More interesting might be those who aren’t on the list
Stay on topic in Politics & Elections
You even knew it was off topic, don’t do this again.
Moderating:
Personally I’ve found Jeffries and Schumer to be fairly milquetoast party leaders in their respective Houses. Both can manage their caucuses but both appear to prefer shooting down any change to the status quo (even when the status quo disadvantages the Democrats) than actually leading their caucuses.
Whether they do this because that’s what the party donors (of whatever kind) want or because they don’t want to change the system that put them in power or just because they’re not particularly visionary guys - I dunno. But a recall (even if it was an actual option) would be one of the worst possible approaches to achieve positive change.
Is there any evidence that Hakeem Jeffries would be an ineffective Speaker of the House? Because I remember that Nancy Pelosi got a lot of criticism, including for her age, but I believe was an effective Speaker of the House.
And note that during the State of the Union address, the Speaker of the House and the Vice President sit behind the POTUS while the speech is delivered. It’s childish but I appreciate that racists might freak out over the idea of a black man sitting there. Also, as Speaker, Jeffries would be second in line to the presidency after the vice president.
If Jeffries is half the leader Pelosi was, sign me up.
I find it interesting that after @Try2B_Comprehensive created this thread based on a false premise, they haven’t returned to comment on it.
Also, when I see him interviewed on television, he seems an effective communicator of the Democratic Party message. So I’m not sure what the complaint is.
As I recall, when the Republicans were unable to elect a Speaker, the dems elected Jeffries and he gave a fiery speech that I liked quite a bit.
It may not be but there is little doubt that AIPAC influence will raised during any possible Speaker election. And I am by now not very worried about jinxing Dem House control.
If being pure of AIPAC is a criteria, and it is to some, then few qualify.
What happens regarding any contest for Speaker is going to set the stage for the presidential nomination cycle. The path for his being not Soeaker only comes as a result of the Progressive wing withholding support. Initially voting for one of their own and then settling on a compromise candidate with concessions.
That sets a tone for how the wings perceive each other.
I don’t think it will happen at least out in the open mainly because AOC has impact and she is looking to either a Senate seat or running for president, clearly aiming to keeping all of progressive support AND picking up some on the center left with the argument that progressive wins show the country wants their flavor of change, without provoking an unification against her.
I think she will behind the scenes help smooth a process over.
He was also the one responsible for this speech.
Politico: Hakeem Jeffries breaks the House record for longest floor speech
Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries delivered the longest speech in House history Thursday, holding the floor for well over eight hours to delay passage of Republicans’ domestic policy megabill.
“I’m here today to make it clear that I’m going to take my time and ensure that the American people fully understand how damaging this bill will be to their quality of life,” he said, later adding: “Donald Trump’s deadline may be Independence Day. That ain’t my deadline.”
That was just a year ago. He doesn’t come across as “milquetoast” to me.
Yeah he might not the only person for the job but given the Speakership, a Democratic Senate to get bills to, and an effective Whip (which Katherine Clark is widely thought to be) he will be effective. Even if Trump vetos most.
What was the net benefit of this act? I don’t understand why this was important if it didn’t change anything. Might it have done so had others also given really long speeches? Did Republicans actually listen to what he said, and learn something?
If we want to opposition leaders to do something effective, I guess we need to figure out what that might be. I’ll settle for standing up and saying “this is wrong.” At least until he has a majority.
It was really all that the Democrats could do at that point, since they didn’t have the numbers to really block it. And it helped draw attention to it at the very least. Jeffries’ actual speech involved telling the real stories of real people who were going to be negatively impacted by the legislation; he didn’t spend hours reading poetry about his dog or listing every name in the local phone book. (Well, he did need to fill some time so he talked about some unrelated matters, but much of the speech was very much on point.) The House does not have a filibuster, unlike the Senate, and Jeffries was trying to unilaterally perform the closest thing that a minority party has in that body.
But most importantly for this discussion, it counters the assertion by some that Jeffries is meek, timid, and unassertive. On the contrary, he was willing to put in a huge effort to highlight a problem, a record-setting effort. He couldn’t leave the podium or it would be over, so he stood there for hours and snuck in bits of food and drink to keep going as long as possible.
