Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), the top Democrat in the House, has suggested that Democrats would protect House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) from being ousted if he brought the $95 billion foreign military aid bill to the floor for a vote.
Some Republicans have threatened to oust Johnson as speaker if he holds a vote on the bill, and it would only take one GOP member to file a motion to vacate the speakership, which would bring about a vote to oust him.
When Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was ousted, every single Democrat and eight Republicans voted against him. But Jeffries said some Democrats may be willing to promise to vote to keep Johnson as speaker if he moves forward the $95 billion bill, which includes aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
“It does seem to me based on informal conversations, that were Speaker Johnson to do the right thing relative to meeting the significant national security needs of the American people by putting it on the floor for an up-or-down vote, there will be a reasonable number of people in the House Democratic caucus who will take the position that he should not fall as a result,” Jeffries said.
The $95 billion bill has already made it through the Senate and is expected to pass through the House by a wide margin if a vote is held. Jeffries said he believes the legislation would receive “north of 300 votes from both sides of the aisle” if brought to the floor.
Johnson and other congressional leaders met with President Biden at the White House on Tuesday to discuss the foreign military aid bill and a deal to avert a government shutdown, which will happen if a spending bill isn’t authorized by Congress before March 8. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said “good progress” was made in the meeting, but it’s unclear when a deal will be reached on either issue.
Johnson supports spending more on the proxy war in Ukraine and providing more aid to Israel to support the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza but is still holding out for a deal on border issues. The military aid was initially part of a $118 billion bill that included border spending, but Johnson rejected it since the House wasn’t involved in the negotiations.
So the democrats would protect Speaker Mike Johnson, but not Speaker Kevin McCarthy. That tells you A LOT doesn’t it. If Johnson is “saved” by the Warmongering Democrats to get their foreign aid bill passed he certainly won’t be saved by Republican voters when he is PRIMARIED by a MAGA challenger in November.
They all help each other so beautifully when the cause is more military
wastespending.The Establishment all way`s closes ranks when one of their own is threatened .
Good to see the parties come together when it comes to supporting genocide and enriching their donors. When it comes to helping the American people. . . not so much
“Good to see the parties come together when it comes to supporting genocide and enriching their donors.”
Like a lovely faith-based marriage, they agree on the important things.
“It does seem to me based on informal conversations, that were Speaker Johnson to do the right thing relative to meeting the significant national security needs of the American people by putting it on the floor for an up-or-down vote, there will be a reasonable number of people in the House Democratic caucus who will take the position that he should not fall as a result,” Jeffries said.
Yes, otherwise Russia will nuke us after taking over Europe, Chinese hordes will invade us and Hamas will use us as human shields.
It’s like the domino theory redux.
On steroids.
Sending Lethal Weapons/Money to Israel, Ukraine is in our National interest, why? Israel, Ukraine are two Nations being run by deviants, by depraved Zionist, who do NOT respect human life. Are we in America, going to be labeled War Criminals? Why are Members of Congress siding with the depraved leaders of Ukraine, Israel? How many Members of Congress are Zionist and should be voted OUT of office?
Which part of Russia invades Ukraine and Gaza attacks Israel did you miss?
Of course, bipartisan war parties at its best.
Jeffries should disclose how much money he’s getting from AIPAC and the Ukrainian oligarchs. The entire Congress, except a few populists, is working for everyone other than the American people.
The money from AIPAC, at least, is no secret, in terms of the next election:
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/hakeem-jeffries/summary?cid=N00033640
TOP CONTRIBUTOR 2023 – 2024
American Israel Public Affairs Cmte
$323,050
And from AIPAC itself, re the last election:
https://www.aipac.org/resources/the-aipac-pac-in-2022-2as6c
We endorsed the full Democratic and Republican Leadership Teams
With Jeffries being the first one mentioned.
The two party system is actually One…!
I am so confused as to how the parties switched on the issue of war and peace. In the early to mid 2000s Dem voters (not the politicians) were antiwar and suspicious of the national security state while the Republicans were frothing at the mouth gung ho Rambo wannabes. Social media and MSM propaganda really did a number on the minds of “liberal” voters. When you bring up this point eyes start to glaze over. It’s like Animal Farm was a documentary of the future.
IMO, and remember I know nothing: A great indicator is the State of Virginia, which is considered a blue state. That’s the state where they prosecute whistleblowers. That’s because they know they’re more likely to get guilty verdicts. George Orwell may not even have known how correct he was, but his books were good indications.
I would say part of it is simple party politics. When “we” are in power, the war du jour is just and good and necessary. When the other party is in power, the war du jour is derisively labelled “Mr. So and So’s” war. With Mr. So and So being the President that “we” don’t like, and the war being the result of his misrule. This trope goes back to the very first war fought by the American government (not counting the Revolutionary War), the War of 1812, which was labelled “Mr. Madison’s War” by a disgruntled New England Federalist.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mr_Madison_s_War/1rVCAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR1&printsec=frontcover
This trope, I believe, was also used by partisan opponents of WWI (“Mr Wilson’s War”), WWII (“Mr. Roosevelt’s War”), and the Korean War (“Mr. Truman’s War”).
But I do think there is an ideological component, as well. The Federalists were generally bellicose towards the revolutionary French Republic, but dovish towards establishment Great Britain. The Jeffersonians were the exact opposite. In the 2oth Century, the Democrats were perhaps more hawkish in the lead up to WWII, as the enemy was going to be right wing fascism. The Republicans were perhaps more hawkish during the Cold War, as the enemy was left wing communism. The War on Terror, from a dovish perspective, was a war against Third World malcontents, and so appealed more to Republicans than Democrats. The War on Putin, from a dovish perspective, is a war on conservative nationalism, and so appeals to Democrats more than Republicans. GOP war hawks hated “the USSR,” but are OK with “Russia.” Which, to me, provides some evidence that ideology is at least as important as geopolitics, in their thinking. Similarly, but perhaps with even less justification, many Democrats seemed to drop their concern about US imperialism in the Middle East, once President Bush left office. Under Obama, and now Biden, war mongering against Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iran are much more acceptable to them. Even though the “threat” from the Arab and Muslim world is hardly any greater now than it was from 2001 to 2009.
Republicans tend to put things more straightforwaredly (or, one might say, simplistically) when the they support war (self defense, patriotism and nationalism, and straight up power politics), the Democrats tend to be more mealy mouthed, and use value-laden, universalist terms (democracy, human rights, international law, genocide). And there are actually very few pure pacifists, pacifists for all seasons.
Agreed. Each party is like, “We love the wars we start the best!”
It was never that simple. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) was a Yes vote to give Dumbya a blank check for War on Iraq if you recall.
That should really help the speaker with his own caucus. I’m sure they’ll all praise him for his courageous act.
It will be interesting to see if he’s stupid enough to take them up on their offer, or whether he really just doesn’t want to be speaker any more.