Skip to content

Republican “fuck you” bill goes down to massive defeat

Our story so far:

  • Democrats negotiate with Speaker Mike Johnson on a CR to keep the government open for another three months.
  • After a bit of minor pressure from Elon Musk, Johnson reneges on the deal.
  • The new deal is: Fuck you. We get everything we want, you get nothing.

Now, I'm no Master of the Deal™, like our president-elect, but no Democrat in their right mind could possibly vote for this. It's an open admission that you'll roll over for anything. And sure enough, only two did. It didn't even get close to a majority, let alone the two-thirds it needed to suspend the rules.

So what happens next? Beats me. If Mike Johnson had any spine at all, he would have ignored Musk, announced that a deal is a deal, and put the original deal to a vote. It might have gone down depending on how many Republicans rejected it, but at least it would have been an honest effort. But that's not what he did.

At this point, it's hard to see Democrats voting for anything remotely like the current bill, and with Trump now fully bought into the "fuck you" version of the bill it's hard to see how Republicans could ever go back and vote for the original deal. I suppose that negotiations start all over again and the government will probably shut down for a while. Perhaps it will still be shut down during Trump's inauguration. That would be something.

67 thoughts on “Republican “fuck you” bill goes down to massive defeat

    1. BigFish

      Or, as Norm Ornstein pointed out last night, if this whole dumpster fire ends up destroying Johnson's chances of being Speaker in the new Congress, no business of any kind can be conducted -- including the counting of the electoral votes on Jan.6 -- until a Speaker is elected. If the votes can't be counted by Jan. 20 (a distinct possibility if the GOP can't come up with an alternative to Johnson), Trump can't be sworn in.

        1. Altoid

          First order of real business on January 3, with the clerk presiding. Just like during those excruciating three weeks after McCarthy was defenestrated, no real House business can be done until a speaker is elected and rules are adopted (iirc the elected speaker swears in the whole membership somewhere in there too, but maybe not).

          We can thank the crazies for restoring a sense of drama to what has been just a boring formality in the modern era, decided and sealed well ahead of time. It's all just a reality TV show. Or Elmo's ketamine dream, as somebody somewhere suggested.

      1. VirginiaLady16

        I remember the last time those nitwits needed a speaker. The GOP is so discombobulated it is no longer capable of selecting and electing a speaker. Look for chaos, probably before the inauguration.

    2. D_Ohrk_E1

      Yes. But the whole thing would look bad, worse than the fabled Marie Antoinette line, "let them eat cake!".

      Fingers crossed Republicans keep doing stupid things.

      1. J. Frank Parnell

        What things got cut in President Leon Musk's new bill?

        Research on children's cancer

        Limits on investment in China

        Drug reform to prevent a repeat of the oxycodone scandal

        Of course President Leon is probably pisssed the bill still had hurricane relief and farm aid. President Leon has warned us "we" (not him) need to be ready to face pain pain and sacrifice.

    3. SeanT

      you might not have a parade and other nonsense, but the president's term begins on January 20th at noon per the the 20th Amendment .

        1. TheMelancholyDonkey

          Do Republicans trust each other enough to elect some non-entity to be Speaker for a half of a day to get the electoral votes counted and then resign?

      1. Altoid

        On a strict reading, I think what formally makes somebody president is the action of the VP reading out the tally of electoral votes and declaring who the president is, per the 12th amendment. The timetable in the 20th amendment presumes that this has occurred. And the House has to have elected a speaker and adopted rules so it can be ready to choose a president if no candidate has a majority-- even if that isn't a real possibility, they have to be organized as a legislative body just in case. Until then they're just a random mass meeting.

        The absolutely *most* interesting sidelight here is that if the House can't pick a president, guess who takes the office? The outgoing administration's VP, that's who.

        That provision is for a very narrow case that hasn't happened yet, but I think that situation is a decent analogy, and so a good guide to what *should* happen if the House can't get itself organized and pick a speaker.

        The presidency really can't be vacant (a survival of the monarchy the office descends from) so somebody has to exercise its authority. I'd argue that the 12th amendment says that person would be the current VP.

        1. Yehouda

          "And the House has to have elected a speaker .. "
          This just a rule of the House.
          The counting is specified by 12th amendment, which clearly overrides House rules.
          There is nothing in the Constitution that says, or even suggests, that the House without a Speaker is not a valid House, in any sense.

