"Schumer needs to get the hell out": House Democrats fume over DHS funding talks

https://lemmy.world/post/42708963

"Schumer needs to get the hell out": House Democrats fume over DHS funding talks - Lemmy.World

Well sounds like the Democratic leadership to aggressively court disgruntled voters and listening and addressing their concerns is off to a great start with this.

House Democrats found themselves in the familiar position this week of seething at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for negotiating a deal with Republicans to keep the government funded.

Why it matters: While his caucus remains behind him, Schumer is becoming persona non grata for much of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

“I’m gonna continue to tell you that Schumer needs to get the hell out over and over and over until he does,” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios. “He continues to demonstrate to us that he can’t meet the moment,” she added. Another House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer insights into private conversations among lawmakers, told Axios: “The main feeling among members is a lack of trust in his strength and ability to strike a hard bargain.” State of play: The House voted Tuesday to pass an appropriations package that funds the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, State and Transportation until September.

It also keeps the Department of Homeland Security funded at 2025 levels until Feb. 13, which is meant to give Senate Democrats and the White House enough time to hash out a final deal on ICE and Customs and Border Protection reforms. But while Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have said they won’t accept anything short of reforms of those agencies, their GOP counterparts have cast doubt on the prospect of a quick deal. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) went so far as to tell reporters that a deal by Feb. 13 was an “impossibility,” floating a year-long stopgap funding bill to keep DHS open. What they’re saying: Jeffries has essentially threatened to allow a DHS shutdown if his demands aren’t met, saying in a statement Tuesday, “Absent bold and meaningful change, there is no credible path forward with respect to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill next week.”

But Schumer, asked if he would make the same ultimatum at a press conference with Jeffries on Wednesday, told reporters, “I’m just going to say we’re sending them a proposal and we await their response.” Senate Democrats — unlike their House counterparts — have the ability to block a DHS funding bill because it takes a 60-vote majority to pass it in the upper chamber. What we’re hearing: Some Democrats, worried that the threat of a DHS shutdown is not enough to force Republicans to the table, feel Schumer gave up the party’s best leverage by cutting a deal to reopen the rest of the government.

“Every time that we are winning, we seem to somehow sabotage [it],” Ramirez fumed, noting that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has already ruled out several Democratic demands.

Said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.): “Personally I was of the opinion … that, ‘What are we going to get in 10 days that we didn’t get?’” A second House Democrat who spoke on the condition of anonymity told Axios that “all those spending bills, that is the most leverage,” and that “many folks in the [House] Democratic caucus wish that we had more confidence in Schumer’s ability to navigate a good, tough deal.” Yes, but: Some progressive House Democrats are still confident that the DHS bill is enough leverage to secure some concessions.

“I don’t think Republicans want a DHS shutdown,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told Axios. She added: “If Donald Trump wants to … issue the State of the Union with the entire Department of Homeland Security shut down, I think that is a terrible indictment of his leadership. And I do think they care.” Jayapal and Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) both argued that public opinion against ICE is another piece of leverage for Democrats, with García telling Axios: “They 'ought to be worried how their policies are faring with the American people.” The bottom line: “It could be a huge failure” for Senate Democrats, Ocasio-Cortez says, if they fail to secure the reforms the party are demanding.

“The stakes are quite high.”

Massey, the Republican on the outs, told the dems they have to actually hold out for something concrete.

Jesus christ, maybe massey should be appointed to lead. How are there no challenges to democratic leadership? Not now, not, ever? What is wrong with the party? What is wrong with us for accepting this?

Massie has more balls than the entire DNC combineded

Edit sp

It takes a lot of courage to buck the party right now. He probably would make a good leader, the stances of the leader on issues really aren’t important right now either, getting concrete concessions is. Extracting information from oversight is. Producing political messaging, from press releases to questioning administration/government officials, to digging up dirt on perversions of the administration. ie exporting government data to private data banks owned by thiel’s faction from doge contrary to law.

We need a leader that can help the party members do these things. Their own politics aside they need to want to fight, maybe that’s schumer’s problem, he doesn’t want to upset the baileys, the fictional family he cites as real to justify playing to the right despite the baileys seemingly hating him and voting republican.

