Point 2 is exactly the argument I was making on bluesky this morning (albeit with just a handful of other randos who also happen to follow darth). Last January, *all* the Dems did was laugh and tweet through it, missing an easy opportunity, which they have again now.
Dems should nominate and vote for a moderate-ish R -- someone from a swing district, or who is already decided not to run again, or who recognizes the post-Dobbs mood, or who strongly supports Ukraine aid, perhaps someone like Mike McCaul of TX.
-- If all such R's decline, they will confirm that they'd rather have Gaetz' chaos. That's useful.
-- If such an R accepts, it will marginalize *both* McCarthy and Gaetz' radicals. That's even better.
Look, there's going to be a speaker, but it's not going to be a Democrat, and it's not going to be one of Gaetz' gang. So it will be either some toady like McCarthy, only this time with *more* concessions to Gaetz, or it will be someone who has 5 Republican colleagues -- just 5! -- who are tired of kissing Trump's ass.
This is the best we can do without a majority, but it is Dems' responsibility to do it. I'm hopeful they'll start thinking strategically, but I'm not holding my breath.
Fine. Let them decline. Dems should nominate them anyway if they're serious about 1) governing and 2) not ending up with more sham hearings and insurrection denial going into 2024. All it takes is 5.
I like this idea -- maybe pick a particularly endangered R to bearhug. Or one after another. When they decline, it works for ads too -- too extreme to consider working with Dems, another chaos monkey.
Could be endangered -- someone in my earlier chat suggested one of the NY R's who had no business winning anyway. Or could be someone totally safe, though I take Spence's point that they wouldn't stay that way if perceived to be scheming with the Ds.
It's unlikely, I'll give you that. Serious question: Who would you want to see as speaker, and what is your plan for getting the votes? Scalise, who will make the same deal with Gaetz? Jordan, who will be worse than McCarthy? At this point, pointing and laughing by the Dems is an abdication of responsibility -- and a missed opportunity.
Unfortunately, none of them is worthy of being Speaker though someone has to be. Unless a “moderate” did as you all hope, there is no hope for the next year. Any R even in a bluer district will be subject to attack from the MAGA folk. They don’t break ranks not because of principle but because of fear. The two emerging candidates are the worst choices for America. They will be even more loathesome than my Kevin.
And this Dem is not pointing and laughing--well maybe a little at the sheer absurdity because the alternative is banging my head against a brick wall. It is going to be a very ugly year.
Why would Democrats squander an opportunity for concessions on Ukraine aid for a fruitless fight over House rules?
Biden's statement is appropriately anodyne. Nothing would be gained from punching down at this point. Biden should continue to stand by the deal negotiated a few month ago.
Pelosi would never have missed a vote unless she was confident her vote wasn't needed.
Criticizing Democratic leadership is fine, but you seem to be stretching to find issues.
Disagreement is welcome. Can’t respond to everything at the moment, but agree that refunding Ukraine resistance would’ve been an excellent demand if McCarthy had been willing to bargain, and I should’ve thought of that even in my late-night haste.
Are you actually saying it’s embarrassing that Nancy Pelosi is in California for the funeral of her very close friend and colleague rather than in DC to oust McCarthy? I doubt there is ANYTHING the Dems could do that you wouldn’t criticize. Instead of talking about their unity, you piss on them and advise them to yes, bail out the Rs by supporting some fantasy moderate who will work with them. Back on planet earth, one of the first things the weasel Speaker Pro Tempore did was to evict Nancy from the “hideaway” office while she is attending a funeral. Such class.
Hakeem Jeffries and Kathleen Clarke have often demonstrated great talent at taking on Republican BS and throwing it back in their faces. As we move forward, I hope they will get better at this.
The Democratic leadership in the Senate, however, seems superglued to archaic rules of conduct that may have made sense three decades ago but have been completely voided by the Republicans under McConnell. (Tuberville antics, e.g.)
I think this supports the core of your argument that the Congressional Democrats have a serious generation gap problem.
The Democratic in the House include Ocasio-Cortez, Maxwell Frost, Jasmine Crocket, etc. etc. They pretty much stole the show during last week's fake impeachment "inquiry."
Who in the Senate is playing the same role or is even capable of doing so?
