Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
37 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think the disconnect within Dem electorate is between (at least) two factions. One believes in the "just win, baby" mantra when it comes to upcoming elections, that regaining "power" in 2026 or 2028 is enough. The other believes there needs to be a complete repudiation of Trump/MAGA in order for the country to survive. 

Of course it’s not enough. But you can’t have one without the other. 

34 minutes ago, softlynow said:

But the douchiness of posting the above while having 15913 posts on a message board, as of this writing, just needs to be noted at least one time.

Lol touchè. 
But here’s the thing- all this whining doesn’t seem grounded in fact. I’ll ask you the same two questions I’ve asked others:

1) what did the GOP gain?

2) what did it cost them?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, immamac said:

yes, because in chaos the Republicans fracture and don't even get to 50 votes to reopen the government even with the fillibuster gone. Also with the fillibuster gone they would be completely and utterly fucked. There would be so much shit passed or undone at midterms it would be the end of the GOP. It's the end of MAGA. People would have remembered the thanksgiving that they couldn't eat and that they couldn't travel to see their family for DECADES. 

They would have not only held on long enough, they would have done it in such embarrassing and completely incompetent and public fashion that the majority of those elected wouldn't be able to seek re-election because of the stink on them.

You are severely understating what the eventuality was. That eventuality involved a lot of pain from tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans. 

I like how people think if the Rs ended the filibuster tomorrow, they wouldn't turn around and put it back in place the day before a Dem majority took over.  Then said Dem majority would stand around with their thumbs up their asses and do nothing because sanctity, decorum and reasons.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Bozo's not wrong, he's just an asshole.  By most measures, the Dems still "won" the shutdown. But they won this like Auburn beat Mississippi State 3-2 in 2008, when they had the chance to run up the score.

Most of the people who will be marginal voters in 2026 in potential swing districts/states will have completely forgotten about this within a month, probably sooner. The undecided American voter has the memory of a goldfish and the tidal wave of shit Trump and the GOP have been and will keep dumping on everyone will overwhelm everything else. Dems should absolutely be better at messaging, but the GOP is about to make things so bad that dysfunctional Dem messaging likely won't even matter.

My preference would've been for them to stick it out another week or two after which time I think Trump would've gotten the Senate GOP to cave and abolish the filibuster, because that needs to happen and this set of Dems won't do it if they manage to take both houses and the presidency in 2028. That would've also made it easier to pin the entire thing on Trump and the GOP, which would've been a nice bonus and probably would've shifted the odds in 2026 further in our favor, but the gains would've been marginal. 

What's frustrating is that there's still somewhere between 8 and probably 20ish Senate Dems that for various reasons just can't really adequately fight GOP fascism.  We all want those fuckers to wake up and understand that the Republicans who are smiling to their faces are killing their friends and family and that they need to stop pretending that it can still be politics as usual, but it's pretty clear that's asking a leopard to change its spots. So the debacle in March and this cave are at least useful in illustrating who need to catch some primary challenges. 

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

The democrats are the drunk dude at last call settling for the fatty instead of maintaining his dignity and snapping one off at home.

2a77c81bdb353712f6c5fc0551b7503c8542b905

Getting a little fucking judgey, aren't we?

  • Haha 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

My preference would've been for them to stick it out another week or two after which time I think Trump would've gotten the Senate GOP to cave and abolish the filibuster, because that needs to happen and this set of Dems won't do it if they manage to take both houses and the presidency in 2028. That would've also made it easier to pin the entire thing on Trump and the GOP, which would've been a nice bonus and probably would've shifted the odds in 2026 further in our favor, but the gains would've been marginal. 

I would have liked to see another week, but just so Trump could continue to try to cut off SNAP benefits at the detriment of many Republican and non-voters. 

