Here's a current headline in Politico:
The text of the piece generally is OK, but what's with the consistent theme that Democrats are holding the strings here? They can't do anything until Republicans ask, and so far Republicans have flatly refused to entertain any kind of deal. A better headline would be:
Republicans dither about asking Democrats to help them out of their latest jam
It's more accurate, anyway.
How about "Republicans bide their time before resolving Speaker issue by voting for the candidate currently getting the most votes."
"Bide their time before deciding" makes it sound as if Democrats have already come to the rescue.
Which is false. And they should not. That would be "rewarding bad behavior", which Republicans always deplore.
Both! Siiiiiiiides!
BOTH!
"They can't do anything until Republicans ask.."
That is just bulshit. There are many things they can do, most obvious is to declare that they support such plan, with any conditions that they believe are essential or useful. Alternatively suggesting any other idea they may have.
Whether or not that is a good idea is another question. But to say they cannot do anything is just stupid.
It's not like Democrats have been sitting on their hands:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/live-blog/speakership-fight-jordan-mchenry-threats?entry=1471902
Doing something just for the sake of doing something would be stupid.
Nobody suggested that.
I wrote that there things that Democrats could do, so writing that they cannot do anything is stupid.
They could make some reasonable, very public, offers. e.g. We'll support "most reasonable republican they can find" if you uphold the budget deal we already made.
the last reasonable republican was killed by a white supremacist in 1865
But Republicans couldn’t make such a deal or honor no matter how desperate they become. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the fundamental reality is that as long as MAGA nutters dominate the Republican primary contests, GOP incumbents must always fear primary challenges from their right and only from their right. That’s pretty much why Josh Marshall argues that Gym is essentially the speaker and will run the house using a “moderate” Republican as his beard.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-inside-story-of-how-jim-jordan-broke-the-model-didnt-become-speaker-and-decided-that-was-fine
What the GOP wants and the mainstream DC media expects is for the Democrats to bend the knee to MAGA in the name of bipartisanship. That would be bad for the country and fatal for the Democrats.
What JimFive suggested isn't "bending the knee". They dpon't actually give up anything.
And even if Republicans agree to uphold the agreement and then do not, you didn't actually lose anything, and gain more ammunition to attack the Republican party.
Note that JimFive says "most reasonable republican", which clearly doesn't include Gym (or even Scalise).
If we rewind back to the vote to kick McCarthy out as Speaker, let's recall that he never bothered to deal with Democrats.
Republicans feel they're entitled to get support from Democrats for their priorities but without quid pro quo. They've forgotten what it means to earn bipartisan support.
That's not true. Kevin McQarthy offered the Democrats everything in his power to give them.
Which, sadly for him, was nothing.
????
You had me actually LOLing with tears coming out.
Dems bide their time before deciding to bring peace to the Middle East.
That headline makes exactly as much sense as the one in Politico.
There are small numbers, and very small numbers, and MUCH smaller numbers, and each of those types of numbers have real ways of writing them down. Considering that we can do arithmetic on small numbers, I propose this hypothesis:
P(Dems bring peace to Middle East) >> P(Dems bring order to Republican Party)
Murc’s Law: only the left has agency
Here is a fact: if the U.S. House were currently made up of 220 Ds and 215 Rs you would not find a single R who would under any circumstances whatso-effin-ever vote for the candidate put forward by the Ds. Case closed.
The fact that Rs would or would not do something is not an argument for Ds to do or not do it, because Ds are adults, and Rs are not.
Every time the Ds act like adults the Rs stab them in the back and laugh in their face. So, yeah, give Charlie Brown another shot at that football.
That is still not a reason for Ds to stop being adults. They just need to make sure they never show their back to Rs.
I hope you are not suggesting that some Ds "act like adults" by helping the Rs get Jordan elected Speaker of the House.
Never suggested that.
That is a bad-faith argument.
+1
Children need to learn what the natural consequences of their misbehavior will be, and adults ought not forestall that learning.
You really should work on arguing for your case rather than insisting that it's on others to prove you wrong.
And son? The fact that you read science fiction is not prima facie evidence that you're smarter than most people. If your postings are anything to go by, you're something of a repitive dimwit who has some serious vocabulary problems.
Yes, but the Democrats would have a candidate that every single one of them would vote for. The R's are fucked and it is not the job of the D's to unfuck them.
how about:
"Republicans Neutered by Democrats' Overwhelming Tactical Superiority"
If you have been listening to what Republicans are saying, what they are saying is "NONONONONO! Don't make us make a deal with the Democrats!"
This is their problem to solve. It's within their caucus. They don't want help. They own it.