I went into yesterday thinking that the Democrats were going to conclude that McCarthy was the lesser of two evils and enough Dems would vote present to allow him to continue as Speaker even without concessions. I think a defensible case for doing that could be made.
1. I think what Dems did instead was behave a little bit like Republicans. Most obvious from the Senate, when Republicans have power they USE it. When Democrats have power, Republicans talk about tradition and institutionalism and bipartisanship and urge the Dems to stand down, and the Dems often do stand down. (The reason the filibuster survived a 6-year GOP Senate majority is because Republicans saw it as in their interest to keep it around, not because of institutionalism and bipartisanship.)
In this case, I think the Dems decided that McCarthy was nearly as bad as any alternative, and that continued Republican dysfunction will ultimately work to their benefit. Yes, this risks a new shutdown, it risks aid for Ukraine, maybe it even risks Donald Trump becoming speaker, but none of this would be a good look for the GOP. There will be no msitaking where the blame lies. And so th Dems stayed united.
2. The model of GOP "governance" includes a strong reliance on Democrats to save them from themselves. As one example, the Senate filibuster (or just a Dem Senate majority) allows the House GOP to support all sorts of BS messaging legislation secure in the knowledge that the Dems will stop it. This time, House Dems refused to save the GOP from itself, and good pn them.
3. The GOP operates with an ENORMOUS sense of entitlement. They really do think that the Dems owed it to them to save McCarthy, even though they would never for even a millisecond consider bailing out Dems if the shoe was on the other foot. They believe they DESERVE to rule, and any time they are out of power ot is for illegitimate reasons.
4. Is the GOP sort of like an abusive partner in a relationship? Constant lying, gaslighting, demonizing, and expecting Dems to use some of their power to serve GOP ends.
So what I’m getting as a reoccurring theme of this Substack is that Democratic establishment has reacted to perennial voter concerns about dysfunction and hyper partisanship in Washington by being too accommodating. Instead they should combine a combination of more heterodoxy on policy (being more forgiving of Hedi Guzenkamp-Perez voting her district on student loans, for example) with more tactical and rhetorical partisan aggression (having every Democrat on TV shouting about Trumps recent comments about summary executions for shoplifting, asking Lauren Bobert if killing grandmothers by taking away Medicare gets her as horny as Beetlejuice).
I’d add a caveat that if the party took more confident, combative, stances against their unpopular opposition, it’d buy members like MGP some room to maneuver and not fear issues just because they poll at 49 percent vs 52.
Given educational polarization, how can Democrats engage in this heightened aggression without creating a “snob’s versus slobs” narrative that works to Republican advantage?
Quite right. Warnock also, though a bit older. Murphy of Connecticut and Baldwin of Wisconsin.
Senate needs to do what House Dems did a few years ago and shuffle upward some of the younger stalwarts. These Senators should all have much more prominent roles. Also, I believe they all had pledged to kill the fillibuster. It would be a start.
Brian's entire body of published work, for years, has been critical analysis of the decisions of Democratic leadership. His critiques are often correct. Moreover, the idea that simply being powerful or elected makes your decisions per se wise doesn't really make any sense, given that we regularly criticize decisions on the other side of the aisle.
I agree with this. She's not in leadership anymore, and whether or not McCarthy stayed didn't come down to a vote.
If anything, today underscored how damn good Pelosi was at her job. She had the same margin McCarthy did, and was she voted out? Nah. And this was after being the leader of the Democratic caucus for over a decade!
It looks a bit different from a congressional reporter’s vantage point. When whip counts show high stakes votes will be very close, the strong presumption is members will drop everything (including things like family weddings and so on) to be there for the votes. If anything her status as speaker emeritus should make her feel more bound to that expectation—an example for younger members.
Mary Peltola is at her husband's funeral and no one has criticized her for it. I think it's bad that refuse to let folks be even the slightest bit human...
Point 2 is exactly the argument I was making on bluesky this morning (albeit with just a handful of other randos who also happen to follow darth). Last January, *all* the Dems did was laugh and tweet through it, missing an easy opportunity, which they have again now.
Dems should nominate and vote for a moderate-ish R -- someone from a swing district, or who is already decided not to run again, or who recognizes the post-Dobbs mood, or who strongly supports Ukraine aid, perhaps someone like Mike McCaul of TX.