Thanks. I appreciate that he’s limited in his options; I just wasn’t sure where to place this on the scale between “perfunctory” and “active resistance.” It sounds like it’s about the best he could do, and, as noted, at least standing up and speaking out (in such a way that gets media coverage), which I agree is significant.
I suspect that its because they are walking a tight rope between taking the activist position that the people in this thread want and not scaring off the mainstream uninformed voter who cares more about the price of eggs than the future of democracy.
That’s why leadership is hard. What people think they want, what they actually want, and what they need are often three entirely different things.
Alright, it is after the midterms. Let me add a few comments.
Looks like some of my assumptions were wrong. Recall isn’t a thing in NY and plenty of other places. Good thing I am am one of those “lifelong learners”.
There is some suspicion expressed as to, “Why Jeffries”? It really is the Speaker thing. It’s not the Black thing, or the Dem thing. Add the AIPAC thing and that’s the whole story. Or most of it- my original impulse was a 3-stage election process including the general, the primary, and then a recall the AIPAC candidates phase. But across the board recalls just wouldn’t be practical because of the scale of AIPAC’s reach, where it is a thing at all. So, I thought, how do we get Congress to understand that the public is serious about wanting representation for us, US citizens, and not the interests of some foreign power? My answer was to dry the big fish and recall Jeffries, for replacement with a not-AIPAC rep. It’d make a lot of other scalps itch at the least.
No, my animus towards AIPAC and Israel is not a story of anti-Semitism. For one thing, if it weren’t a historical thing, I’d consider it laughable and absurd. Anti… Semites? Really? A morphological prejudice? Because what, they’re too swarthy? Wrong kind of nose? If you could see me, you’d understand I am no position to criticize anyone’s nose. I don’t even get it.
If you think it is anti-Judaism, well, I don’t have a problem with that, either. Be Jewish, this is America, you get to be whatever you like. My position on Israel itself is probably controversial though: what religion is represented by genocide? None! It is offensive to me that they continue to present themselves as a “Jewish state”. No they’re not, they’re monsters. I’ll stop there.
As for “Jews control everything”, well, they control what they do, but I don’t think it is a conspiracy. And that’s not the problem. Hijacking my government to drag us into Their war is the problem. I will not be forgiving them, I want them converted to Palestine or else conquered and gone away, and the never, Ever want them influencing my government ever again, in any way.
“AIPAC isn’t foreign money”. Legally, no, but sure, bub. Who believes Israeli money doesn’t flow into AIPAC and to our politicians? Maybe we could make a poll of that.
Anyway, the elections are over, the Iran war seems to have been the biggest issue, and for all the criticism in this thread, I haven’t seen much r distance to the idea that Israel dragged us into this war. Utterly unacceptable, and I want AIPAC out of our politics, foreign money or not. And that is without mentioning the MOSSAD/Epstein manipulations. I have simply had it with Israel, and had it with AIPAC, and sacking an AIPAC speaker seems like a decent way to send that message and maybe effect change.
I think it’s valid to want any foreign country to have less influence over American politics. Especially one where it’s a one-sided partnership with an unaccountable gangster state that somehow seems to get more or less whatever it needs, while acting in ways that harm or offend US interests. We need to see less of that.
But it would be deranged to hang that on Hakeem Jeffries’ head, as if Congress as a whole isn’t eaten up with PAC money in general. Especially as he’s poised to become the first African-American Speaker of the House in history after a historic blue wave. It would be an unforgivable slap in the face to Black voters and activists who helped make it happen.
We can judge Jeffries after he’s seated and vested with the powers of the office. If Dems don’t have confidence in him, they won’t give him the gavel. If he screws it up, they can remove him. But let’s seat the man and let him do his job before we do the Republicans’ work for them by running him through the shredder.
Excellent post.
As I pointed out, Jeffries is not even in the top ten in AIPAC money, which does - for me- question the OP reasoning here.