"This is their problem to solve. It's within their caucus. They don't want help. They own it."
None of these are consideration that should affect what Democrats do. Democrats should decide what to do according to two criteria:
1) Is it good for the US?
2) Is it good for Democrats?
And here's the thing. My answer to both your questions is yes. At this point staying out is good for America. It is certainly good for Democrats.
Why? Because Republicans have to hit rock bottom first. There are still several weeks to go before the CR expires. It isn't time yet. There are other solutions that the Republicans need to explore on their own. Maybe they will find some. Maybe not.
This is good for America because - exactly because - certain people and what they want to do is bad for America, and the Republicans in the House need to grapple with that question. The status quo, where Jordan was a rock thrower that could complain that Republican leadership was the only reason he and other MAGAs couldn't get what he wanted, while not actually doing anything to get what the MAGAs wanted, suited everyone fine. That arrangement has fallen apart, and can't be put back together. But many on the Republican side haven't quite grasped that yet.
It's the stages of death in a sense. They just have to go through it, you can't short cut or avoid it.
It is good that you at least try to answer the questions. My point is that your initial reply (and also other replies in this thread) seem to say what Democrats should do without considering these questions.
Deleted: Replied to wrong post.
No, that's how _you_ read his initial reply. Everybody else knew what he implicitly said; you, apparently, need to have it explicitly spelled out.
And there's absolutely nothing I or anyone else can do about that 😉
The US electorate placed the control of the people’s House into the hands of the Republicans. The Democrats are constrained to operate as the loyal opposition, which they have done admirably. Democrats have given no reason for anyone to doubt that they would negotiate in good faith if the Republicans were to show any openness to compromise. However, having reneged on the budget agreement, there is good reason to demand concrete action, not mere promises, from the House GOP. So far, nothing.
"The Democrats are constrained to operate as the loyal opposition,.."
"loyal opposition" in the US? very funny.
"there is good reason to demand concrete action, not mere promises, from the House GOP. "
Democrats should not ask/demand promises, because they cannot trust Republicans. Nobody is arguing for that. But they should make their decisions based on rational arguments, not on emotional responses. That is the point I was trying to make. You obviously mised that, for some reason.
‘Loyal opposition’ is not a phrase we usually use in the US, but the concept is implied in expressions one used to hear, such as, ‘politics stops at the water’s edge’. The point is, as Leader Jeffries put it, “[Democrats] are not election deniers”, the Republicans have the responsibility to govern.
They have made their decision on rational arguments. The more the Republicans are shown to be incompetent at governing, the better it is for the Dems electoral prospects. And that is better for the country. Bailing them out to prove they're the "adults" helps no one. It lets the R's off the hook and no one will credit them for their vote in a year.
" Bailing them out to prove they're the "adults" helps no one."
It sghows that democrats can behave like adults, which is probably useful in convincing undecided voters.
And it will not actually "bail out" Republicans, because it will inmcrease their internal fights, rather than decrease them. That is another positive for Democrats.
And third, it gives some (small) chance of passing useful resolutions.
And I don't see what the US or Democrats can lose from it, and nodbody came with anything until now.
Plot twist: Jordan has reversed course and will try once again for a vote.
Apparently Gym Jordan's strategy is to keep coming back up for more punishment. I still hold out hope for grander Schadenfreude in the form of his party finally electing him Speaker only to have him resign within a few months from the news about his time at Ohio State picked up and made front page material.
gym wanted mchenry's signature on any end of year budget compromise so an enraged party would sweep him into the speaker's chair
not a particularly cunning strategy, but gym was betting that the median republican IQ falls on the lower tail of the bell curve
So, it's basically hot potato because no one is going to survive the upcoming CR vote. Whoever caves and averts a shutdown is a walking target.
Jordan is hoping to wear the cape as the guy who shut the gov't down to bring the D's to heel.
I believe you have called it correctly.
It's implicit in the argument that Democrats are the cause of all the chaos that if only they'd voted against the motion to vacate, McCarthy would still be Speaker and the House would be operating like a well-oiled machine. Which is arrant nonsense, of course; Gaetz made it clear he was going to keep moving to declare the Speakership vacant every day until McCarthy was out.
If Republicans had the will and the skills to work out compromises, they would have elected a Speaker a week ago
A bunch of them have been elected on the promise of no compromise, so that was never going to work. You can't have a no compromise party that needs to compromise to get the nation's business done.
What's a little detail like that among bomb-throwing friends?
Our liberal press will ALWAYS bend way over backwards to kiss Republican tuchus.
Very important not to have the R finger wagged at them for being liberal-y, doncha know?