You're as optimistic as Simon Rosenberg, and your arguments make as much sense. All we need to do is keep the energy going and we can make it happen. Best wishes for a very happy New Year Jerry.
Why did Mike allow Congress adjourn until January 9 given all the urgent unresolved issues? Border security, debt ceiling (again), budget and Ukraine/Israel wars to name a few.
Harry, In my view, discussion of the debt limit in 25 will rest on which party controls both U.S. Chambers and the White House. If we control it all (and frankly we must), I anticipate our leaders will appreciate the necessity for far more forthcoming.discussion.
Good question, Harry. My guess is that maybe it's easier for the relevant committee members to work quietly behind the scenes during a recess, rather than having public disputes with members intent on sabotaging their efforts.
Maybe Jerry. If you’re right, then after the recess there should be some offering from those members reflecting progress on all, or at least some of these unresolved issues. Time will tell.
Jerry, Based on the House GOP caucus’s recent voting record (unanimous support for 1/6 co-conspirator Mike Johnson for Speaker, plus an impeachment inquiry into Biden, despite Rep Ken Buck affirming the lack of any predicating evidence), I don’t understand your belief that the GOP caucus continues to include traditional Republicans, who, in 2024, conceivably could join with Democrats to achieve bipartisan objectives.
Frankly, I would argue the opposite and advise we buckle up for a pre-planned unhinged 24 intended to foment so much chaos that a plurality would be willing to accept any authoritarian option in order to provide some sense of normalcy and security in their lives. Whether I’m right or wrong, my greatest concern is that we’re unprepared to level a monstrous blow, if warranted.
Barbara, in my opinion it's important to distinguish between the relatively small group of MAGA fanatics in the House and the far larger number of Republican Representatives who merely cast votes you and I find objectionable.
The former are actively engaged in an effort to damage the institutions of our democratic republic, continuing the assault of January 6 but from within the chamber. The latter believe in our institutions, particularly the House of Representatives wherein they serve. And they will consistently vote for legislation essential to governance. (That's probably the extent of bipartisan objectives likely to be achieved in 2024. But it'll suffice to frustrate MAGA ambitions.). Most recently, 147 Republicans voted for the NDAA on December 14 while the likes of Gaetz, Greene, and Jordan opposed it.
People have an unfortunate tendency to over-simplify. It's easier to categorize all our adversaries as equivalent to the worst of them. But that's not only inaccurate, it's poor strategy. The "Republican civil war" that Minority Leader Jeffries calls out in his WAPO essay is very real. It just makes sense for Democrats to cultivate a temporary alliance with those who share our opposition to MAGA extremism.
(FWIW, Speaker Mike Johnson wasn't really a "1/6 co-conspirator". He's a lawyer who wrote and circulated an amicus brief in the Texas lawsuit that claimed four States had improperly changed their election rules during the pandemic. The fact that he's not a fire-breathing radical is what allowed him to emerge as the compromise choice for Speaker after the moderates decisively rejected Jim Jordan.)
Jerry, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would note, while I don’t view the entire GOP Caucus as monolithic, I do view the casting of votes that run counter to “legislation essential to governance” as evidence of complicity and said behavior as justification for labeling said actors as moral accomplices. Moreover, I don’t expect references to Mike Johnson would have been nearly as prominent in Liz Cheney’s book (admittedly, I am relying on hearsay) had his offenses been as minor as you indicate.
In a word, while I imagine I will spend calories in 24 pressing for bipartisanship over chaos, I mostly will be laser-focused on pressing Democratic leadership not to allow Republican deceptions and distortions to go unanswered.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of Mike Johnson's amicus brief in the Texas case. He was at the very least complicit in Donald Trump's effort to retain the presidency after losing the election. Liz Cheney says he was a "collaborator" (as opposed to a co-conspirator). I agree.
That may seem like a subtle difference, but it's illustrative of the larger point. There are at least 50 shades of gray between Marjorie Greene and Don Bacon.
Jerry, Thank you for the Cheney correction. Indeed, both. denotatively and connotatively, “collaborator” and “co-collaborator” mean very different things. Similarly, while, as you state, “50 shades of grey” exist between Greene and Bacon, despite some voting- record distinctions, the similarities are growing increasingly worrisome.
Beware the "fire-breathing radical" hiding in sheep's clothing; I wouldn't trust Mike Johnson with ... anything.
And while there's only a relatively small group of fanatics in the House, they are Trump's surrogates and hold the balance of power, wielding enormous influence over ALL the cowardly Republicans who say one thing in private, but vote Trump Trump Trump in public (with few exceptions, like the NDAA).
