'They're probably going to put us back in power': GOP basks in Dem discord
By: Olivia Beavers (POLITICO)
So? It's still a circus no matter if the clown car is red or blue.
According to Gallup polling 29 pct of voters identify as Republican, 29 pct of voters identify as Democrat, and 41 pct of voters don't give a crap. Neither party has enough support any longer to do more than run a third rate circus.
Republicans and Democrats have become too attached to their butt embossed leather upholstery. Both are more concerned about donors, the press, and their own incumbency than they are about voters. And both parties have repeatedly demonstrated they are willing to sell out America to win an election.
Republicans taking back control of Congress won't matter diddly squat. There isn't any difference between Republican clowns and Democrat clowns. It's all about the circus and not about the country.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Most of the House GOP isn't lifting a finger to help Democrats out of their infrastructure jam, and with good reason. Just ask Rep. Randy Weber.
“They're probably going to put us back into power,” the conservative Texas Republican said with a loud laugh. “There's an old saying: ‘When your enemy is trying to commit suicide, never get between him and the gun.’”
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s conference is largely taking his advice to sit back and let Democrats eat their own over President Joe Biden’s stalled domestic agenda. The calculus behind that approach is about more than just the boost Republicans predict for their midterm election fortunes: The longer negotiations drag on between the Democratic Party's two factions, the more time it loses to devote to other legislation Republicans staunchly oppose.
And the handful of GOP centrists who are trying to stitch together a dozen or so votes for the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure bill, once it finally gets to the floor, are getting no help from Democratic leaders who — despite periodic attempts to decouple them — have kept the $500 billion roads-and-rails measure harnessed to a separate social spending framework. With the infrastructure bill remaining a de facto legislative hostage to Democrats' more progressive social policy plan, Republican moderates are finding it harder and harder to boost their numbers for it.
The result is a GOP conference mostly avoiding the spotlight these days, getting fewer tough questions about Donald Trump’s enduring hold on the party or about the handful of House conservatives with a penchant for extremist and divisive rhetoric. While Democratic infighting blots out the sun in Washington, Republicans don’t mind the shade.
"The general thought was the Democrats are good at government and they're showing they're not,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), his party’s top member on the House Financial Services Committee. “The most helpful thing is that they're not doing the other pieces of legislation. ... Most of the committees have sort of slowed down their legislative production because they're all watching the big game.”
Still, it isn’t a champagne-showers sort of celebration for Republicans, who say it's only a matter of time before the next legislative battle comes around.
“I don't think Republicans are gonna be out celebrating, because we know they're gonna do something bad eventually. It's just a matter of time,” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas). "It's just, the longer we can stave off bad policy, the better.”
As Democrats labor to secure an agreement on their climate and health care-focused party-line bill after months of negotiating, Biden's approval ratings are falling and the GOP is growing more bullish about its already-strong midterm election prospects. In recent days, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) privately compared his opponents' predicament to the Bill Murray comedy "Groundhog Day," about a man forced to relive the same experiences over and over.
That Republican confidence extends to Tuesday's gubernatorial election in Virginia, where the neck-and-neck race between Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Glenn Youngkin could prove a fresh political barometer for both parties. Democrats are racing to lock in an agreement on the social spending framework Biden's White House released last week and set up a House vote "as early as possible this week," a leadership aide said late Sunday.
“I really think that we can come to a resolution very quickly,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), one of several progressives who blanched at an infrastructure vote last week. “We have 96 to 98 percent of the caucus on the same page. We just need to figure out what these two folks are willing to commit to. And once we get real clarity on that ... then we just move them forward.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team had prepared for the Rules Committee to meet on the bill as soon as Monday. However, they adjusted that timeframe as Democrats raced to finish a compromise on Medicare prescription drug negotiation.
