Invite your colleagues and friends interested in investing to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thank you (and their larger pockets!) later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 7
Watching progressive Democrats flail on the recent attacks on Israel (Ed Markey got lustily booed over his comments) just highlights how much Gaetz' putsch has cost the GOP.
If they had a Speaker, there already would have been floor votes on some very, very pointed resolutions of support of Israel and condemnations of Hamas - and well as emergency allocations of resources to help Israel fight back. Those measures would have been drafted in a way that overwhelming majorities in the House could vote for them, but members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus would have to oppose. A very, very painful split.
Even if the objectors handled their opposition perfectly, it would create invaluable talking points and fundraising opportunities for the GOP. It would give them a generational opportunity to be more attractive to Jewish voters, and perhaps take back a marginal seat or two based on that vote. And if the progressives didn't handle it perfectly....well, one ill-considered line in a floor speech or a press conference could sow more than division and anger within the Democrats. This is such a raw, emotional issue for part of the caucus right now that a misstep could lead to permanent rifts.
But the GOP doesn't have a Speaker. The moment is being lost. The confusion passes, PR flacks are finding the right through-line, and by the time any measure hits the floor the Squad and their allies will have figured out how they want to handle it.
Pramila Jayapal should send Matt Gaetz a fruit basket in deepest, sincerest thanks.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Heh.
The GOP does seem fractured, and has been since at least 2016. Your points are interesting.
However, while I don't have unconditional support for Israel, launching an attack on civilians is not cool (to put it mildly). If Israel goes after Hamas, I wouldn't voice any objection.
So why do you think "the Squad" would? I don't know all members, but people usually are referring to AOC and her progressive friends. I can't imagine they would speak out in favor of Hamas and this action. (Don't know who Ed Markey is, but will google after I finish this post.) I would be shocked if they approved of killing and kidnapping civilians.
No. of Recommendations: 1
OK...
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/10/massachus...Making those comments at a pro-Israel rally was stupid. Everyone who would bother to show up is going to be very pro-Israel. You need to speak to your crowd.
But he's not wrong, at least in spirit. Both sides should try to stop fighting, return kidnapees, and stand down. Neither can do it unilaterally. But it needs to be done, or one side (likely Hamas) will get wiped out with huge collateral damage. But I still wonder if Hamas has another, more indirect, agenda. In which case Israel may just walk right into it, like we did after 9/11.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Both sides should try to stop fighting, return kidnapees, and stand down.
No, they shouldn't.
Israel can't let Hamas survive this attack. Again, this is Israel's 9/11. At least 700 people were killed, maybe another 150+ taken captive, in a country 1/30th the size of the U.S. They cannot allow Hamas to commit these atrocities without reprisals. There have to be consequences to Hamas for doing this.
Israel may fail to completely annihilate Hamas, but they have to try.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I get that. However, the Taliban still exists. It's even in control of the country (again). It is likely a fool's errand, unless they're OK with genocide. I was thinking that if the Israelis could show restraint to the Palestinian people, even as they attack Hamas, and talk to Palestinian leaders not associated with Hamas (I assume there are some?), they might be able to avoid that. Obviously very tricky. But they don't want to do what Hamas is counting on them to do. In the end, that likely will benefit Hamas more than Israel.
No. of Recommendations: 1
However, the Taliban still exists.
But they were banished to the wilderness for 20 years. If Israel could accomplish something similar in Gaza, that would be a meaningful accomplishment for them - even if it weren't permanent.
Even then, it's important to remember that the Taliban did not pose nearly the ongoing and constant threat to U.S. interests that Hamas does to Israelis. There's a higher cost to inaction for the Israelis than the U.S. faced in 2001. A Hamas that commits these kinds of atrocities successfully - without a meaningful reprisal or consequence - becomes far, far more deadly to Israel.
No. of Recommendations: 6
If they had a Speaker, there already would have been floor votes on some very, very pointed resolutions of support of Israel and condemnations of Hamas - and well as emergency allocations of resources to help Israel fight back. Those measures would have been drafted in a way that overwhelming majorities in the House could vote for them, but members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus would have to oppose. A very, very painful split.This is a dangerous tragic situation. Maybe not the time for House votes designed to create political splits on this U.S. Foreign Policy issue.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the New York Herald Tribune Forum for High Schools, New York, New York, March 23, 1957 "Foreign Policy in a Democracy"
"This leads directly to my second question, namely, what is the proper role of political parties and campaigns? There is a danger, I believe, of political debate playing either too large a part, or too small a part, in the foreign policy-making process... What about, you may ask, the traditional argument that politics should stop at the water's edge? To the extent that we should not "play politics" with our nation's security, or refrain from supporting the President for political reasons alone, this is true. Care must be taken to avoid bitter political splits that will make subsequent bi-partisan support impossible ' and responsible leaders must of course refrain from undermining by their headlines any delicate and difficult negotiations being conducted abroad."
https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resource...
