502
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Conference fails to approve procedural motion to take up defense spending bill as government shutdown looms

The House Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy, was dealt his second humiliating defeat of the week on Thursday, when his conference again failed to approve a procedural motion as members continued to clash over government spending levels with just days left to avert a federal shutdown.

With no clear path forward in Republicans’ negotiations, the House concluded its work on Thursday without any stated plan to reconvene on Friday.

“Discussions related to [fiscal year 2024] appropriations are ongoing,” Congressman Tom Emmer, the House Republican whip, said in a statement. “Members are advised that ample notice will be given ahead of any potential votes tomorrow or this weekend.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] flossdaily@lemmy.world 274 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

McCarthy: "hard-right Republicans want to burn the whole place down!"

Moderate Democrats: "so you'll work with us instead, to pass legislation that keeps the lights on, and addresses some of the problems we both agree exist?"

McCarthy: "No. Fuck you. Die in a fire."

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 85 points 9 months ago

Exactly. The path forward is clear. Work with moderate Democrats to craft a bipartisan spending bill that most Democrats and Republicans can agree upon. Well either side get everything it wants? No, but that's how compromise works.

Of course the Freedom Caucus will be angry, but let's face it - they're always angry. (Hulk Smash makes for a good movie, but not for good politics.) If McCarthy works with Democrats and the saner Republicans, though, the power of the Freedom Caucus will be blunted. They can file to remove McCarthy all they like, but part of the deal with the Democrats could be that they'll vote to keep McCarthy.

Instead, McCarthy will complain while hoping that the Freedom Caucus members suddenly become reasonable.

[-] Heisme@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago

In an insane world it’s the sane that seem insane. This is the most logical solution to all of McCarthy’s problems but it will seem so crazy to him that he won’t go for it. Battle seat Republicans are already talking about working with Democrats to solve this problem. All of this use to be a nonissue because surprise surprise people in a long far away time once voted over party lines to get shit done, just as you said.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 9 months ago

That was before the Republican Party adopted “owning the libs” as their only platform item.

If McCarthy does anything with any Dems, it doesn’t seem crazy to him, he just knows it’ll result in a primary battle where his opponents will roll out his record of working with the enemy (which they’ve convinced a large portion of their voters, are pedos and election thieves).

[-] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Back when Republicans knew how to deal with Russian agents

[-] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago

Pretty much.

Whine as he may. The effect is still the same.

Still all one big family even if some of them say the quiet parts out loud.

[-] 520@kbin.social 14 points 9 months ago

He is completely beholden to the far right. The approval votes by the far right were what got him just about enough votes to get him into Speakership. If they turn on him, he'll be kicked out for sure.

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Not if he can get Democrat votes. He can work with them and gain their votes to keep his position.

[-] 520@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If he tries that, even the moderate republicans will pull their votes for him.

Also, even if that somehow did work, the Democrats will likely then pull their votes because they want a Democrat as speaker. The Democrats might not be Republicans, but they sure as hell are not above this kind of partisanship

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

If he does that he'll be removed as speaker.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago

Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him. He could play this like an intelligent human being and still keep his job, so long as he's willing to weather a bit of right-wing media blowback for the next few months. He just has to strike a bipartisan deal, like he's supposed to.

[-] knotthatone@lemmy.one 12 points 9 months ago

Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him

That seems a tall order given his long history of biting the Dem's hands every time they reach out. This is a problem of his party's own making and stems from not honoring their earlier agreements around the debt ceiling.

Besides, they can't agree to something he hasn't (and won't) ask for.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

That seems a tall order given his long history of biting the Dem’s hands every time they reach out. This is a problem of his party’s own making and stems from not honoring their earlier agreements around the debt ceiling.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying Dems could offer to vote to keep him in his position in exchange for a bipartisan deal. That doesn't mean they capitulate completely, just that they offer him something he wants (his job) in exchange for something they want.

Besides, they can’t agree to something he hasn’t (and won’t) ask for.

I didn't say they've asked or are responsible for agreeing to anything, please follow the whole thread. I was responding to someone who said he'd lose his job if he worked with Dems on a bipartisan deal. He wouldn't if they threw him the bone of a vote to keep him if his caucus moves to vacate him as Speaker. I'm not commenting on the likelihood of anything like this happening, simply that it's possible.

[-] tankplanker@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Working with the Dems will make his next Primary difficult, he hasn't got that long before that comes around again. This is what he, and a lot of the more moderate republicans are really scared of, being cut off from the grift by their own party.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You're right, but it's certainly a calculation that will change as pressure mounts. Is the political cost of working on a bipartisan compromise bigger than the cost of a shutdown he'll be blamed for? Right now, maybe not. Over time? It might very well get there. It's a lose-lose proposition at the moment, he just has to decide which loss he's more afraid of.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml -5 points 9 months ago

Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him.

Why the hell should they??

[-] candybrie@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

To have a functioning government. There's 0 chance there will be a democratic speaker. There's a pretty good chance nothing works, and normal people don't get paid for weeks or months if bipartisanship is out.

[-] Buelldozer 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Moderate Democrats: “so you’ll work with us instead, to pass legislation that keeps the lights on, and addresses some of the problems we both agree exist?”

Uhhh, isn't that kind of what McCarthy actually did? He worked closely with President Biden to put this budget together and it seems to be a big reason why the Freedom Caucus morons are pitching a fit.

[-] flossdaily@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Not at all. McCarthy got the deal he thought he could sell to his team.

McCarthy working with the Democrats in Congress would mean getting a deal way more Democrat friendly, and forgetting about even trying to appease the freedom Caucus.

this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
502 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18073 readers
2932 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS