on Thursday, Jeffries refused to saywhether he supported or opposed controversial efforts to integrate the US and Israeli militaries.
Jeffries also said this summer that he opposes Medicare for All, reversing his earlier position, and putting him at odds with a number of progressive Democrats who campaigned on the platform.
He’s been consistently hostile to the progressive faction of his party, refusing to endorse Mamdani for New York City mayor for months. And it was recently revealed that Jeffries met with Jared Kushner in private before the midterms
…Many progressives view Jeffries as an establishment figure who offers no hope for meaningful change and want someone less beholden to corporate interests to be speaker. Jeffries and some of his allies, meanwhile, have suggested that denying him the opportunity to become the first Black speaker in US history would be, to quote Bloomberg, “racially insensitive”.
…And we’ve seen this craven use of identity politics to smear progressive politics before, haven’t we? It’s the Bernie bros playbook all over again.
Hakeem Jeffries is a republican, effectively. It’s controlled opposition.
Jeffries and Schumer are just more Sinemas/Fettermans being exposed.
I’m actually very pleased with just how quickly progressives came out swinging against this bullshit. They’re too big to ignore now.
They are a uniparty, controlled opposition.
Republicans have RINOs, well Democrats have DINOs.
deleted by creator
Democrats win in historical landslide we finally have opportunity to have government to listen to us and we are falling for effort to divide us and result with weak Democrats that are fighting against each other and Democrats didn’t even start working.
You want Congress to act certain way instead of micromanaging who is the leader contact your senators and representative and say what your stance is.
The speaker and majority leader in Senate’s job is to make sure that all Democrats vote together. If Democrats are all aligned then the job of leadership is easier.
Here is HCR explanation of it that says it much better: https://youtu.be/Eqjm4avbvdw?t=2011
Never thought I’d downvote a pro-HCR comment, but here we are. She’s just wrong on this.
The primary legislative job of both the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House is to control what, when, and how any particular bit of legislation comes to the floor for a vote. They are first and foremost both legislative positions, and it is in the legislative duties that their vast individual power resides.
You can have an entire party that wants something, even a supermajority, and not have your bill come to the floor because your own party’s Speaker blocked it. Case in point: all the times the House Republicans in the current Congress have had to sign a discharge petition to get around Mike Johnson.
That’s what Dems in the new Congress will have to do to get around Jeffries. Same goes for Chuck Schumer, especially when it comes to slowing down cash flowing to Israel:
I have a lot of respect for HCR and listen to her regularly, but on this she is dead wrong.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries will advance legislation they don’t like, and have proven it time and again, most recently with Jeffries not whipping the Hegseth impeachment vote.
I listen to HCR almost daily, but she respectfully misses the mark on this topic. Sorry.
“Elections for Senate Majority Leader and Speaker don’t happen until January,” but the fight begins now. It’s an absurd comment to make and is like saying, “Elections for midterms aren’t until November, so why start campaigning 3 months out!?”
If those positions are representative of ideological-center and carrying the broader Congressional Chamber, then leaving these conservative-right Leadership roles in place is a flagrant dismissal of The People’s desire to shift the Overton Window back left at least a little bit. Both House and Senate just shifted back left, and leadership should proportionally shift leftward in kind.
Literally: Without the Speaker’s approval, bills cannot be brought to the floor without a vote – **IF Jeffries is a Sinema-like plant, then what does that spell for the Agenda, especially when he has already backpedaled on interest in Medicare For All?
These are DEMOCRATIC Leaders and in ostensibly SAFE BLUE SEATS. They should be significantly more left than this, and while they’re procedural positions they absolutely do hold powerful voices in terms of determining the vision and agend afor Democrats.
If Jeffries wants to be the House Whip, that’s another story. Let him. If Schumer wants to be in an advisory role as a US Senator and cede ground, then let him.
But they must go in terms of leadership positions.
“Nothing gets done if you lose the caucus.” — Newsflash: Nothing is going to get done anyway, because you (HCR, etc.) still pretend that Republicans are acting in good albeit ideologically-opposed faith. They are not. They will play scorched earth forever. Trump will veto anything and everything and blame Democrats. Have we STILL not learned this lesson, dating all the way back to Obama? For fuck sake.
Look,
If Congressional Democrats push Medicare For All up against Trump (which has supermajority support by the electorate0 and force him to veto it, then that sets Democrats up so well for 2028.
It’s a no-brainer. 2028 Democratic Primaries began the moment Midterm polls closed, and I’m all for this purification process and holding our own accountable as to the direction this country MUST go.
I have ZERO interest in compromising with fascist Republicans. Zero. Neither should you. Press the attack. Don’t start coddling conservatives… Again.
I don’t like Schummer he was already a majority leader and he showed that he is a bad leader.
I don’t know how good is Jefferies, but I don’t like him either especially after he thought meeting with Kushner was a good idea. Definitively not good optics meeting with a civilian who has no position in government and is close to the center of the corruption Democrats supposed to investigate.
Having said that we should express our concerns but not force then to choose specific people. The leader is there to make sure all Democrats act as a single block.
You are forgetting that there are still many non progressive Democrats and the tough pay will be to have them vote together. It is not an easy job, and someone who would be good needs to be great at internal politics and be liked or respected by their colleagues.
This is why Pelosi is considered as one of the best speakers, because every bill she brought for a vote, passed. She definitively wasn’t progressive, but she helped push some progressive changes.
If we force them to choose someone who isn’t working well with test of them we will get a democratic version of Mike Johnson. Unable to pass nearly anything despite Republicans holding both houses and best at shutting down the Congress.
On Senate we had Van Hollen expressing interest in the position and we had other senators voicing support for him. This is good.
Though in House there is no one who did that. I mean people try to bring Pressley but she didn’t do it officially. I guess she started a petition, but that is going the wrong way, she should talk privately with her colleagues whether they would support her abd then express candidacy. Starting with a petition to people implies that maybe she doesn’t get along well, and if that’s true that might be a disaster.
The efforts to divide are coming from the inside now. There’s a realignment that may be happening and it will squeeze out the old guard. Yes they need to work together - but under what banner? There’s not much point to having democrats in power if they keep doing the same thing as the republicans. You can tell the conservative Democrats to not divide and support the progressives, just as you can want it to go the other way. There are some fairly distinct policy directions to choose here, not much middle ground.