Reminds me of the famous scene in 'Live and Let Die,' when the Louisiana Sheriff finally thinks he's caught James Bond, but is then taken aside to be told that Bond is a secret agent. "Secret agent? On whose side?"
“Rep. Rose DeLauro (R-CT) was denounced by GOP lawmakers - but she may have been right.”
She was absolutely right… by removing the section calling for an automatic cost of living raise, it would have gone into effect, and given about an $8,000 raise to these failures who chose not to work over the summer to do their job.
And Rose is a (very amazing) democrat, not a republican… typos happen.
But what the republicans did was bad (what else is new) because after she correctky accused them of giving themselves a raise, they said, “there’s not one word in this bill that gives a raise to members”, so technically, he was correct… it was the omission of the language that gave them a n automatic raise. Classic example of a “lie by omission”.
Today's NPR Morning Edition has an excellent six-minute overview of cases now facing the Supreme Court, all of which are from the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court (Texas and Louisiana).
GAETZ. "I think we need to move on with new leadership that can be trustworthy," Gaetz told CNN's 'State of the Union,’ as he again accused McCarthy of not honoring his promises to conservatives.
PS. Gaetz recognizes his own weakness so clearly in those
Jamie, On the pay raise thing. Are you saying they don’t really know what it all means? How is that possible?
I had to laugh about Rosa L. I was a Connecticut Yankee and knew her well before moving to Montana back in the 90s when was still a nice place to live.
The Republicans clearly left out that provision which limits the pay raise. (As I wrote, they added it back in later on before the final vote.) On one hand, it's clear the GOP wants to allow for a raise for members of Congress (that's how they're treating it in the Legislative Branch bill which will be up this week on the House floor). But on the other hand, they are right in saying that no raise voted upon now can benefit current members of Congress - you have to win in the 2024 election in order to get that benefit.
But when you add back the language that you so strenuously said wasn't needed - that tells me it was needed, and that the GOP was trying an end run on a pay raise for lawmakers.
OK, so you posted the link to the Congressional Record and now I have a question. Rep. Clark made the motion to adjourn so the Dems would have time to read the Continuing Resolution. Then they took a vote on the motion and the result was "yeas 0, nays 427", with 6 abstaining. What the heck? What was the point of that?
The point of that was just to play for time. The GOP released the CR at 10:58 am, and wanted a vote by 12 noon. If you read the bill, it's a thick-as-molasses gobbledygook of legislative language which Democrats wanted to read to make sure there was nothing stuffed in there (like the pay raise provision). So Democrats not only got the vote, but went to the floor and lined up in person to vote by card (manually) in the Well of the House. At one point, the line stretched outside the Chamber. It was all to play for time. That was followed by the 50 minute speech by Jeffries. All of it was to delay to read the document.
The sad part is that they question the integrity of those who might slip a poison pill or two into the legalese and mouse-print of the documents. That's why the integrity of leadership is so important.
The arguments against Ukraine support have never been coherent. Most war discussions I can understand the other side’s reasoning. But this instance is just a bunch of folks throwing tantrums.
I agree with the concern about involving our military, but I don’t have a problem with the arms supplying. One would think those who oppose the Ukraine funding would get together. Or is there plan to just imitate New York artists & flinging excrement.
Jamie, what is quorum for House votes. 50% + 1? For a vote to depose McCarthy, could they just "not make it to the floor" in time and this not be ok the record?
It's likely that Democrats will vote 'Present' so that won't impact the vote. This is just a majority kind of vote which will be involved, so if it's 195 yes, 22 no, and 210 present, the yes wins.
“Is Gaetz secretly an agent for the Democratic Party? No one else is doing as much to undermine, weaken and cripple the House GOP,” Gingrich tweeted.
Gee, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how we ended up with someone as odious as Matt Gaetz in the U.S. House. Gingrich’s lack of self-awareness is stunning.
Reminds me of the famous scene in 'Live and Let Die,' when the Louisiana Sheriff finally thinks he's caught James Bond, but is then taken aside to be told that Bond is a secret agent. "Secret agent? On whose side?"
"What are you? Some kind of doomsday machine, boy?"