          1. Altoid

            Not saying this supreme court wouldn't agree (because they don't believe in precedent and practice), but even the Constitution isn't self-sufficient and operates in a bigger context. In this case I think it's parliamentary law, and I think that under parliamentary law, a body that hasn't selected its presiding officer or adopted its rules isn't a legislative body yet, but is an unorganized mass meeting that doesn't have either purpose or procedures. That may be enough as far as interested parties are concerned for reading out and declaring electoral votes, but it isn't a given that it's what the 12th amendment means by "House of Representatives."

            But this is a constitutional question I really don't want to see come up. I yield to nobody in wanting to see these republican chaos agents destroy each other. But even more, I don't want another Jan 6, which could easily happen if they don't have a speaker and there's even a scintilla of a doubt that trump will be declared president.

            1. Yehouda

              "..what the 12th amendment means by "House of Representatives." "
              That obviously refers to the House as described in section 2 of article I (and any relevant amendment).

                  1. Altoid

                    From BigFish: "Or, as Norm Ornstein pointed out last night, if this whole dumpster fire ends up destroying Johnson's chances of being Speaker in the new Congress, no business of any kind can be conducted -- including the counting of the electoral votes on Jan.6 -- until a Speaker is elected. "

                    Likely a TV interview so probably not been picked up by search engines until it's on a transcript or something.

                    For a constitutional lawyer like Ornstein, the question is when the HR *becomes* the body that's capable of acting in its legal and constitutional capacity. Yes the members are elected and show up in the chamber, but they don't become a legal body until they pick a speaker and adopt rules and take the other organizing steps they need to take. These are what confers the authority to act as a legislative body.

            2. dausuul

              Let's say there is no Speaker on January 6th. What happens? Well, either Kamala Harris counts the EVs in the Senate chamber, or she doesn't. I can't see any reason she would choose not to do so. It's not like she could actually stop Trump taking office -- at most, it might delay Trump's inauguration for a few weeks until Republicans pick a Speaker, while shredding any claim Democrats might have to the moral high ground.

              So, Harris counts the EVs and announces that Trump will be the next President, and the inauguration moves forward as usual. At that point, what's going to derail the process? Maybe some bozo files a lawsuit claiming Trump's EVs were never properly counted. But I can't imagine the courts giving much credence to that argument, certainly not to the point of handing down an injunction to stop the inauguration.

              No, Trump will take office on January 20th as expected. But the prospect of a government shutdown making a mess of the inauguration is amusing in a bitter sort of way.

  1. different_name

    Perhaps it will still be shut down during Trump's inauguration.

    I was just talking to someone about that. I don't think a big party in DC is "emergency or national security-related".

    But I'm sure if Tubby asks nicely John Roberts will come stand on the sidewalk and swear him in.

    1. rick_jones

      No, but an actual swearing-in of a President likely qualifies. They can hold it at a McDonald’s near Capitol Hill or the White House… an intimate little affair with a nuggets, fries and milkshake cash buffet to follow…

  2. NotCynicalEnough

    But 2 Democrats did; Castor from Tampa as presumably she didn't want to have to explain voting against disaster aid, and Perez in Washington state who is aligned with the "Blue Dog" Democrats presumably due to having had a close election last time around. I'm guessing she hasn't considered the possibility that voters in her district might have thought that if they were going to vote for Republican policies, they might as well vote for the actual Republican.

    1. ColBatGuano

      It figures that she was one of the two. She may have won in a somewhat red district, but her instincts to concede to the R's is really discouraging. No one is rewarded for bipartisanship.

      1. Jasper_in_Boston

        No one is rewarded for bipartisanship.

        Beating a Republican is kind of a reward, no?

        but her instincts to concede to the R's is really discouraging.

        Seems more likely it's not instinct but pure political calculus. Democrats didn't need her vote, so she triangulated...

        Have there been any major pieces of legislation where Democrats have needed her and she's fucked them? I'm not aware of any.

        1. Austin

          She can still go fuck herself. Just because she doesn’t actively stab other democrats in the back doesn’t make her Team Player of the Year. She sounds like an opportunist, and those fucks don’t believe in anything but gaining money or power for themselves. Fuck her.

            1. aldoushickman

              No, Austin is definitely right: it is far more important to only have ideologically pure fellow partisans who do not disagree with you on anything (of consequence or not) than it is to have a majority.

              Sure, a majority has the power to govern, but at what cost?

  3. D_Ohrk_E1

    If voters are going to let the bull into the glass shop, they best be prepared for that bull to crap all over the place and destroy some things.

    Should a responsible employee of the glass shop do something to stop the bull? If you don't mind becoming collateral damage, sure, but if you don't let the bull muck up things, voters are never going to understand the problem of letting a bull into the glass shop.

    Just tape red flags on the derrier of Republicans, I say.

  4. NotCynicalEnough

    It occurs to me that the Great Deal Maker may not have considered that while he may technically hold the position of the presidency Musk, in a similar fashion to the newspaper barons of the turn of the last century, owns the megaphone. He can meander around the crowd muttering "he is right, you know" OR he can stir up the masses into a different direction. Somebody is going to end up being Ernst Roehm but I wouldn't lay odds either way who that will be.

    1. Dave_MB32

      Plus Trump can threaten to sic his MAGA crowd on Republican politicians, but Musk can primary them with unlimited funds. Shit, he gave away a million dollars a day away for people voting for Trump.

      1. Austin

        He didn’t actually give anyone any money. Or at least that’s what he told a judge in Pennsylvania who questioned how he wasn’t guilty of no cash for votes laws. .

    2. Laertes

      Donald Trump is 78 years old. Elon Musk is 53. Any idiot can calculate that Musk is likely to be a force in fascist politics long after the creep has shuffled off to his reward.

      1. Laertes

        On reflection, that kind of sounds like I'm speaking rudely to you. I meant to say something like "I bet you're right, and I kind of like EM's chances in that struggle. He's got way more money, and way more years on this Earth ahead of him."

        1. NotCynicalEnough

          I understood what you were saying. I probably would bet on Musk as, aside from the age factor, he has the platform formerly known as Twitter to rile up the Maggots and you can buy an awful lot of politicians for $100B if you need to, even if you are locked up in Guantanamo. Democrats would impeach Trump again for free.

          1. Crissa

            You know, capturing a platform is really the only way that fascists get bigger platforms - because they generally can't build them. Once they're known, everyone who knows flees and make a new space elsewhere.

      2. TheMelancholyDonkey

        My money is on Trump winning that struggle. When, and it's definitely "when" rather than "if," Trump throws Musk under the bus and blames him for everything that's gone wrong, Elon is going to find that he is, suddenly, a lot less popular on the right. Musk may own a megaphone, but the cannon fodder is all loyal to Trump.

  5. Josef

    “We’re going to do the right thing here,” Johnson said ahead of the vote. But he didn’t even get a majority, with the bill failing 174-235." I thought I'd share the unintentional comedy of Speaker Johnson.

  6. kenalovell

    I'm sure Trump donors would happily fund a magnificent inauguration at Mar-a-Lago. Judge Aileen Cannon can administer the oath of office.

    1. Salamander

      And permanently move the "White House" (now the "Gilded House") there besides. Didn't the Arizona legislator sell off their capitol building decades ago? And a few times a year, they rent space in it to convene?

      Lots of rooms in the White House for, you know, luxury rental units. Nice hotel, amirite?

  7. pjcamp1905

    "no Democrat in their right mind could possibly vote for this. "

    I looked up the two yeas. There official photos are kind of glassy eyed.

  8. KenSchulz

    I read that Musk tweeted (X’d?) 70 times about the CR; is that ‘minor’ pressure? Later, Musk’s wholly owned subsidiary TFM picked up the criticism, and that sealed the abandonment of the original compromise.

    1. J. Frank Parnell

      How would you ever negotiate a deal with a guy who suddenly switches his position after taking a hit of ketamine or reading a post by "catturd"?

  9. dilbert dogbert

    Back in the day, as a silly serpent, I lusted for a shutdown. I was covered by a working wife and by the fact I would be paid for the days not worked. Bring it on!!!

    1. Austin

      “…by the fact I would be paid for the days not worked.”

      This is only a courtesy. It’s not required by law and eventually if enough lawbreaking people get into office, it might not happen in future shutdowns.

      1. HokieAnnie

        It's now statutory law, Congress passed that law after the 2018 shutdowns and it was signed in to law by then President Trump. So furloughed Fed must be paid afterwards/

    2. Art Eclectic

      My husband's employer operates on government contracts. He says they aren't worried because they've adopted a policy of always having enough cash to cover four to six weeks of payroll for shutdowns.

  10. Dana Decker

    I spent some time this evening over in TwiX-land and the MAGA heads are all like:

    "So many federal workers will go without paychecks this Christmas because of the House Democrats. Unbelievable!"

    To which I reply:

    "Why should Democrats vote for bills they had NO ROLE in fashioning? What's the point of being in Congress if you (or your party) can't influence the drafting of legislation? It's simple power politics to trade your vote for something in exchange. No exchange, no vote."

    1. HokieAnnie

      Fed will get the paychecks for time worked in December. For DOD today is a payday and in two weeks they will get a paycheck for December 15th through today.

Comments are closed.