Shoe-in mouth?
More fighting and dysfunction over Johnson. Some Dems say they might help him out, which I dislike. Let them tear out each other’s throats.
if it gets us Ukraine aid, I say go for it. Other than more investigations that don’t go anywhere, there really isn’t a lot bad that Johnson could do. And while another marathon Republican centered dysfunction session might be nice for the cameras, I think having Dems swoop in and put country over partisanship might help even more in highlight the difference. Also such a move would hardly increase Republican party unity. Cooporating with Democrats is the ultimate unforgivable Taboo, so it would absolute irrevokably splinter the party.
Eh, I think getting aid to those nations is worthwhile, although by splitting it into individual sections AND a final bill with additional conservative priorities seems like trying for a line-item veto. It isn’t going to please anyone obviously.
It would be interesting to see which groups of (R)/MAGA support which elements after all…
And of course, by supporting Johnson, the (D) team can give him a few additional kisses of death for the crazies.
ETA - Look, a simulpost with Buck_Godot, and we agree! Great minds and all…
What would be the exact order these things are supposed to go?
Scenario 1
- Ukraine aid passes.
- MTG and others call to remove Mike Johnson from the speakership in response.
- Democrats abstain from the speaker vote so Mike Johnson wins.
Scenario 2
- MTG and others call to remove Mike Johnson from the speakership.
- Democrats abstain from the speaker vote so Mike Johnson wins.
- Ukraine aide passes.
If it’s Scenario 1, can’t Democrats just backstab him once the Ukraine aid bill passes?
I guess so, but if the Dems first act after agreeing to work together, however limited that collaboration, is to stick a shiv in his back…seems stupid and shortsighted. And not in any “we’re better than that!” sense. Seems stupid strategically.
This.
Yes, that’s physically possible, but there’s no way the Democrats would actually do that. It would kill any future attempts to actually govern under the current Congress, and they are too responsible to do that.
A back stab is far more likely under your Scenario 2: Johnson gets what he wants, and then backstabs the Democrats. That would buy back some of his credibility amongst the MAGA crowd, and he wouldn’t care about the long-term implications for the destruction of good governance, because he doesn’t actually care about that.
But I guess the question is why would he do that. If he wasn’t going to back the Ukraine bill then why not do it publicly in the first place, simply don’t piss off the freedom caucus and avoid the whole fiasco from the start?
Because it will make the Democrats cry, and then he’ll get high-fives from all the Republicans and be one of the cool kids at lunch time.
ETA: But more seriously, the MAGAts are already mad at him for passing the bills that keep the government funding going. They’d probably still try to oust him, even if he did kill the Ukraine support. So he gets help from the Dems, but then also supports the pro-Russia faction of the GOP, in hopes that they don’t turn around and vote him out again.
Sorry I just can’t game theorize a situation where aligning with the Democrats and then betraying them, and supporting the Ukraine bill and the killing it, works better for him than simply not working with the Democrats and not supporting the Ukraine bill at all.
It’s because the MAGAts already want to get rid of him. Him just going along with them now won’t change that, they still blame him for letting the funding bills pass.
To win back their support, he has to do something dramatic, and pwning the libs would be a good start.
If that dramatic things starts with “conspiring with the Democrats”, even if he eventually betrays them, he’s permanently non-grata with the party.
At this point his only hope for keeping his position in the party is to bend over grab his ankles and say to Gaetz “Thank you sir may I have another”.
Yeah, I don’t think either back stabbing scenario is actually likely, it’s just that this one is more likely than the Democrats being the ones wielding the dagger.
At this point, it comes down to what Johnson wants to do. If he wants to stay as Speaker until the new Congress is elected, he’ll have to play ball with the Democrats, because the GOP is already gunning for him. If he doesn’t care about that, then he’ll just burn it all down around him as he leaves.
OK then we are in agreement.
I think the Democrats should wield control of the house. With a divided Republican team, if some of them try to oust Johnson, the Democrats should vote to keep him in. Not due to any cooperation or liking of Johnson himself, but just to squash that free-dum caucus like a bug. They can whine and cry all they want about Johnson in cahoots with the evul Demoncrats, but he’ll still hold the gavel, and if Ukraine aide gets thru, that’s the bottom line. Someone has to be the adult here. Bonus points for a MTG tantrum in front of the cameras.
I agree. And this article tells me it is likely to happen:
Hindsight is at least 20/40, but I can’t fail to remember that even the most moderate House Democrats were unwilling to do the same to retain Kevin McCarthy, who was clearly less extreme than Mike Johnson. At the time, the idea was that Democrats should only support the GOP leader as part of a deal where some popular Democratic domestic initiatives would be guaranteed a vote. And that deal was always unrealistic. Now the Democrats will prop up a no-deal Mike Johnson because a few extremists threaten long-term core bipartisan foreign policy priorities that Johnson is agnostic on and that McCarthy would have championed without a deal.
The reason that Democrats are going to do it for Johnson, and wouldn’t do it for McCarthy, is that, under precent circumstances, their base has come to understand the need. I’m mostly thinking here about Ukraine facing the equivalent of the 1940 Germany-on-Britain blitz. Progressives do know that is going on. Right?
McCarthy was handing out promises to everyone, left and right, even when he knew he couldn’t deliver. Democrats could only trust him to stab them in the back. Johnson may be more extreme, but at least they know what they are getting with him. And putting down the whole “rebellion” wing of Republicans, defanging them, in order to get shit done has some value on it’s own. It will literally reduce their power, which is a good thing.
And they (the Democrats in the House) don’t even have to vote for Johnson, thereby giving explicit approval to his rule. They just need to vote “present” and let Republican votes alone determine Johnson’s fate if a motion to vacate the chair is introduced.
or just have an “event” and not be there.