Notably, the House GOP hasn't waited for Democrats to fully assemble their social spending bill before stepping up its attacks on the substance of the plan. Among the Democratic proposals that Republicans have singled out for scorn is a plan to beef up IRS reporting requirements that did not make it into the framework the White House released last week and has drawn public criticism from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Another Democratic provision that's drawing GOP attacks is a proposed fee on methane generated by oil and gas facilities that, while it was also left out of the White House-released framework, was later included in draft social spending bill text unveiled by the Rules Committee. That fee, whether or not it's included in the final measure, would represent only one plank of a total climate-change investment in the Democratic bill that could top $500 billion.
As their leaders continue honing their message against the party-line Democratic social spending bill, a handful of House Republican centrists are still working to hold together on the Senate-passed infrastructure bill. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), the two co-chairs of the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus, have been working behind the scenes to whip Republicans in favor of the infrastructure measure, which they want considered a separate vote from the social policy bill.
Their numbers have winnowed. GOP members who were originally inclined to support the Senate-approved legislation have peeled off as Democrats continue tying the infrastructure bill to the separate social spending plan designed to pass without GOP votes. Republicans in favor of the infrastructure bill believe they have 10 GOP members who will back it, with another five votes possible, according to sources.
But they also warn that the longer the House waits to vote on infrastructure, the more that GOP support could slip. In general, Republicans are no strangers to the squirm-inducing sight of legislative negotiations blown up by members of their own party — a common sight during the conservative Freedom Caucus' earliest days operating under a GOP majority. That hasn't stopped most of them from enjoying their political opponents' struggles.
“It may mean Build Back Never," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said of the intra-Democratic tension, "if it appears positions have calcified."
Tags
Who is online
475 visitors
Doesn't matter if Democrats are running the circus or if Republicans are running the circus. The American people will always get the pie in the face, either way.
You translate Independent into "don't give a crap". That is certainly not the case categorically. I dislike both major parties and make my decisions regardless of that pushed by some political party. That is not "don't give a crap" but rather "think for oneself". I suspect most of those 41% think similarly.
I love how some on both sides of the aisle try to make us in the middle the bad guys for not being extremists. I am not party affiliated and I research all candidates before casting a vote. Too bad more people do not do that & just vote for a letter.
I think that everyone in the electorate should be Independent. If we had more than two viable parties that would be great too. Imagine that, three or more viable parties competing to put forth the best candidates and positions for an objective electorate to choose from.
Compare that to effectively two parties and their predictable partisan votes with the electorate punishing one party for its failures by simply electing the other party (which failed the last time).
Yeah well i get the same thing from people here. You clearly lean left and i clearly lean right but speaking for myself, some of the best politicians i ever voted for were Dems. Admittedly not a lot of them but they are there just the same and are usually very exceptional at representing ALL their constituency if i voted for them.
Wish we had many more like that but alas .... we usually don't.
You can wish forever and there never will be a third party. The closest was Ross Perot's Reform Party- and they self imposed term limited themselves out of existence. The Tea Party should have been a third party; but they allowed themselves to be hijacked and folded into the Republican Party. Andrew Yang is seeking to form a centrist party; but he will probably suffer the same fate as the Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Constitution Party.
Until all independent voters reject "the lesser of two evils" argument completely- then we will have two party rule in the US. Both of the Establishment parties have gamed the system to make it that way.
I do not expect to ever see a viable third party in the USA. Maybe in the distant future.
The bigger problem is the stranglehold the two major parties have on our electoral process. It is very difficult for a third party candidate to compete with the R and D machines. The other problem is the electorate still has too many party loyalists. I like the trend of the Independents being 41% to the 29% for party affiliates. As that trend continues (if it does) that will encourage the growth of third parties.
Independents should hold off until Trump is pushing up daisies. The situation is too dire right now to keep complaining about "partisan" politics. Independents will get trump back in office if they keep it up.
Independents don't give a crap about political parties. That's why they are unaffiliated.
In my view, independents care more about the country than they do about the political circus. And, sadly, 41 pct of voters are under represented by the two political parties. Independents are required to settle for whatever the two parties decide will benefit their party the most.