I say give massey a chance if no one else will throw their hat in the ring. I’d give it to Marjorie if she was still in the game, she at least had the backbone to stand up.

Too bad balls doesn’t equal decent values.
So you know nothing about Massie?

Oh? Do you mean like this?

In February 2017, Massie introduced a one-page bill that would abolish the United States Department of Education,[59] and cosponsored a bill that would abolish the Environmental Protection Agency.[60]

Or

On December 29, 2017, Massie voted for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.[64] Before voting, he said he would support the bill to cut taxes, but that he would oppose “new government spending,” despite the $1.5 trillion estimated to be added to the national debt according to the Congressional Budget Office in the wake of the bill being passed.[65][66]

Or

On April 10, 2019, during former United States secretary of state John Kerry’s testimony to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Massie called Kerry’s political science degree from Yale University a “pseudoscience degree” and called Kerry’s position on climate change “pseudoscience.” Kerry responded, “Are you serious? I mean this is really a serious happening here?”[73]

Or how about this doozy:

In July 2021, Massie voted against the bipartisan ALLIES Act, which would increase by 8,000 the number of special immigrant visas for Afghan allies of the U.S. military during its invasion of Afghanistan, while also reducing some application requirements that caused long application backlogs

Turns out Israel isn’t the only fucking issue in the US. Maybe don’t be so fucking myopic.

Said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.): "Personally I was of the opinion ... that, 'What are we going to get in 10 days that we didn't get?'"

You only got what you got because you funded DHS for two more weeks. Now you have all the leverage because social services aren't on the chopping block anymore.

The DNC is controlled opposition and the fact that centrists are in denial about it puts all of us in great peril.
Tinfoil hat conspiracy theory right there.
I dunno, even if they aren’t, they are so ineffective that they kinda are doing that anyway
When you’ve got one side that mostly follows the rules and one side that mostly cheats, the side that cheats will usually win.
Most of the Dems aren’t really trying to follow rules or not tho. They’re just kinda sitting there watching it all happen.
Realistically what do they have the power to do that they aren’t doing? Republicans have control of the House, Senate, Judiciary and 27 state governorships.
No facts or historical perspective here, only “both sides same” on .world

Realistically what do they have the power to do that they aren’t doing?

Off the top of my head: Not support the funding of the Gestapo. That would be an excellent place to start.

Okay, let’s say they stand their ground and say “zero DHS funding”. They don’t have the votes to stop it and it gets funded anyway, right?

BUT, if they can negotiate to give something to peel off a few Republican votes in exchange for things like investigations into the killings of Good and Pretti, body cams on ICE, and no face masks for ICE? Isn’t that better than nothing?

Disagree all you want about it tactically, but at least you recognize the logic, right?

If Republicans have the votes without democrats they’re not going to negotiate concessions anyway.
If you can strip away a handful of Republican votes by appealing to their morals or negotiating over ancillary matters (we will support your unrelated pet project if you vote with us).

But the side that mostly follows the rules is also just handing the cheating side unearned Victoria over and over again.

Scummer is rolling over on his already shitty appeasement offer.

Shumer’s perspective is to try and get what he realistically can get. He could stand his ground and say “defund ICE” but it would have 0% chance of success. He believes if he can negotiate and get even 1 of 10 requests fulfilled, then that is better than nothing. With Republicans having the government trifecta, there is little leverage to get any concessions.
No, it’s not his perspective. He’s not fighting for Us. He’s an awful fucking negotiator. He gives his “final offer” as his opening bid, then continues to negotiate against himself from there.

He gives his “final offer” as his opening bid, then continues to negotiate against himself from there.

Normally I would agree with you, but shooting high with demands largely just leaves the right being unwilling to even talk about negotiating. This is what they did with the original 10 demands Democrats made.

cbsaustin.com/…/ridiculous-republicans-reject-dem…

Proposals put forward have to be tempting enough to pull individual Republicans to negotiate.

He thinks he’s safe from the jackboots.

He’s gotten multiple threats on his life including bomb threats to his office in December. He is very aware he isn’t safe.