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is a dangerous tragic situation. Maybe not the time for House votes designed to create political splits on this U.S. Foreign Policy issue.
Agreed, but politics ain't beanbag - and that concern is probably a bit overblown, given that even the most full-throated support of Israel would probably carry more than 90% of the House, even if there are a few dozen (if that many) CPC holdouts. There's no material risk of undermining the nation's foreign policy response to the crisis - and you force the folks who are genuinely against that kind of support to have to stand up and show that.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Returning again to the topic of this thread, the GOP apparently will not be scheduling a vote on the new Speaker today. So tomorrow, at the earliest.
Again, a massive Gaetz-inflicted wound on the GOP. One of the first acts of the new Speaker will almost certainly be a floor vote on a resolution supporting Israel and condemning Hamas. Had McCarthy been in place, that vote and floor debate would have been two days ago - with an with a good chance of getting one or more progressive Democrats to make a serious blunder in their defense of a vote against it. The CPC has had plenty of examples over the last few days to see how badly an unalloyed defense of Palestinian interests is playing out, and there's been more time for the more horrific details of the attack to be confirmed.
Now, though, the earliest that vote will come is Friday. You can bet dollars to donuts that the speeches that progressives give when it's time to vote will be much different than if they were forced to come up with them on the fly, a bit in the fog of war, on Monday afternoon. It will still be a horrible political moment for them - it's not like Cori Bush or Rashida Tlaib can or will give a floor speech that will win wide acclaim on this issue - but they're probably going to be able avoid stepping in it enough to create a truly damaging piece of viral video.
Again, Pramila Jayapal owes Matt a fruit basket, I think.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Now, though, the earliest that vote will come is Friday. You can bet dollars to donuts that the speeches that progressives give when it's time to vote will be much different than if they were forced to come up with them on the fly, a bit in the fog of war, on Monday afternoon. Sure about that? Your party has some serious problems when it comes to this kind of thing:
https://www.carolinajournal.com/video/north-caroli...Democrats walk out as North Carolina House votes for resolution urging Congress to support IsraelRashida Tlaib, who may be one of the most rancid people in Washington, D.C., can't be bothered to condemn the slaughter of babies. At best you'll get a vote of 'present' out of her. Cori Bush and some of the other weirdos in Jayapal's caucus might also.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The democrats have a real problem with radical antisemites up and down the party ranks:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2023/10/12...After this guy smugly tells the citizen journalist that "only 3 people are going to watch your BS video"...it's been seen >2M times.
The masks are off.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Dope1: The democrats have a real problem with radical antisemites up and down the party ranks..."
Who the hell ever heard of Tim Hernandez?
You guys can't even manage to condemn the leader of the republican party for attacking Israel, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel's Defense Minister Yoav Gallant but you managed to find some obscure nobody from Colorado with a capital D after his name who has zero influence over his party to fuel you anger.
Trump. Condemned. Israel. While. It's. At. War.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Who the hell ever heard of Tim Hernandez?
Over 2M have now. And he's just one of many Hamas supporters in your ranks who have a real problem with da Jooz.
And notice the language that Team You uses when it discusses the issue: "Settlers" and "colonization"...the exact language Team Yours uses when it talks about Americans.
The masks, they are off.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Sure about that? Your party has some serious problems when it comes to this kind of thing:
Yep. Just look at the example you gave. The right thing to do is to vote in favor of the resolution - but if you're not going to do that, walking out is better than giving a floor speech against the resolution. Heck, it's better even than silently voting no. Those folks had the benefit of seeing how badly efforts to express support for Palestinian interests are landing right now. And it's helping them land more on the "least bad" side of things, where their first impulses might have led them to do something far dumber.
Right now, Scalise doesn't look like he can get to 217. If that's the case, the GOP won't have a Speaker this week - pushing the earliest possible vote into next week. Which gives CPC Democrats even more time to see how this plays out, coordinate amongst themselves, work out some of their own divisions, and lay the groundwork for how they can handle a tough vote without causing themselves too much damage. And that's just on Israel - Gaetz' defenestration of McCarthy looks like it will cost them two weeks of their legislative majority and put them on the back foot when it comes time, again, to deal with a government shutdown.
Heckuva a job, Gaetzy.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Right now, Scalise doesn't look like he can get to 217. If that's the case, the GOP won't have a Speaker this week - pushing the earliest possible vote into next week.
Nah, it'll be Jim Jordan and Scalise will throw his support behind him.
The right thing to do is to vote in favor of the resolution - but if you're not going to do that, walking out is better than giving a floor speech against the resolution.
Except that by walking out, they're expressly turning their backs on the resolution...and letting everyone know where they stand.