That is not true either. Political parties define power structures. If a particular party put forth a platform that the electorate found appealing, it could reward that party with the gavel.
The key is that Independents do not simply agree because a particular party declared a position.
Yes.
Yes, agreed.
You say it's not true and then explain why it is true.
Nerm, I am not going to break this down for you. I do not believe for a second that you could not understand what I wrote and I am absolutely sick of your stupid games.
One can lean left or right and be independent. There are registered party members who are independent.
Independence is not the same as 'centrist'. Independent = 'not simply accepting what a particular party declares as true'. Independent = 'objectively considering issues / candidates on merits'.
It makes zero sense to have an Independent party. I am not going to explain why given @2.2.5
Given you apparently do not want to actually discuss this, trolling is not a wise alternative.
Your entire comment was: "Did anyone ask you to?". No thoughtful commentary, just a snarky quip. You had opportunity to intelligently respond to what I posted but you chose pointless snark instead. That, Texan, is trolling.
And your comment just now is entirely aggressive trolling/taunting.
TiG, you are trying to nuance everything to cover all the bases just like a party hack. That's why I pointed out you say it isn't true and then explain why it is true.
The party platforms aren't worth the pixels used to display them on the screen. Why? Because the platforms are nuanced platitudes intended to push the buttons of partisans. The platforms lay out priorities for the party base.
IMO, the platforms from both parties include things that a majority of voters would agree with. Those items are put in the platform to appeal to independents. But those items are rarely the priority of either party. Those are the cans that are kicked down the road.
The parties are requiring independents to give either Democrats or Republicans a mandate to pursue party base priorities.
Bullshit. I noted the obvious fact that political parties define power structures. If you do not know that then there is no point discussing anything political with you. An individual independent might find the power situation in a given election cycle to be the dominant factor in their decisions. Thus, in that case, an independent would vote to reward a party with the gavel.
There are all sorts of ways independent thinking can manifest. But in all cases, it is objective reasoning and is NOT simply accepting as truth what a particular party espouses as such.
Party hack? Where in hell do you get this crap Nerm? Just being obnoxious to stir up trouble?
But that is incorrect. Coalition governments have a power structure defined by the charter that outlines government authority; not defined by the political parties. The multiple political parties that form a coalition government doesn't define the power structure.
We hear a lot about the United States becoming more diverse. Why hasn't our political system become more diverse? Perhaps the increasing number of unaffiliated voters is due to our two political parties trying relitigate antebellum politics and continue fighting a civil war that immigrants don't care about.
You've tried to make the argument that independent voters are more rational. But there is also the possibility that the increasing number of independents is because the two parties really don't represent the new diversity in the country.
What does Pramila Jayapal or Ilhan Omar know about Jim Crow politics? Both immigrated to the United States well after the 1964 Civil Rights Act and both became naturalized citizens in 2000. Are they Democrats only because there isn't sufficient diversity in our political system?
Why is it that you have to constantly redefine terms just to be disagreeable? In the USA there is a power structure just as I defined it. The party that is in majority control holds the power; it sets the agenda, picks chairpersons, etc. That is the power structure. You know this is the case but you go out of your way to try to be disagreeable by defining power structure contrary to that of the USA political system (that which we are discussing).
Given you are playing games, I am not going to attempt to discuss the balance of your post. Find someone else to play with.
If they do, don't F it up.
Do something with it this time.
Agreed, but there is no Gingrich around to kick them in the asses. The Republicans should already be planning out their agenda; and get the wording in place on laws so they can hit the ground running. I see no evidence they are. This is going to be another fiasco like their repeal and replace of the PPACA. They had the votes to repeal; but they had no plan to replace- so they did nothing.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans just sat around and watched as Biden destroyed everything; thinking it would help them retake the WH.
Gawd, somehow we have to take it over from the politicians. On both sides.