All philosophical arguments for or against the filibuster aside, I would really rather have Trump not have a filibusterless Senate for the next 3+ years.  The short term sucks right now and that would make it worse.  I have no idea what is going to happen in 2028, but I want the Senate Republicans to have an excuse for not passing whatever crazy shit Trump reads on Twitter. Granted, in order for it to matter, Democrats need to use it, which will piss off Trump, and thus endangers it.  So it's a game of chicken.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I would have liked to see another week, but just so Trump could continue to try to cut off SNAP benefits at the detriment of many Republican and non-voters. 

All philosophical arguments for or against the filibuster aside, I would really rather have Trump not have a filibusterless Senate for the next 3+ years.  The short term sucks right now and that would make it worse.  I have no idea what is going to happen in 2028, but I want the Senate Republicans to have an excuse for not passing whatever crazy shit Trump reads on Twitter. Granted, in order for it to matter, Democrats need to use it, which will piss off Trump, and thus endangers it.  So it's a game of chicken.  

 

Again, they wouldn’t have had to abolish the filibuster entirely. Just an exception to pass the budget. They’ve done it multiple times for other stuff. 

Posted
6 hours ago, Nivek said:

I appreciate you trying to apply logic and reason.   The failure of the Democratic Party thinking is that they can use the Republican votes against funding the ACA as a wedge issue in the next round of elections, as if people will remember who voted for what.  How many times have we seen Republican politicians take credit for things they voted against, and barely any political pushback is observed or media attention is given?   Too many to count.  

An indefinite shutdown which would harm big business, would create the political pressure that Republicans would not be able to ignore.  They jerked themselves off at the thought of starving families and uneducated children, and climaxed on special education being destroyed.  But they cower in fear of their base losing share value.  

I don't think they think they can use Republican votes for anything.  That would be stupid.  As you rightly say, nobody will remember who voted for what.  You're dead correct that we have waaaay too many examples of Republican officeholders taking credit for shit they flamboyantly opposed (e.g., the Biden Infrastructure Act).

They think that without the ACA subsidies, the cost of healthcare will go up both this year and, importantly, next year.  The premiums for 2027 are going to come out right before the midterms, and they're going to be catastrophically awful.  Trump and the Republicans will be rightly blamed--not because of anything anybody voted for/against, but for the far more basic reason that a Republican is in the White House.

That's why I say it is a cynical play.  And I love a cynical play.  Because those are really the only plays that work.

6 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

My complaint about their behavior in this shut down is almost entirely that they fucked this part of it up. Hell, the easy message right now would be "they threatened to starve people and we weren't willing to let Americans starve" and they can't even consistently say that. Durbin is whining about nobody understands senate procedure, others are talking about how if the GOP doesn't vote for the ACA subsidies at an unspecified later date then people will know the GOP doesn't like the ACA, and King and Fetterman have basically just said "I am personally a pussy." I'd say it's stunning how inept their messaging has been, except it's entirely consistent with what we typically see from elected Democrats over the age of 40.

This is what happens when elected officials try to play pundit.  They just can't help themselves.  They love to tell you how much more they understand about electoral politics than you do.  But playing pundit gets in the way of effective messaging.  

So you're right.  They need to cut that shit out.  The message is the Republicans were going to starve people, and we couldn't let that happen.  Period.  Then shut the fuck up.

How's that going to play in the next election, a CNN reporter might ask?  "I don't really know, and it really doesn't matter--the Republicans were going to starve people, and we couldn't let that happen."

Are you concerned that your base is going to be angry that you didn't get more, an MSNBC correspondent might enquire?  "I's hope not, but it really doesn't matter--the Republicans were going to starve people, and we couldn't let that happen."

But these people are all fucking assholes who are super-eager to let you know that they know more than you do.  Dumb fuckers.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

The democrats are the drunk dude at last call settling for the fatty instead of maintaining his dignity and snapping one off at home.

What is this…dignity…of which you speak? I am unfamiliar with this.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think they think they can use Republican votes for anything.  That would be stupid.  As you rightly say, nobody will remember who voted for what.  You're dead correct that we have waaaay too many examples of Republican officeholders taking credit for shit they flamboyantly opposed (e.g., the Biden Infrastructure Act).

They think that without the ACA subsidies, the cost of healthcare will go up both this year and, importantly, next year.  The premiums for 2027 are going to come out right before the midterms, and they're going to be catastrophically awful.  Trump and the Republicans will be rightly blamed--not because of anything anybody voted for/against, but for the far more basic reason that a Republican is in the White House.

That's why I say it is a cynical play.  And I love a cynical play.  Because those are really the only plays that work.

This is what happens when elected officials try to play pundit.  They just can't help themselves.  They love to tell you how much more they understand about electoral politics than you do.  But playing pundit gets in the way of effective messaging.  

So you're right.  They need to cut that shit out.  The message is the Republicans were going to starve people, and we couldn't let that happen.  Period.  Then shut the fuck up.

How's that going to play in the next election, a CNN reporter might ask?  "I don't really know, and it really doesn't matter--the Republicans were going to starve people, and we couldn't let that happen."

Are you concerned that your base is going to be angry that you didn't get more, an MSNBC correspondent might enquire?  "I's hope not, but it really doesn't matter--the Republicans were going to starve people, and we couldn't let that happen."

But these people are all fucking assholes who are super-eager to let you know that they know more than you do.  Dumb fuckers.

I think part of it is that in their minds they're thinking "well we got a vote, and then when the Republicans vote against restoring the ACA subsidies we can send out fundraising emails about how they just voted against healthcare!" It's classic too-clever-by-half Dem nonsense, as if going on tv every day and saying "they wanted to starve 40 million people to death" wouldn't be more effective for fundraising.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
49 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Again, they wouldn’t have had to abolish the filibuster entirely. Just an exception to pass the budget. They’ve done it multiple times for other stuff. 

That would have been great. It would have made cutting the ACA a Republican and not bipartisan effort. And it would have created the precedent for the future.

Posted
The handful of dem senators fully caved. I feel like they should have caved on Day 1. They created hardships for people and got zero in return.


Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I disagree that the Dems got nothing in return.

They had great results in last week’s elections, which was probably at least partly due to the shutdown. Maybe some of those election results would’ve happened regardless, but the shutdown increased frustration with the GOP and that likely helped in places.

There is a plan in place to vote on extension of ACA subsidies in December. Even though that is unlikely to pass, it will force every GOP senator to be on record as voting against it. Maybe the vote never even occurs, but through this shutdown, Dems are making the GOP own the healthcare problem when many Americans see their premiums increase.

There is some protection in place for the GAO, both for maintaining budget and for the ability to sue the White House (I know, but still). It’s better than letting the GOP kill off one of the few watchdogs that exists.

The agreement also prevents layoffs of federal workers from the shutdown, requires rehiring of workers already laid off, and requires back pay. That is in opposition to Trump saying he planned to let a bunch of federal workers go.

Like many of you, I was fine with letting the shutdown drag on until next November. Let Americans feel the hardship of electing bullshit leaders. However, I don’t think that was ever likely to happen and it would create the possibility of Trump using it as an excuse to suspend elections. The Dems were never going to actually get their main demand of extending ACA subsidies, so there was never a clean off ramp for them. At least forcing a vote on it will put everyone on record, or the GOP backtracking on a promise to vote becomes an indictment of all of them.

I think this could be the least bad outcome, and some good has already come from it. I would’ve preferred to at least let it go through the holidays to fuck up everyone’s travel, but oh well. Plus, most reasonable people still blame Trump and Republicans for the shitshow happening in the first place, so there’s a little political capital there. We now have Trump on record as trying to block SNAP benefits. That’s something.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's been touched on in this thread, but what gets me even more than the caving is the complete messaging failure.  EVEN IF it was predetermined that Dems were going to end the shutdown, there is a smart way to communicate it.  "Democrats are ensuring that nobody suffers during the holiday season but will renew the fight for your rights in January" or some shit.  Instead we get "standing up to Trump didn't work."

Pathetic.
 

It’s impossible to message the shutdown because the Dem base is screaming something completely different. This isn’t a win if the base thinks it’s a loss. That’s not the base’s problem, it’s Dem leadership’s. They have lost touch with their own voters over the last 10 months.
 

Fucking 70-year old grannies that voted for Hillary in 2016 are laughing at the fact that Charlie Kirk caught a bullet with his carotid. You guys who I know voted R until 15 years ago are talking about maximum pain and throwing out the old norms of politics. Because you are normal left of center voters living in the real world. Senators aren’t that. They don’t know what’s going on and the have no means of messaging that will make their voters happy.

They wont learn until a few of them end up on the wrong side of a primary challenge. That is where we are headed. It’s 2010 all over again, just the blue version.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, berlinerbaer said:

It’s impossible to message the shutdown because the Dem base is screaming something completely different. This isn’t a win if the base thinks it’s a loss. That’s not the base’s problem, it’s Dem leadership’s. They have lost touch with their own voters over the last 10 months.
 

Fucking 70-year old grannies that voted for Hillary in 2016 are laughing at the fact that Charlie Kirk caught a bullet with his carotid. You guys who I know voted R until 15 years ago are talking about maximum pain and throwing out the old norms of politics. Because you are normal left of center voters living in the real world. Senators aren’t that. They don’t know what’s going on and the have no means of messaging that will make their voters happy.

They wont learn until a few of them end up on the wrong side of a primary challenge. That is where we are headed. It’s 2010 all over again, just the blue version.

say that's true, who is the current obama?

Posted
2 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

It’s impossible to message the shutdown because the Dem base is screaming something completely different. This isn’t a win if the base thinks it’s a loss. That’s not the base’s problem, it’s Dem leadership’s. They have lost touch with their own voters over the last 10 months.
 

Fucking 70-year old grannies that voted for Hillary in 2016 are laughing at the fact that Charlie Kirk caught a bullet with his carotid. You guys who I know voted R until 15 years ago are talking about maximum pain and throwing out the old norms of politics. Because you are normal left of center voters living in the real world. Senators aren’t that. They don’t know what’s going on and the have no means of messaging that will make their voters happy.

They wont learn until a few of them end up on the wrong side of a primary challenge. That is where we are headed. It’s 2010 all over again, just the blue version.

I certainly wouldn't expect Democrats to fuck up badly enough to damage our credit rating and get thrown out of office in 2028

Posted

Deal to end US shutdown would also allow some Republican senators to seek $500,000 for January 6 probe

WASHINGTON, Nov 11 (Reuters) - Legislation moving through Congress that would end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history would also allow eight Republican senators to seek hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for alleged privacy violations stemming from the Biden administration's investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
 
The bill, which passed the Senate on Monday,includes a clause that would allow lawmakers whose phone records were subpoenaed as part of that probe to sue the Justice Department for damages.
 
The legislation retroactively makes it illegal in most cases to obtain a senator's phone data without disclosure, and allows those whose records were obtained to sue the Justice Department for $500,000 per violation, along with attorneys' fees and costs. The Justice Department could opt to settle the lawsuits, rather than fight them in court.
 
 
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
16 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

The democrats are the drunk dude at last call settling for the fatty instead of maintaining his dignity and snapping one off at home.

Wait, are you saying the dude nailing the fatty is the loser in this situation? We may be at an impasse here.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 5
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

That would have been great. It would have made cutting the ACA a Republican and not bipartisan effort. And it would have created the precedent for the future.

Wait, you think ACA subsidy cuts are perceived as bipartisan? I think a lot of you have developed Helsinki Syndrome.

15 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

It’s impossible to message the shutdown because the Dem base is screaming something completely different. This isn’t a win if the base thinks it’s a loss. That’s not the base’s problem, it’s Dem leadership’s.

No, it’s a base problem. The Democrat base thinks everything is the end. See above. Their mentality is a combination of Bill Paxton in Aliens and Jefferson’s brother in Fast Times. 

Look Democrat messaging is absolutely terrible because it’s so inauthentic and irrelevant, not to mention boring, poorly targeted and inefficiently delivered. But messaging from the position of opposition is far less important than whether the governing majority is keeping their coalition together, and they aren’t. 
The bottom line is that Democrats are incompetent, weak and out of touch, but the voting coalition is angry, focused and motivated. Meanwhile, the Republican coalition is in worse shape than they have been in over a decade. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Meanwhile, the Republican coalition is in worse shape than they have been in over a decade. 

I do agree with this

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait, you think ACA subsidy cuts are perceived as bipartisan? I think a lot of you have developed Helsinki Syndrome.

No, it’s a base problem. The Democrat base thinks everything is the end. See above. Their mentality is a combination of Bill Paxton in Aliens and Jefferson’s brother in Fast Times. 

Look Democrat messaging is absolutely terrible because it’s so inauthentic and irrelevant, not to mention boring, poorly targeted and inefficiently delivered. But messaging from the position of opposition is far less important than whether the governing majority is keeping their coalition together, and they aren’t. 
The bottom line is that Democrats are incompetent, weak and out of touch, but the voting coalition is angry, focused and motivated. Meanwhile, the Republican coalition is in worse shape than they have been in over a decade. 

harvey_johnson_-_profile.png

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
17 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Of course it’s not enough. But you can’t have one without the other. 

Lol touchè. 
But here’s the thing- all this whining doesn’t seem grounded in fact. I’ll ask you the same two questions I’ve asked others:

1) what did the GOP gain?

2) what did it cost them?

In the before times, this is a Dem win. Now? It's noise. If, for some unknown reason, Trump et al. are not planning to destroy the integrity of the '26 and '28 elections, this was a fine result.

I get the whining, to a certain extent. Some felt that maybe prolonging the shutdown until the pain spread to everyone would stymie the coup. Wishful thinking.

 

Posted
30 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The easiest messaging in the world for Dems would be simply, "The Republicans wanted to starve kids and we couldn't let that happen."  That's it.  That's the message.  It's true and easily digestible.  I don't see why they can't do this.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait, you think ACA subsidy cuts are perceived as bipartisan? I think a lot of you have developed Helsinki Syndrome.

They are bipartisan now. That is just a fact. How it will be perceived is something else, I know everything is more about vibes than reality these days.

Posted
43 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The easiest messaging in the world for Dems would be simply, "The Republicans wanted to starve kids and we couldn't let that happen."  That's it.  That's the message.  It's true and easily digestible.  I don't see why they can't do this.

Yep. Instead they are going out saying "opposing Donald Trump failed so we are trying surrendering" like Angus King basically said. How are these octegenarian politicians so bad at politics? Haven't they been doing this for decades?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

The easiest messaging in the world for Dems would be simply, "The Republicans wanted to starve kids and we couldn't let that happen."  That's it.  That's the message.  It's true and easily digestible.  I don't see why they can't do this.

Based on recent SCOTUS rulings, they are going to starve kids anyway.

Posted

I would be interested to know how many GOP members are using today's vote to get something. The last thing the GOP leadership needs is a delayed vote because they can't get their party in order. It's always easier to get something when your vote is needed. Why give away your vote for free.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I would be interested to know how many GOP members are using today's vote to get something. The last thing the GOP leadership needs is a delayed vote because they can't get their party in order. It's always easier to get something when your vote is needed. Why give away your vote for free.

If they add stuff it has to go back to the Senate.  I don't think anyone has an appetite to be the reason air travel continues to devolve.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

If they add stuff it has to go back to the Senate.  I don't think anyone has an appetite to be the reason air travel continues to devolve.

So, uh, what happened to this whole "clean CR" bullshit....

Posted
3 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

So, uh, what happened to this whole "clean CR" bullshit....

my point is they ARE NOT going to make changes.   Changes delay re-opening.   

Posted
10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

my point is they ARE NOT going to make changes.   Changes delay re-opening.   

So hemp/THC is cool?

Posted

I assume Trump will kick this back to Congress to take out the hemp stuff. He's not a true believer in that cause (or in any cause, incidentally), but he knows that it will hurt him with young men and I guess maybe some farmers.

Posted
25 minutes ago, tokamak said:

I assume Trump will kick this back to Congress to take out the hemp stuff. He's not a true believer in that cause (or in any cause, incidentally), but he knows that it will hurt him with young men and I guess maybe some farmers.

Wtf does he care at this point

Posted

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/senate-payouts-unnerve-some-in-house-gop-ahead-of-shutdown-vote/ar-AA1QimZO

Quote

By David Lerman, CQ-Roll Call
Updated: 1 hour ago
Published: 1 hour ago

The U.S. Capitol last week. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)
WASHINGTON — A Senate provision in a major spending package to end the partial government shutdown has rattled House Republicans and given new political ammunition to Democrats seeking to defeat the measure.

A provision in the fiscal 2026 Legislative Branch spending bill, which is part of the package, would allow senators to sue for at least $500,000 each when federal investigators search their phone records in a judicially sanctioned probe without notifying them.

It would also apply retroactively, meaning at least 10 senators whose records were searched by former special counsel John L. "Jack" Smith in his probe of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol would automatically be entitled to big payouts.

The eleventh-hour discovery of the provision, which apparently caught House leaders by surprise, became a new flashpoint on the eve of a critical House vote scheduled for Wednesday that could effectively end the longest partial shutdown in history.

It didn't appear the Senate language would be enough to derail the government-reopening package. But several Republicans who spoke at the House Rules Committee hearing on the bill late Tuesday made clear that they want to at least see separate legislation to fix the provision after the shutdown ends.

'A hard night'
Rep. Austin Scott, R- Ga., said he "had a hard night" when he first heard of the language's existence Monday. "And I've been struggling with what the right vote is, because of what the Senate did," he said.

Scott seized on the retroactive application of the provision, as well as the fact that not only would each senator receive a $500,000 payment for each violation, but that they'd receive payments for each account or device used. That could mean up to six separate violations for $500,000 each, given lawmakers' multiple phones and email addresses for their campaigns, business and personal use, Scott said.

"They're saying the executive branch shouldn't be checking up on the legislative branch. Well, there's some truth to that," Scott said. "When they made it retroactive, then all of a sudden it was no longer about good governance. ... There's actually a list of people that know they will get paid as soon as this thing is signed."

As it stands, there are at least 10 GOP senators whose data is said to have been collected as part of Smith's investigation, code named "Arctic Frost," that began in the spring of 2022: Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee; Josh Hawley of Missouri; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming; Dan Sullivan of Alaska; Tommy Tuberville of Alabama; Ron Johnson of Wisconsin; Ted Cruz of Texas and Rick Scott of Florida.

Rep. Mike Kelly, R- Pa., was also named in documents, but as a House member he wouldn't be eligible for payouts.

"I do not think that this provision should have been inserted, it certainly shouldn't have been inserted at the eleventh hour," Rep. Chip Roy, R- Texas, said during the Rules meeting.

"I think there's going to be a lot of people, if they look and understand this, they're going to see this as self-serving, self-dealing kind of stuff, and I don't think that's right," added Roy, who is running for Texas attorney general. "It is beside my comprehension that this got put in the bill. And it's why people have such a low opinion of this town."

Democrats used up a good chunk of their time at the meeting, and at an earlier news conference, to call attention to the provision and blast GOP acceptance of it.

"I think it is outrageous, outrageous, for these Republican senators to effectively guarantee themselves million-dollar paydays," said Rep. Joe Neguse, D- Colo. He quizzed House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R- Okla., who testified in support of the bill at Rules, about the provision.

Cole expressed support for the general idea of the provision, but said he didn't know anything about its inclusion in the spending bill.

"I am very concerned that anybody, whether they're in the House or the Senate, is singled out and not notified that their records are being subpoenaed. That concerns me a great deal," Cole said.

"Now, did I know about this provision in the bill? No. Do I think it needs to be in a funding bill? Not particularly," Cole continued. "But do I think getting the government opened is important? Yes I do."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D- N.Y., who is pushing to defeat the bill in an effort to extend expiring enhanced health insurance subsidies, was quick to seize on the provision at a news conference Tuesday evening.

"We're going to tattoo that provision ... on the foreheads of every single House Republican who dares vote for this bill," he said.

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D- Va., spoke in favor of an amendment at Rules to strip the Senate provision.

"This is our only chance to right this wrong and this is corruption," he told the committee. "It is theft in broad daylight. And anyone, anyone, voting against this amendment ... is complicit in that corruption."

But there was no sign that House Republicans were prepared to derail the bill, even as they expressed their concern about the Senate provision.

"I personally agree that it should be removed," Scott said. "The problem is, if we remove it ... it has to go back to the Senate, and then you're right back to where you were 40 days ago," he said, referring to the start of the partial shutdown that began Oct. 1.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R- Maine, had inserted the provision at the behest of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R- S.D., according to House Appropriations ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut.

Scott said his understanding was that Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D- N.Y., also signed off on the language, and that Senate leaders hadn't shared the information with House GOP leaders.

Republican senators were furious to learn that Smith had subpoenaed their phone records in 2023 without their knowledge. Smith, through attorneys, has defended the search as a lawful attempt to probe the actions of President Donald Trump and associates that led up to the Jan. 6 attack.

And some Democrats, for their part, fear what Trump's Justice Department might do to them without similar legal protections.

While Democrats agreed that an attempt to ensure notification may be appropriate, they said Senate leaders went too far by arranging for retroactive payments that would apply only to senators as opposed to House members or anyone else caught up in a probe.

"Regardless of anyone's opinion on what happened on Jan. 6, it should be unacceptable to every member of the House that the Senate can secretly add language to a bill without even notifying us," DeLauro told the Rules Committee.

Roy, a prominent voice in the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, denounced the Senate provision but left his options open as to what he wanted to do about it.

"We need to fund the government and we need to get this passed, and I'm trying to figure out what we can do to force the Senate's hand," Roy said. "That provision needs to get fixed and we need to find a way as a body to get it fixed as soon as possible, and I'm continuing [to] explore the options."

Rep. Morgan Griffith, R- Va., piled on, saying he was "very concerned" about the "highly suspect" provision.

Griffith said amending the spending package to fix the provision would be a step too far.

"I will not vote for any amendments because the shutdown needs to end. It's been going on too long. Too many of my people are hurting," Griffith said. "We can't take any more suffering. I need to vote to open the government back up."

Ted Cruz is about to get a lot of taxpayer funded trips to Cancun!

The GOP just doesn't give a damn. Amazing.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 hour ago, tokamak said:

I assume Trump will kick this back to Congress to take out the hemp stuff. He's not a true believer in that cause (or in any cause, incidentally), but he knows that it will hurt him with young men and I guess maybe some farmers.

He has already signaled support, not that he’s consistent about anything

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, tokamak said:

I assume Trump will kick this back to Congress to take out the hemp stuff. He's not a true believer in that cause (or in any cause, incidentally), but he knows that it will hurt him with young men and I guess maybe some farmers.

That is a cute assumption.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

Does the abrupt ending of the government shutdown have anything to do with the Epstein files or purely coincidence that they are happening in the same week?

The House needed an additional signature on a discharge petition to move forward with an obligation to release. The new Arizona rep provides that, and could have long ago but Mike Johnson sent the House home and refused to swear her in until the Senate voted on a budget resolution. 



×
×
  • Create New...