Jayapal will vote yes on a resolution expressing support for Israel because she's pragmatic enough to know what either a 'no' or a 'present' vote means (plus her constituents will vote for her at a 95% rate back home in Seattle anyway, so a 'yes' vote won't cost her anything even though she'll do it with her fingers crossed behind her back). But there's a 0% chance that some of the more virulent CPC members would vote 'yes' and instead will vote 'Present' - Tlaib, AOC, Bush, Bowman, etc.
The masks are off, and the faces behind them ain't exactly pretty.
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 1
Except that by walking out, they're expressly turning their backs on the resolution...and letting everyone know where they stand.
Of course. The benefit of them having time before having to take a vote isn't that they'll be able to avoid any political blowback. If they're going to disagree with the resolution, they're going to do that. It's that they have enough time to "read the room" and avoid making any further missteps, like various pro-Palestinian groups did over the last week. None of them made speeches - so there was no opportunity to really screw up.
Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush will have had two weeks to fine-tune their objection speeches to avoid pitfalls that a rushed speech on Monday morning might have included. Two weeks for them to see what reactions have been, to hear from their colleagues, to work their constituents so that those voters back home know (and understand) that the Representatives can't deliver a stemwinder defense of Palestinian rights in this environment. It's political malpractice of the gravest order to give progressives that amount of time to avoid the pitfalls and ill-chosen phrasing that a quick response might have yielded.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush will have had two weeks to fine-tune their objection speeches to avoid pitfalls that a rushed speech on Monday morning might have included. Two weeks for them to see what reactions have been, to hear from their colleagues, to work their constituents so that those voters back home know (and understand) that the Representatives can't deliver a stemwinder defense of Palestinian rights in this environment.
Slight problem with that.
The normal Palestinian and sympathizer playbook is to make a tepid denunciation of the latest Hamas/ISIS/Hezbollah/whatever terror attack and then go into the Sami Al-Arian "we decry acts of violence on all sides..." school of debate where it's made clear that only 1 side really matters.
That won't fly this time. Literally in the eyes of the American public NOT voting yes will be seen as standing with those who would carry off women and cut their babies' heads off. The problem for the democrats is that Tlaib and the others aren't going to grasp that reality.
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Essentialy offering a so what?" But he didn't do that in that clip. Your source reeks of innuendo. That's why it's your source.
Up and down the ranks? Hyperbole much?
"It's not just the federal level where elected representatives have....
Your source reeks of misinformation. Hernandez wasn't elected.
"Hernández was appointed to the chamber in August 2023 by a vacancy committee. Hernández is the first member of Generation Z to hold a state office in Colorado.
"...your bullshit video eso." Who was the videographer.. a supporter of rapist Trump?
George Santos, Gym Jordan, Pedo Gaetz, Rapist Trump were elected.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Who the hell ever heard of Tim Hernandez?
...and the kicker is that, besides being a nobody, he's just a vacancy replacement. He wasn't even elected. He's just a pulse to fill a chair.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The masks, they are off.
New tag line!
'drip drip drip' all dried up.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The problem for the democrats is that Tlaib and the others aren't going to grasp that reality.
Nah - and I thought you were more cynical than that!
Look, even AOC was able to read the room. By Tuesday, she was affirmatively condemning the Democratic Socialist event in New York. AOC! Openly criticizing the New York DSA! Even the most dye-in-the-wool progressive Congresscritters have a halfway decent political radar - else they wouldn't have been elected. Normally that radar is laser-focused (mixed metaphor) on their district constituency - but given time and feedback from the rest of the delegation, they will understand the state of play around an issue.
That doesn't mean Rashida Tlaib's going to come out in full-throated support of Israel. She's more supportive of the Palestinian cause than perhaps any other Congressbeing. Her comments will reflect that - and her views will almost certainly not be in line with what most Americans think of the situation.
But what she's not going to do is give the same speech she would have given within 48 hours after the event - when the scope of atrocities was still being confirmed, and without benefit of seeing the backlash. It will still be great fodder for GOP attack ads - but it won't be anything close to the political that might have happened had she given a rushed response to the attacks.
No. of Recommendations: 3
'Who the hell ever heard of Tim Hernandez?'
Who the Hell ever heard of George Santos?
No. of Recommendations: 2
After this guy smugly tells the citizen journalist that "only 3 people are going to watch your BS video"...it's been seen >2M times. - Dope
--------------
And that is exactly why the Biden Admin and the FBI want to censor social media, to prevent those 2 million viewers from information.
No. of Recommendations: 1
But what she's not going to do is give the same speech she would have given within 48 hours after the event - when the scope of atrocities was still being confirmed, and without benefit of seeing the backlash. It will still be great fodder for GOP attack ads - but it won't be anything close to the political that might have happened had she given a rushed response to the attacks.
