you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

A) Now that the articles have been introduced they can be brought up for a demand vote by the Speaker at any time, including in January when the speaker chances.

B) This is about creating and destroying political capital, as the other user said. Those 11 dems now explicitly endorse Pete Hegseth and the Trump regime, including all of its crimes. It's on record now, and that record will be used by both republicans and dems against them when they're up for reelection. It's a vote to show your hand and your donors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    For (B) I still don't quite get it because, for example, Pelosi is a lame duck retiring anyway come January. What did she have to lose by voting Yes for posterity, especially when substantively it would've led to nothing happened given the Senate vote threshold?

    Pretty obvious how badly this looks -- I mean Hegseth is pretty universally unliked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago

    What did she have to lose? Her fortune, her family's assets, any and all legitimacy she has. While you say she's a lame duck, she's still 'respected' by representatives in power. By making this stance clear, it's another thing that can be used against representatives that think Pelosi and her choices have any positive impact on democrats or society - aka, it's a cudgel people can hit AOC on the head with the next time she tries to defer to centrist dems on something.

    Pelosi might be gone, but her legacy of 'raising' junior reps is not, and those junior reps, for 'some' reason keep doing her bidding even when it goes against the mandate they were elected for.

  • source
  • parent