“Rep. Rose DeLauro (R-CT) was denounced by GOP lawmakers - but she may have been right.”
She was absolutely right… by removing the section calling for an automatic cost of living raise, it would have gone into effect, and given about an $8,000 raise to these failures who chose not to work over the summer to do their job.
And Rose is a (very amazing) democrat, not a republican… typos happen.
Oops. Thanks for the heads up.
Yeah, I had to do a double take on that one and look her up. Purple hair?
Yep.
But what the republicans did was bad (what else is new) because after she correctky accused them of giving themselves a raise, they said, “there’s not one word in this bill that gives a raise to members”, so technically, he was correct… it was the omission of the language that gave them a n automatic raise. Classic example of a “lie by omission”.
I wish my old GOP would come back
Today's NPR Morning Edition has an excellent six-minute overview of cases now facing the Supreme Court, all of which are from the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court (Texas and Louisiana).
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/02/1201601347/supreme-court-new-term
GAETZ. "I think we need to move on with new leadership that can be trustworthy," Gaetz told CNN's 'State of the Union,’ as he again accused McCarthy of not honoring his promises to conservatives.
PS. Gaetz recognizes his own weakness so clearly in those
He opposes
Ah, but what of the promises McCarthy made to Biden for the debt ceiling?
To paraphrase Ron Ziegler about Watergate and Nixon, all previous statements are inoperative
Jamie, On the pay raise thing. Are you saying they don’t really know what it all means? How is that possible?
I had to laugh about Rosa L. I was a Connecticut Yankee and knew her well before moving to Montana back in the 90s when was still a nice place to live.
The Republicans clearly left out that provision which limits the pay raise. (As I wrote, they added it back in later on before the final vote.) On one hand, it's clear the GOP wants to allow for a raise for members of Congress (that's how they're treating it in the Legislative Branch bill which will be up this week on the House floor). But on the other hand, they are right in saying that no raise voted upon now can benefit current members of Congress - you have to win in the 2024 election in order to get that benefit.
But when you add back the language that you so strenuously said wasn't needed - that tells me it was needed, and that the GOP was trying an end run on a pay raise for lawmakers.
OK, so you posted the link to the Congressional Record and now I have a question. Rep. Clark made the motion to adjourn so the Dems would have time to read the Continuing Resolution. Then they took a vote on the motion and the result was "yeas 0, nays 427", with 6 abstaining. What the heck? What was the point of that?
The point of that was just to play for time. The GOP released the CR at 10:58 am, and wanted a vote by 12 noon. If you read the bill, it's a thick-as-molasses gobbledygook of legislative language which Democrats wanted to read to make sure there was nothing stuffed in there (like the pay raise provision). So Democrats not only got the vote, but went to the floor and lined up in person to vote by card (manually) in the Well of the House. At one point, the line stretched outside the Chamber. It was all to play for time. That was followed by the 50 minute speech by Jeffries. All of it was to delay to read the document.
It's sad they have to play for time just to see what they're voting on.
They know what they're voting about.
The sad part is that they question the integrity of those who might slip a poison pill or two into the legalese and mouse-print of the documents. That's why the integrity of leadership is so important.
The arguments against Ukraine support have never been coherent. Most war discussions I can understand the other side’s reasoning. But this instance is just a bunch of folks throwing tantrums.
I agree with the concern about involving our military, but I don’t have a problem with the arms supplying. One would think those who oppose the Ukraine funding would get together. Or is there plan to just imitate New York artists & flinging excrement.
Rap Sheet, it won't surprise me if the majority of arrested are from "The Sunshine State"...
Jamie, what is quorum for House votes. 50% + 1? For a vote to depose McCarthy, could they just "not make it to the floor" in time and this not be ok the record?
It's likely that Democrats will vote 'Present' so that won't impact the vote. This is just a majority kind of vote which will be involved, so if it's 195 yes, 22 no, and 210 present, the yes wins.
That makes perfect sense. Thanks Jamie!
“Just think if the GOP spent as much time focused on policy as infighting.”
Yes, the poor would be poorer, the rich would be richer, the poorly educated would be even more poorly educated, and the sick would be dead.
Let’s hope they do nothing but infighting for the rest of time.