-- If all such R's decline, they will confirm that they'd rather have Gaetz' chaos. That's useful.
-- If such an R accepts, it will marginalize *both* McCarthy and Gaetz' radicals. That's even better.
Look, there's going to be a speaker, but it's not going to be a Democrat, and it's not going to be one of Gaetz' gang. So it will be either some toady like McCarthy, only this time with *more* concessions to Gaetz, or it will be someone who has 5 Republican colleagues -- just 5! -- who are tired of kissing Trump's ass.
This is the best we can do without a majority, but it is Dems' responsibility to do it. I'm hopeful they'll start thinking strategically, but I'm not holding my breath.
Fine. Let them decline. Dems should nominate them anyway if they're serious about 1) governing and 2) not ending up with more sham hearings and insurrection denial going into 2024. All it takes is 5.
I like this idea -- maybe pick a particularly endangered R to bearhug. Or one after another. When they decline, it works for ads too -- too extreme to consider working with Dems, another chaos monkey.
Could be endangered -- someone in my earlier chat suggested one of the NY R's who had no business winning anyway. Or could be someone totally safe, though I take Spence's point that they wouldn't stay that way if perceived to be scheming with the Ds.
Exactly. It’s pie in the sky nonsense. The Rs --most notably House Rs--have shown us who they are, spineless weasels.
It's unlikely, I'll give you that. Serious question: Who would you want to see as speaker, and what is your plan for getting the votes? Scalise, who will make the same deal with Gaetz? Jordan, who will be worse than McCarthy? At this point, pointing and laughing by the Dems is an abdication of responsibility -- and a missed opportunity.
Unfortunately, none of them is worthy of being Speaker though someone has to be. Unless a “moderate” did as you all hope, there is no hope for the next year. Any R even in a bluer district will be subject to attack from the MAGA folk. They don’t break ranks not because of principle but because of fear. The two emerging candidates are the worst choices for America. They will be even more loathesome than my Kevin.
And this Dem is not pointing and laughing--well maybe a little at the sheer absurdity because the alternative is banging my head against a brick wall. It is going to be a very ugly year.
I disagree on several points.
Why would Democrats squander an opportunity for concessions on Ukraine aid for a fruitless fight over House rules?
Biden's statement is appropriately anodyne. Nothing would be gained from punching down at this point. Biden should continue to stand by the deal negotiated a few month ago.
Pelosi would never have missed a vote unless she was confident her vote wasn't needed.
Criticizing Democratic leadership is fine, but you seem to be stretching to find issues.
Disagreement is welcome. Can’t respond to everything at the moment, but agree that refunding Ukraine resistance would’ve been an excellent demand if McCarthy had been willing to bargain, and I should’ve thought of that even in my late-night haste.
Are you actually saying it’s embarrassing that Nancy Pelosi is in California for the funeral of her very close friend and colleague rather than in DC to oust McCarthy? I doubt there is ANYTHING the Dems could do that you wouldn’t criticize. Instead of talking about their unity, you piss on them and advise them to yes, bail out the Rs by supporting some fantasy moderate who will work with them. Back on planet earth, one of the first things the weasel Speaker Pro Tempore did was to evict Nancy from the “hideaway” office while she is attending a funeral. Such class.
Criticizing Pelosi for attending her friend's funeral seems...unfair
Hakeem Jeffries and Kathleen Clarke have often demonstrated great talent at taking on Republican BS and throwing it back in their faces. As we move forward, I hope they will get better at this.
The Democratic leadership in the Senate, however, seems superglued to archaic rules of conduct that may have made sense three decades ago but have been completely voided by the Republicans under McConnell. (Tuberville antics, e.g.)
I think this supports the core of your argument that the Congressional Democrats have a serious generation gap problem.
The Democratic in the House include Ocasio-Cortez, Maxwell Frost, Jasmine Crocket, etc. etc. They pretty much stole the show during last week's fake impeachment "inquiry."
Who in the Senate is playing the same role or is even capable of doing so?
Brian Schatz.
In a few years, hopefully Jon Ossoff too.
The real question is, who in their right mind would want that job with those lunatics at this point?!
I went into yesterday thinking that the Democrats were going to conclude that McCarthy was the lesser of two evils and enough Dems would vote present to allow him to continue as Speaker even without concessions. I think a defensible case for doing that could be made.