The acid test will come on the government shut-down legislation: will they put Party before Country? Let's see who (if any) stands up to the Trump-wing?
I believe almost no Republican could win a seat in 2024 without Trump's base, so no matter what these "moderate" Repubs think or believe, they will never (out of self-interest) alienate Trump's all-powerful base. I think they have now all endorsed (lying, treasonous, criminal) Trump as their party's nominee, and they'll be out on the hustings as surrogates through 2024.
The courageous Republicans like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney and Will Hurd and Adam Kinzinger, well, look what happened to them.
The root of the problem is that Republicans are putting Party before Country. We've come a long way from JFK's "Ask not ..."
Thanks for your comment, Abraham. I totally understand your point of view, though I disagree that "all" Republicans have endorsed Trump, or that none can be elected without his "base" voters. There are several districts where Biden soundly defeated Trump while a Republican representative was re-elected.
The "balance of power" is actually wielded by the traditional Republicans who voted with Dems for the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Continuing Resolutions which currently are funding the government. The Republican Party is in the midst of a civil war between these factions, as was pointed out by Minority Leader Jeffries.
Our role here is to support those who oppose MAGA extremists within their party. At the moment they are the ones best positioned to do so effectively, and Mr. Jeffries has continued to invite them to work with him.
Jerry, you have a better finger on the pulse of what's going on in the House than me, so I'l defer to you. Maybe I'm too jaded, but the cowardly public fealty I see among Republicans makes me doubt whether there's much honesty and integrity or courage left in that party.
But you've got your eye on the ball, you're focused on your mission, and you have some very astute and dedicated colleagues, so congrats again, and keep up the good fight: hold those MAGA extremists to account, and keep trying to bring traditional (moderate, sane?) Republicans to their senses.
I wouldn't vouch for any honesty, integrity or courage in that party, Abraham. But I do think there's some pragmatism floating around among traditional Republicans who recognize legislative reality: Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency, while Republicans have only the very slimmest majority in the House -- not enough to dictate policy.
You're as optimistic as Simon Rosenberg, and your arguments make as much sense. All we need to do is keep the energy going and we can make it happen. Best wishes for a very happy New Year Jerry.
Thank you, Dave. And best wishes to you as well.
Why did Mike allow Congress adjourn until January 9 given all the urgent unresolved issues? Border security, debt ceiling (again), budget and Ukraine/Israel wars to name a few.
Harry, While you and I are circling around similar concerns, I would note that a vote to raise the debt limit is not scheduled until 2025.
You’re right. It just always seems to be on the table and in 2025 it will still be a pointless debate over the basic misunderstanding of what it is.
Harry, In my view, discussion of the debt limit in 25 will rest on which party controls both U.S. Chambers and the White House. If we control it all (and frankly we must), I anticipate our leaders will appreciate the necessity for far more forthcoming.discussion.
True re: who controls Congress, and I agree.
Good question, Harry. My guess is that maybe it's easier for the relevant committee members to work quietly behind the scenes during a recess, rather than having public disputes with members intent on sabotaging their efforts.
Maybe Jerry. If you’re right, then after the recess there should be some offering from those members reflecting progress on all, or at least some of these unresolved issues. Time will tell.
Jerry, Based on the House GOP caucus’s recent voting record (unanimous support for 1/6 co-conspirator Mike Johnson for Speaker, plus an impeachment inquiry into Biden, despite Rep Ken Buck affirming the lack of any predicating evidence), I don’t understand your belief that the GOP caucus continues to include traditional Republicans, who, in 2024, conceivably could join with Democrats to achieve bipartisan objectives.
Frankly, I would argue the opposite and advise we buckle up for a pre-planned unhinged 24 intended to foment so much chaos that a plurality would be willing to accept any authoritarian option in order to provide some sense of normalcy and security in their lives. Whether I’m right or wrong, my greatest concern is that we’re unprepared to level a monstrous blow, if warranted.
Barbara, in my opinion it's important to distinguish between the relatively small group of MAGA fanatics in the House and the far larger number of Republican Representatives who merely cast votes you and I find objectionable.
The former are actively engaged in an effort to damage the institutions of our democratic republic, continuing the assault of January 6 but from within the chamber. The latter believe in our institutions, particularly the House of Representatives wherein they serve. And they will consistently vote for legislation essential to governance. (That's probably the extent of bipartisan objectives likely to be achieved in 2024. But it'll suffice to frustrate MAGA ambitions.). Most recently, 147 Republicans voted for the NDAA on December 14 while the likes of Gaetz, Greene, and Jordan opposed it.