Here we agree. Matt Gaetz blew up the House leadership at a very inopportune time and I hope that dude gets blown out in the FL governor primary in a couple of years.
No. of Recommendations: 10
'Who the hell ever heard of Tim Hernandez?'
Who the Hell ever heard of George Santos?
What a poor attempt at drawing a parallel, given the unrelated contexts and circumstances.
Aside from that.....everyone has heard of George Santos by now because of the continuously mounting sea of evidence documenting his years of blatant lies and flagrant dishonesty and theft.
No. of Recommendations: 2
everyone has heard of George Santos by now because of the continuously mounting sea of evidence documenting his years of blatant lies and flagrant dishonesty and theft.
Fits right in with the modern GQP.
No. of Recommendations: 2
"What a poor attempt at drawing a parallel, given the unrelated contexts and circumstances."
I don't know about that. Two obscure individuals out of touch with their electorate. Each party has their oddballs and their fringe elements. Perhaps you would care to expound on your opinion.
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 5
Boater: <Each party has their oddballs and their fringe elements.>
Well yeah, except the republican party has come to be dominated 100% by the "oddballs and fringe elements."
From the criminal/draft-dodging/dishonest/rapist running for President right down to the "David Duke without the Baggage" vs. The Wrestler Molester Protector battle for House Speaker.
Thank you.
Facts matter.
No. of Recommendations: 4
"What a poor attempt at drawing a parallel, given the unrelated contexts and circumstances."
I don't know about that. Two obscure individuals out of touch with their electorate. Each party has their oddballs and their fringe elements. Perhaps you would care to expound on your opinion.
First of all, it's not an opinion. It's simple fact.
Secondly....would I care to expound? There's no need to add what I've already said, ie, "everyone has heard of George Santos by now because of the continuously mounting sea of evidence documenting his years of blatant lies and flagrant dishonesty and theft." All I can possibly add is that he and his expanding file of documented crimes are regularly covered in prime time news, and articles abound. We all recognize him instantly. And a group of his fellow newly-elected NYS Republicans now want to work to get him ousted from the House because of his rampant disregard for the law.
Tim Hernandez? Tim Hernandez?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes, Tim Hernandez.
A guy whose worldview is fairly mainstream in your party.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Who the Hell ever heard of George Santos?
He ran a campaign and won. He has had major coverage, so probably a few billion have heard of him, know his record.
There is not a living member of the GOP who is unaware of Santos' entire backstory YET HAVE NOT CALLED FOR HIS IMMEDIATE OUSTER.
Next question?
No. of Recommendations: 1
"George Santos is not "obscure"."
He was an obscure individual when New Yorkers elected him.
No. of Recommendations: 5
He was an obscure individual when New Yorkers elected him.
No he wasn't. He was a republican running for a 2nd time to flip a D seat in New Effing York when he finally won.
Give it up. There's no equivalence.
A New Yorker who campaigned in New York TWICE to flip a D seat is vastly more well-known than a CO state guy who was only appointed to a vacated CO state seat.
Absent that bit of video that the right-wing made viral, he's still completely unknown and not worth knowing since he's so far out of the left mainstream anyway. He's a nobody with no juice.
Santos, otoh, has a vote in the US COngress.
Why is Santos front page today and the Colo Rep not? Because the COLO guy (whose name I already forgot) is nobody of import that nobody knows and nobody except rw-extremists shiv a git about.
No. of Recommendations: 5
There is not a living member of the GOP who is unaware of Santos' entire backstory YET HAVE NOT CALLED FOR HIS IMMEDIATE OUSTER.That changed, finally, on Wednesday with the announcement that 6 Republican members of the House will be introducing a resolution to expell Santos. They aren't expected to succeed, but at least they are.....finally.....trying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/nyregion/santos...
No. of Recommendations: 4
"George Santos is not "obscure"."
************************************
He was an obscure individual when New Yorkers elected him.
But that clearly was NOT your initial (baseless) point. You were talking about the here and now. How about either own up to your goof, or don't say anything at all. Or are you taking a lesson from George Santos? (Sorry....I couldn't resist.)
No. of Recommendations: 4
They aren't expected to succeed, but at least they are.....finally.....trying.
Tying that back into the Speaker's race for a moment, I would bet quite a few dollars that the off-the-record price of Santos' vote for any Speaker candidate is an assurance that the ouster resolution won't be allowed a floor vote. And that Scalise told him to pound sand, so Santos was a "no" vote on Scalise.
I mean, if you're Santos, why not? If you have to defend against criminal charges, it's better to be a sitting Congressbeing than not. You're not likely to have an actual legislative career, or even perhaps win re-election - but if you can stay in your seat until January 2025 you at least have a chit to play in negotiating a deal with prosecutors and/or raising money for a legal defense fund. So there's almost nothing you want from a Speaker candidate except a promise that you'll get to stay for your term.
