Conference fails to approve procedural motion to take up defense spending bill as government shutdown looms

The House Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy, was dealt his second humiliating defeat of the week on Thursday, when his conference again failed to approve a procedural motion as members continued to clash over government spending levels with just days left to avert a federal shutdown.

With no clear path forward in Republicans’ negotiations, the House concluded its work on Thursday without any stated plan to reconvene on Friday.

“Discussions related to [fiscal year 2024] appropriations are ongoing,” Congressman Tom Emmer, the House Republican whip, said in a statement. “Members are advised that ample notice will be given ahead of any potential votes tomorrow or this weekend.”

  • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him. He could play this like an intelligent human being and still keep his job, so long as he’s willing to weather a bit of right-wing media blowback for the next few months. He just has to strike a bipartisan deal, like he’s supposed to.

    • knotthatone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him

      That seems a tall order given his long history of biting the Dem’s hands every time they reach out. This is a problem of his party’s own making and stems from not honoring their earlier agreements around the debt ceiling.

      Besides, they can’t agree to something he hasn’t (and won’t) ask for.

      • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That seems a tall order given his long history of biting the Dem’s hands every time they reach out. This is a problem of his party’s own making and stems from not honoring their earlier agreements around the debt ceiling.

        I don’t disagree. I’m just saying Dems could offer to vote to keep him in his position in exchange for a bipartisan deal. That doesn’t mean they capitulate completely, just that they offer him something he wants (his job) in exchange for something they want.

        Besides, they can’t agree to something he hasn’t (and won’t) ask for.

        I didn’t say they’ve asked or are responsible for agreeing to anything, please follow the whole thread. I was responding to someone who said he’d lose his job if he worked with Dems on a bipartisan deal. He wouldn’t if they threw him the bone of a vote to keep him if his caucus moves to vacate him as Speaker. I’m not commenting on the likelihood of anything like this happening, simply that it’s possible.

    • tankplanker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Working with the Dems will make his next Primary difficult, he hasn’t got that long before that comes around again. This is what he, and a lot of the more moderate republicans are really scared of, being cut off from the grift by their own party.

      • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right, but it’s certainly a calculation that will change as pressure mounts. Is the political cost of working on a bipartisan compromise bigger than the cost of a shutdown he’ll be blamed for? Right now, maybe not. Over time? It might very well get there. It’s a lose-lose proposition at the moment, he just has to decide which loss he’s more afraid of.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        To have a functioning government. There’s 0 chance there will be a democratic speaker. There’s a pretty good chance nothing works, and normal people don’t get paid for weeks or months if bipartisanship is out.

        • queermunist she/her
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          To have a functioning bad government.

          Bipartisanship is suicide in the long run.

          • candybrie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The choices are the status quo or worse. There is no option for better that they’re rejecting by using bipartisanship to pass a clean CR.

              • candybrie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And how does not making a deal with McCarthy to pass a clean CR help with that exactly?

                • queermunist she/her
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Whatever deal they make will mean more money for the military, more money for drilling, more money for mining, more money for deforestation, and more money for brinkmanship.

                  America has to stop destroying the world.

                  • candybrie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    A lot of that falls under essential services and will continue to be done whether or not the money is there. Additionally, if the democrats had a super majority and trifecta, do you think that would actually change?

              • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You want to look like an unhinged melodramatic who shouldn’t be taken seriously?

                Because statements like that are how you look like an unhinged melodramatic who shouldn’t be taken seriously.

                • queermunist she/her
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s the Internet, no one takes anything seriously here 🙄

                  Leaving that aside, extraction of fossil fuels is going to fucking kill everyone and has bipartisan support. Also making war with Russia and pushing for war with China, two nuclear powers. Also filling the ocean with plastic, chopping down the forests, making new pandemics in factory farms, and many other new horrors.

                  If you aren’t alarmed you aren’t paying attention.