Post New

The aid bill that just went through the House last weekend is a template for restoring some sanity to the House of Representatives, by isolating and rendering impotent the fringe right-wing that’s been successful at hijacking the entire agenda this session.

The Speaker had to rely on Democrats in both the Rules Committee and in the floor vote to get the legislation passed, as even the Rules Committee, led by fringies tries to disrupt the entire process.

For instance, suppose MTG gets her way and there’s (another) Speaker Recall. Last time the Democrats just let the Republicans twist in the stew for their own making. Suppose this time they - along with enough center-Republicans voted to keep him. Instantly that threat - the eggshells he has to walk on - disappears. MTG is neutered, at least as so far as legislation is concerned. She can still squawk to the media, of course, but in terms of getting things done she is just one of a long line of fringies whose time has passed.

This would require Democrats to do something they’re not used to: voting to keep a Republican Speaker of the House. It would require Republicans, some of them, anyway, to work with Democrats on rules and legislation and such. Who would win? The American public, who is looking at the least productive legislative session in history.

I’m sure this would be tough. There are other Johnny-come-lately rules, like “the majority of the majority”, meaning that with 435 seats a majority could be as little as 218, and a majority-of-the-majority as few as 110. So 110 Reps can deny the other 325 the ability to do anything. This is objectively wrong, which is why it hasn’t been “a rule” except in the modern age with the radicals.

(I’m sure there would be a few on the far left who would be unhappy to try this out, although they are far fewer in numbers. So politicos, whaddya think?)

This would require Democrats to do something they’re not used to: voting to keep a Republican Speaker of the House. It would require Republicans, some of them, anyway, to work with Democrats on rules and legislation and such.

--------------

It would be a very tough sell, based on 30 years of observable, consistent behavior on the part of Republicans who have followed rules when it benefited them and ignored them or made up new ones when they lacked the ability or popular support to get their way by other means.

The majority of the majority rule ("the Hastert Rule") isn't a rule stemming from written law or traditional parliamentary procedure practiced in the US prior to the mid 1990s. It was an outgrowth of the Newt Gingrich era implemented as a means of militantly enforcing ultra-conservative orthodoxy within the Republican ranks.

Mitch McConnell invented the last-year, last-term appointment freeze as a means of blocking Obama from filling a vacancy in the Supreme Court and delaying that choice in the chance a Republican would win the next Presidential election. Not coincidentally, a similar concept has been adopted as state law in Kentucky by the Republican controlled legislature to completely eliminate any power held by the Governor to select a replacement for a sitting Senator who dies in office or resigns. Under the prior law, the Governor made the appointment but chose from a list of three candidates chosen by the outgoing Senator's party. The new law leaves the seat vacant until an interim election can be held. Kentucky Republicans enacted this change not only because they are clearly worried about Mitch McConnell's health but they don't even want a Democratic Governor to have the choice of picking a MODERATE Republican should a vacancy arise.

Saving Johnson's Speakership on the hope of 218 Republicans in the House suddenly developing a sense of true bipartisanship as a means of trying to accomplish any meaningful legislation in the next six months seems like an extremely low-odds bet. There are 43 Republicans retiring from the House, leaving roughly 175 running for re-election. Those 175 may have already won their primary for this round but they have a post-Congress career to protect and "working with the enemy" at this point would not endear them to their future corporate masters. So the odds of additional, significant legislation being passed that would be of interest to even moderate Democrats and Independents are extremely small.

To extend the metaphor of a "teachable moment" from a prior post, saving Johnson's Speakership now could be viewed as squandering a "teachable moment" for three distinct groups of people:

* Republican politicians still lacking the courage to publicly reject and oppose MAGAism
* "moderate" Republcian voters who still think they're supporting a 1950s era GOP
* "independent" voters who are pondering staying home thinking a Dem versus Rep choice is meaningless

If a deal was struck and it only returned a semblance of normalcy without accomplishing anything, it would defer recognition of the true state of the Republican Party and likely trigger many in the above camps to just continue the current trend toward apathy that is allowing the MAGA fringe influence to grow by leveraging the power of an established party.

I'm not wishing strife upon the country but there is nothing in the historical record to show a temporary truce will change a 30-year downward trajectory of behavior. If we're going to have a teachable moment, I can think of no better time for it to occur than prior to a Presidential election when the House, Senate and Presidency are all up for grabs.


WTH

If a deal was struck and it only returned a semblance of normalcy without accomplishing anything, it would defer recognition of the true state of the Republican Party and likely trigger many in the above camps to just continue the current trend toward apathy that is allowing the MAGA fringe influence to grow by leveraging the power of an established party.

IOW, don't save him and let the Reps prove -yet again- that they are not able to govern under present conditions.

I'm kinda leaning that way. I respect that Johnson saw something that needed doing, and worked with Dems to make sure it happened. But I still don't like his overt insertion of religion into almost everything, and I also don't like that he caved to Trump on the Senate compromise bill before he even had a chance to read it. For Dems, this is arguably better (i.e. Ukraine funding without giving up anything). But that the guy third in line for the White House (i.e. succession) should cave to someone who has no position or authority in government is very disturbing.

Brilliant thoughts.

Yes, Dems supporting this Speaker would make Dems 100% in the driver's seat.


This is very similar to what I had said on TMF when Trump came in. I said he should ignore Mitch . He should go to Chuck and Nancy....and blitz the infrastructure really hard. Do some stimulus. Stuff that he AND Dems wanted. THEN he'd go to Mitch and say "listen....you can't use me to get your SCOTUS done. I'm more popular than you....and you see I've got new friends to play with. Get onboard with my priorities----and then we'll talk SCOTUS and corporate taxes"

As I"ve said on TMF. --- a tribalized nation can't have 2 sides. You'll need power sharing amongst tribes and castes and temporary alliances.

You're catching on people.

For Dems, this is arguably better (i.e. Ukraine funding without giving up anything).

Point this out to BHM. Fearless leader nixed the best deal coming down the pike, and ... we get Ukraine aid and he gets bupkiss for the border. I still want border legislation. I still think it's funny that Dope came out and said, "they're taking away his best issue."

Well, kind of like I said.

The Humbling of Margorie Taylor Greene

 

Just look at what has come to pass in the House in the past several days: 
Mr. Johnson, a proud ultraconservative, pushed through a $95 billion foreign 
aid package, including $60 billion for Ukraine, with more Democratic votes 
than Republican ones. He is now counting on Democrats to save him from the 
Greene-led extremists’ plan to defenestrate him and install yet another 
Republican as speaker. There is much buzz about the emergence of a 
bipartisan governing coalition in the House, albeit one born of desperation. 
Squint hard, and Congress almost looks to be functioning as intended, with a 
majority of members coming together to advance vital legislation. With her 
special brand of MAGA extremism, Ms. Greene has shifted the House in a 
bipartisan direction (at least for now) in exactly the way her base loathes.

Can I get two cheers for the art of the possible?! 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/opinion/marjori...

Gift article: free to read

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.