1. I think what Dems did instead was behave a little bit like Republicans. Most obvious from the Senate, when Republicans have power they USE it. When Democrats have power, Republicans talk about tradition and institutionalism and bipartisanship and urge the Dems to stand down, and the Dems often do stand down. (The reason the filibuster survived a 6-year GOP Senate majority is because Republicans saw it as in their interest to keep it around, not because of institutionalism and bipartisanship.)
In this case, I think the Dems decided that McCarthy was nearly as bad as any alternative, and that continued Republican dysfunction will ultimately work to their benefit. Yes, this risks a new shutdown, it risks aid for Ukraine, maybe it even risks Donald Trump becoming speaker, but none of this would be a good look for the GOP. There will be no msitaking where the blame lies. And so th Dems stayed united.
2. The model of GOP "governance" includes a strong reliance on Democrats to save them from themselves. As one example, the Senate filibuster (or just a Dem Senate majority) allows the House GOP to support all sorts of BS messaging legislation secure in the knowledge that the Dems will stop it. This time, House Dems refused to save the GOP from itself, and good pn them.
3. The GOP operates with an ENORMOUS sense of entitlement. They really do think that the Dems owed it to them to save McCarthy, even though they would never for even a millisecond consider bailing out Dems if the shoe was on the other foot. They believe they DESERVE to rule, and any time they are out of power ot is for illegitimate reasons.
4. Is the GOP sort of like an abusive partner in a relationship? Constant lying, gaslighting, demonizing, and expecting Dems to use some of their power to serve GOP ends.
So what I’m getting as a reoccurring theme of this Substack is that Democratic establishment has reacted to perennial voter concerns about dysfunction and hyper partisanship in Washington by being too accommodating. Instead they should combine a combination of more heterodoxy on policy (being more forgiving of Hedi Guzenkamp-Perez voting her district on student loans, for example) with more tactical and rhetorical partisan aggression (having every Democrat on TV shouting about Trumps recent comments about summary executions for shoplifting, asking Lauren Bobert if killing grandmothers by taking away Medicare gets her as horny as Beetlejuice).
I’d add a caveat that if the party took more confident, combative, stances against their unpopular opposition, it’d buy members like MGP some room to maneuver and not fear issues just because they poll at 49 percent vs 52.
Given educational polarization, how can Democrats engage in this heightened aggression without creating a “snob’s versus slobs” narrative that works to Republican advantage?
Quite right. Warnock also, though a bit older. Murphy of Connecticut and Baldwin of Wisconsin.
Senate needs to do what House Dems did a few years ago and shuffle upward some of the younger stalwarts. These Senators should all have much more prominent roles. Also, I believe they all had pledged to kill the fillibuster. It would be a start.
Apologies to all who wonder how this popped up here.
This was a reply to David Bonowitz's reply to my earlier comment. Sorry for placing it out of context. I am a bit new at this.
Brian, I really believe you might want to reconsider if you are politically smarter than Nancy, Hakeem, and Joe. I mean that sincerely.
Brian's entire body of published work, for years, has been critical analysis of the decisions of Democratic leadership. His critiques are often correct. Moreover, the idea that simply being powerful or elected makes your decisions per se wise doesn't really make any sense, given that we regularly criticize decisions on the other side of the aisle.
Spicy takes Brian. Keep em coming. I will say, I'm glad they didn't blink and I'm interested in what's to discover in these uncharted waters.
I agree with this. She's not in leadership anymore, and whether or not McCarthy stayed didn't come down to a vote.
If anything, today underscored how damn good Pelosi was at her job. She had the same margin McCarthy did, and was she voted out? Nah. And this was after being the leader of the Democratic caucus for over a decade!
Enjoyed reading your thoughts overall, Brian!
It looks a bit different from a congressional reporter’s vantage point. When whip counts show high stakes votes will be very close, the strong presumption is members will drop everything (including things like family weddings and so on) to be there for the votes. If anything her status as speaker emeritus should make her feel more bound to that expectation—an example for younger members.
Mary Peltola is at her husband's funeral and no one has criticized her for it. I think it's bad that refuse to let folks be even the slightest bit human...
Right, but surely attending a funeral is an exception for this sort of thing? Weren't she and Feinstein genuine friends?