'Ridiculous:' Republicans reject Dems' 10 demands for DHS reforms

With a partial shutdown looming, U.S. lawmakers have eight days to broker a deal on the Department of Homeland Security’s annual budget.Progress, however, remai

KEYE
Threats from the rabble is different than the paramilitary rolling up at his door in the middle of the night

If you don't have at least one of the phrases "controlled opposition" or "manufactured consent" in your comment, you're not really a good bootlicker for left-wing authoritarians.

In b4 "All authoritarians are right-wing" and "No True Communist" objections.

Jokes on them. I favor parties that advocate for the extinction of the human species. Left or right doesn’t matter so long as humanity is wiped out completely.
That just sounds like a description of fascism.
Fascism needs people to rule over. Extinction, by definition, means nobody to rule over upon success.
Fascism must always have a target to persecute. The logical end game is everyone is dead.
Well my preference is to sterilize the whole population so the species is infertile. Wouldn’t have to kill anyone at all to achieve extinction.
Wow so edgy and cool
You think so too? Hell yeah.
It’s ecofascism.
What left-wing authoritarians??? What fucking year is it??

"No True Communist"

No country claiming to be Communist is actually Communist.

That’s not what I said. Can you answer the question I posed?
It's 2026.
And the other part of the question?
Recently, the Castros, Chavez, Maduro, and Xi.

None of which have used the phrases “controlled opposition” or “manufactured consent”, because none are American.

An authoritarian left wing US politician may be exactly what is needed in the current situation, but i don’t think you’ll be able to name one.

I didn't imply there were famous American* left-wing authoritarian leaders who have had an opportunity to gain the power they desire. I was talking about Americans on the left who would willingly support some ill-meaning populist who parroted their favorite talking points. They think harm could never come from someone on their side despite numerous historical examples because those people are retconned to be right-wing once they seize power.

You've stepped in on behalf of the other guy and managed to really derail things.

*Chavez, Maduro, Fidel, and Raul are/were all Americans, and not only Americans speak English, but I know what you meant.

Americans on the left who would willingly support some ill-meaning populist who parroted their favorite talking points

Oh yes, these definitely exist. I wouldn’t describe any as authoritarian.

I would also add that (US) Americans idea of far left is Bernie Sanders who looks pretty centralist to the rest of the world.

Got it, so no you can’t. There are none.
Do you mean in the world or in charge of the USA? Because the current g<y is the closest we've gotten to an authoritarian so far, and he's not left-wing.
Calling out a potential fallacy is useless if you can’t actually correct with information.
Really? Cause they are both bought by AIPAC lol

People love blaming the Jews. The National Association of Realtors spent more than the AIPAC last cycle.

www.opensecrets.org/…/2024

Top PACs

Here are the top political committees (PACs) for the 2024 election cycle based on total fundraising, contributions to candidates, total spent, and total spent in independent expenditures and communication costs.

OpenSecrets
Schumer literally said himself that his job is to fight for Israel.

That has been the position of nearly every US politician in both parties for the last 40 years. He also calls for a real ceasefire and a two party state, recognizing Palestine has just as much right to statehood as Israel.

Meanwhile when Trump was asked if it’s his job to uphold the Constitution, he said " I don’t know".

I agree, Trump shouldn’t lead the Democratic Party either.
Fo now we all have exactly two choices: Democrats or Republicans. Shumer or Trump. Any third option is an illusion or a lie.
So Shumer can’t be held accountable for his actions? Why is he being granted a stranglehold on the Democrats instead of being replaced?
I don’t think replacing Shumer would change anything. What actions did he take that weren’t fully supported by the majority of the party? His replacement would likely be Corey Booker, Amy Klobuchar, or someone similar.
So Americans should just give up and not expect demand better from their elected representatives?
Demand better from the elected representatives who actually have the power to make changes - the Republicans!
Also demand better from elected representatives that want to get more votes in the future.
Absolutely. We always need to keep pressure on them to be better because the people who want everything to be worse sure as hell do.
Fuck you nazi bootlicker. How many realtors have committed genocide?
By your logic, AIPAC is running the government based on how much they donate. If you are being logically consistent then you should also believe realtors are running the country.
One group has nothing to do with the other nazi bootlicker