Useful idiots at best.
Putin’s paid traitors at worst.
Apparently only at most 55 Republicans are against Ukraine aid, and maybe a couple of them are just against spending money- maybe. 151 GOP voted in favor, ore or less.
The full House voted to approve the rule for debate on the legislative package with broad bipartisan support, 316 to 94. Democrats ultimately delivered more votes than Republicans — 165 Democrats voted in favor, while 39 opposed it, and 151 Republicans voted in favor, and 55 opposed.
So, less than 60 are firmly in Putins…err, trumps pockets.
Some Republicans want to blather on about keeping brown people out…err I mean “Border Security”.
The conservative Republican hardliners on the committee — Reps. Tom Massie of Kentucky, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Chip Roy of Texas — all voted against the rule, because border security was not being paired with foreign aid. However, the speaker said he would put an “aggressive” border bill to a vote on Friday. It failed to advance out of the Rules Committee, but the House will consider it under a suspension of the rules, which means it will require two-thirds support to pass.
Showing that Johnson has some balls anyway-
Johnson defended his decision Wednesday and said providing Ukraine with lethal aid was “critically important.”
Trouble is, that’s plenty enough to cause major Congressional dysfunction.
Sad but true.
She’s full of shit. They could switch to become Independents but they won’t do that either. They could remain Republicans and vote against MTG.
Not so sure - if they are planning on retiring anyway, it’s a way to potentially maintain some conservative credibility. They don’t have to vote or comment on any MAGA activities (“spend more time with family”), so can potentially convince themselves they have something resembling ethics/backbone but still get on that lobbying gravy train.
As do epileptic sheep.
She’s an FC nutter, how would she know what “moderate Republicans” plan to do?
The important thing is that the leopards eat each other’s faces.
I will guess that she’s just making shit up.
I read today, and could probably find the cite if asked, that Gallagher is postponing his planned retirement (which was supposed to be today, I think) in order to be there to vote in favor of Ukraine aid.
It would suck to miss the one really decent thing Republicans (with help from Democrats) have done in this Congress by a day.
I think a big part of why Democrats didn’t defend McCarthy is that he was still letting MAGA run the show–or, at least, interfere with it. He wasn’t getting things done because of them, and would refuse actions that would get rid of their influence, only finally giving in and doing something bipartisan as a last ditch resort. He constantly capitulated to the Freedom Caucus, going so far as to allow a single person to out him.
Johnson seems more ready to force MAGA to get in line, and willing to use bipartisan power. Supporting him means they could still possibly get things done. This won’t be his first time trying to get Dems on board.
Also, they just plain didn’t like McCarthy.
It’s much simpler - McCarthy regularly lied to the Democrats and didn’t keep his word, and so far, Johnson has not.
During all the foofaraw over McCarthy’s dismissal/electing his successor, there was a certain amount of handwringing on the moderate left over why Democrats weren’t supporting McCarthy or other Republican candidates as “the least bad option.” But this analysis ignores the fact that none of these Republicans made any effort to secure Democratic support – in fact, they explicitly rejected the idea of winning with Democratic votes because it would have severely undermined them with the Republican caucus.
If Johnson does survive a motion to dismiss due to Democratic support, it’s both because he’s accepted that he’s a one-term Speaker (which was likely the case regardless) and because there’s little left to do this Congress. They still need to pass something on the FY25 budget by October 1, but they’re almost certainly going to kick that can down the road until after the elections.
It was already mentioned up-thread but wouldn’t be to the Dems advantage to simply vote "present’? It would highlight (even more) the dysfunction in the Republican party and Johnson wins. What is the advantage to actually voting? Also, how long before one of the whackos files another motion to vacate? Will a Johnson win at this stage deter such a thing?
Little left to do; what have they actually done?
If Democrats vote in favor of Mike Johnson, he will be beholden more to them than to the freedom caucus. It will weaken the prestige of the entire caucus, and allow Democrats to say they are willing to reach across the aisle. And it will cement Johnson as unassailable, as long as he continues to look for compromise.
Most importantly, it will undermine the idea that threats are a replacement for compromise.
In this case, I think it would be a great idea for Democrats to support johnson. It was not a great idea for McCarthy.
I think that’s it. The basic difference is that Johnson is willing to reach across the aisle, and appears to keep his deals.
Neither of that applied to McCarthy, as far as I can tell.