People have an unfortunate tendency to over-simplify. It's easier to categorize all our adversaries as equivalent to the worst of them. But that's not only inaccurate, it's poor strategy. The "Republican civil war" that Minority Leader Jeffries calls out in his WAPO essay is very real. It just makes sense for Democrats to cultivate a temporary alliance with those who share our opposition to MAGA extremism.
(FWIW, Speaker Mike Johnson wasn't really a "1/6 co-conspirator". He's a lawyer who wrote and circulated an amicus brief in the Texas lawsuit that claimed four States had improperly changed their election rules during the pandemic. The fact that he's not a fire-breathing radical is what allowed him to emerge as the compromise choice for Speaker after the moderates decisively rejected Jim Jordan.)
Jerry, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would note, while I don’t view the entire GOP Caucus as monolithic, I do view the casting of votes that run counter to “legislation essential to governance” as evidence of complicity and said behavior as justification for labeling said actors as moral accomplices. Moreover, I don’t expect references to Mike Johnson would have been nearly as prominent in Liz Cheney’s book (admittedly, I am relying on hearsay) had his offenses been as minor as you indicate.
In a word, while I imagine I will spend calories in 24 pressing for bipartisanship over chaos, I mostly will be laser-focused on pressing Democratic leadership not to allow Republican deceptions and distortions to go unanswered.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of Mike Johnson's amicus brief in the Texas case. He was at the very least complicit in Donald Trump's effort to retain the presidency after losing the election. Liz Cheney says he was a "collaborator" (as opposed to a co-conspirator). I agree.
That may seem like a subtle difference, but it's illustrative of the larger point. There are at least 50 shades of gray between Marjorie Greene and Don Bacon.
Jerry, Thank you for the Cheney correction. Indeed, both. denotatively and connotatively, “collaborator” and “co-collaborator” mean very different things. Similarly, while, as you state, “50 shades of grey” exist between Greene and Bacon, despite some voting- record distinctions, the similarities are growing increasingly worrisome.
Beware the "fire-breathing radical" hiding in sheep's clothing; I wouldn't trust Mike Johnson with ... anything.
And while there's only a relatively small group of fanatics in the House, they are Trump's surrogates and hold the balance of power, wielding enormous influence over ALL the cowardly Republicans who say one thing in private, but vote Trump Trump Trump in public (with few exceptions, like the NDAA).
The acid test will come on the government shut-down legislation: will they put Party before Country? Let's see who (if any) stands up to the Trump-wing?
I believe almost no Republican could win a seat in 2024 without Trump's base, so no matter what these "moderate" Repubs think or believe, they will never (out of self-interest) alienate Trump's all-powerful base. I think they have now all endorsed (lying, treasonous, criminal) Trump as their party's nominee, and they'll be out on the hustings as surrogates through 2024.
The courageous Republicans like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney and Will Hurd and Adam Kinzinger, well, look what happened to them.
The root of the problem is that Republicans are putting Party before Country. We've come a long way from JFK's "Ask not ..."
Thanks for your comment, Abraham. I totally understand your point of view, though I disagree that "all" Republicans have endorsed Trump, or that none can be elected without his "base" voters. There are several districts where Biden soundly defeated Trump while a Republican representative was re-elected.
The "balance of power" is actually wielded by the traditional Republicans who voted with Dems for the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Continuing Resolutions which currently are funding the government. The Republican Party is in the midst of a civil war between these factions, as was pointed out by Minority Leader Jeffries.
Our role here is to support those who oppose MAGA extremists within their party. At the moment they are the ones best positioned to do so effectively, and Mr. Jeffries has continued to invite them to work with him.
Jerry, you have a better finger on the pulse of what's going on in the House than me, so I'l defer to you. Maybe I'm too jaded, but the cowardly public fealty I see among Republicans makes me doubt whether there's much honesty and integrity or courage left in that party.
But you've got your eye on the ball, you're focused on your mission, and you have some very astute and dedicated colleagues, so congrats again, and keep up the good fight: hold those MAGA extremists to account, and keep trying to bring traditional (moderate, sane?) Republicans to their senses.
I wouldn't vouch for any honesty, integrity or courage in that party, Abraham. But I do think there's some pragmatism floating around among traditional Republicans who recognize legislative reality: Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency, while Republicans have only the very slimmest majority in the House -- not enough to dictate policy.
As usual, a cogent observation on our sorry state of affairs. I dare to hope for a better 2024.