He's talking about forcing women to give birth, while you're talking utter nonsense about some kind of "agreement." You're not even in the same ballpark as him and therefore not relevant to his discussion. He is correct about this 100%.
Using your "FORCED" analogy,
It isn't an "analogy" when you're forced by the government to give birth against your own will; it's forced birth. Forcing a woman to give birth is forced birth; it is that damn simple.
Michale
31
Such a moral contradiction demands clarity...
Your repetitive straw-man fallacy is genuinely self-explanatory and requires nothing more than pointing and laughing at your repetitive batshit bullshit.