“Jeffries didn’t even whip the vote,” one critic said about the House minority leader, who wants to be speaker. “This is why people want a stronger leader.”

As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seeks to become speaker when Democrats retake Congress in January, critics questioned his leadership Tuesday after the Republican-led lower chamber effectively blocked a bid to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth by just seven votes—an outcome that may have been averted if more Democrats showed up to vote.

The 211-204 procedural vote effectively torpedoed Congressman Thomas Massie’s attempt to impeach Hegseth by sending the outgoing Kentucky Republican’s resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will likely gather dust during the remainder of the GOP-controlled congressional term.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

This isn’t driving a wedge on the left because Jefferies is not on the left.

It’s entirely possible that with the GOP control of the voting and procedures, there was no way that we could get a different outcome. If the dems had their shit together and were all present, then the vote would have been delayed until the GOP were all present.

That said, Jeffries is still doing a piss poor job at the politics. He acts like he 100% has the speaker role and there is no way it is in jeopardy and he gives zero fucks what any of the voters think about it.

He could have pushed everone to do maximum effort and be available any time when a vote could potentially be called - not because it can change the outcome - but because it would signal to the voters that the house is on the job and takes the people’s concerns seriously.

He could have crafted a statement about how the GOP would only close the vote when they were ahead so this was an un-winnable fight (more tricky and messy than the 1st option but maybe chaining them all to their desks is too hard?).

He’s had a series on unforced errors like saying very directly, the day after the election, that he doesn’t support medicare for all and doesn’t think impeaching the president should be a priority. There may be valid stratigic reasons for those stances, but saying it like that is just a fuck you to at least a third of the Democratic voters (actually, probably more like 2/3 for M4A)

In short, the party is divided and he is to the right of the majority on some key issues (M4A). An effective leader for 2027 needs to be able to keep the party together, not by bullying incoming members, but by managing public opinion and delivering on the items that the voters largely support.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 17 hours ago* (2 children)

    but saying it like that is just a fuck you to at least a third of the Democratic voters (actually, probably more like 2/3 for M4A)

    And I bet the percentage of Democratic voters who'd disagree about impeachment of Trump being a priority is north of 90%.

    Whether it's actually feasible without a supermajority ... who knows. Probably not. But not being willing to call it a priority is also a big 'fuck you' to the vast majority of Democratic voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 17 hours ago

    Your diatribe is exactly my point. I'm not onboard for Jeffries. I emailed my future Blue rep asking her to oust him from leadership. But sadly, we have to work with corpo dems to get anything done until they are all gone.

    My point is these types of articles fit in with the GOP strategy, to cause rifts in the "left"

    Quotes on "left" because of pedants, who keep yelling at me that there is no "left" in the USA.

  • source
  • parent