General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepublicans in Problem Solvers Caucus voted with Trump 93% of time. Bipartisan? Not so much.
Good article about Problem Solvers Caucus from shortly before midterm election.
Of note is that the supposedly bipartisan Republican members of the Caucus voted with Trump the vast majority of the time and that the Caucus created their plan to withhold support for votes for the Speaker and attempt to weaken the House Leadership role this past summer, a time when it was becoming clear that the House majority would likely shift to Democrats.
Pretty clear that their intent is to hamstring Democratic leadership and solid Democratic legislation.
As to the Democratic members of this Caucus, Im starting to think of them as Liebermans Lemmings, since they are taking on his approach of supporting Republicans and Republican policy over the Democratic platform and majority purpose.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/05/house-problem-solvers-caucus-has-solved-few-problems-bipartisan-critics-allege/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0c48e1e8ff2d
~~~
The Problem Solvers also expressed faith in a set of proposed House rules changes they unveiled this summer to Break the Gridlock, vowing as a bloc to withhold their votes for any potential House speaker who did not agree to adopt the rules. The rule changes would weaken House leaderships control over which bills get a vote, forcing to the floor bills co-sponsored by more than 290 members.
UTUSN
(70,672 posts)**********QUOTE*********
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/whos-really-leading-the-democratic-rebellion-against-pelosi/
.... ... ideology is not driving this campaign, and this is no populist rebellion. In fact, its leaders have no discernible ideology at all.
Thats how corporate money rolls in the Democratic Party. It lays low, hides its true colors, and pretends it only wants to get things done.
The anti-Pelosi insurgency is not a movement. Its a cabal, orchestrated by the appropriately hashtagged #FiveWhiteGuys, a group of self-self-interested players with big money behind them. ....
...vague on the issues, big on cliches and platitudes, ... is the hallmark of centrism, the billionaire-funded political faction that serves its financial backers by selling themselves as non-ideological, technocratic architects of bipartisan consensus who can break the gridlock and solve problems.
For this crowd, solving problems always winds up meaning the same thing: cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and an unwarranted obsession with the federal deficit that alwaysjust accidentally, mind you!winds up helping corporations and the billionaire class. ....
...claims to be above parties and partisanshipwhich, in the end, is another way of saying its free of any principles except the interests of its paymasters. It often comes in the guise of patriotism, as when Seth Moulton says he places country over partya comment that, implicitly, is a deep insult to those who believe one partys proposals would serve the country better than the others.
The anti-Pelosi campaign is being supported by one of the mainstays of the corporate centrist worldthe cynical political ploy known as No Labels, which I wrote about in 2012, and its creation, the Problem Solvers Caucus. ... a guaranteed-employment plan for Republican and Democratic political hacks, ... ....
**********UNQUOTE********
suffragette
(12,232 posts)role and power, since they used that term as defining their plan to do just that.
Where was Break the Gridlock when Obamas nomination for Supreme Court was held up and undermined?
Autumn
(45,037 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)lilactime
(657 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,698 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Lieberman's Lemmings are a bunch of no good shit stirrers. They ought to be recognized as such.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)alliance with Republicans, just like Lieberman has done before.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)It took me a little while, but I figured him out in the end. I think a good word to use is "duplicitous".
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Autumn
(45,037 posts)members that are so eager to throw away our House win and make sure Republicans have a say in what we do?
suffragette
(12,232 posts)written before they kicked their summer-hatched plan into high gear this last week.
Here are the ones it names:
Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) co-chair
Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.)
Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.)
John Katko (R-N.Y.)
Ami Bera (D-Calif.)
Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) co-chair
Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Author Jeff Stein in the business section.
It seems to be used right now mostly for political and campaign purposes, said Andrew Grant, a Republican challenging Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) in Californias 7th Congressional District. Bera is a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus who was ranked among the bottom third for bipartisanship in the House by the Lugar Center, a nonpartisan think tank. Mr. Bera was reelected. Grant said months ago he called friends who work as Republican staffers in the Capitol to ask about the Problem Solvers. Everyone I talked to said, This group has done almost nothing, Grant said.
Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), who has voted in line with President Trump about 96 percent of the time, has mentioned his involvement in the Problem Solvers group in every debate. More than 110 House Republicans nearly half the caucus have more bipartisan voting records than Smucker, according to the Lugar Center. [Smucker] can use it to say, Look, Im working across the aisle, even though he is 100 percent in line with Donald Trump, doesnt hold any moderate positions and takes a ton of corporate money, Jess King, his Democratic opponent, said of the Problem Solvers group. People truly dont understand what its all about, and it keeps coming up.
Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), who has voted with Trump about 97 percent of the time, is the Republican co-chair of the caucus and uses it as his number one talking point like its obsessive, all the time; all the time, said Tracy Mitrano, his Democratic opponent. The Buffalo News, in endorsing Reed, cited his work in the Problem Solvers as a key justification, as did the York Daily Record in Pennsylvania when endorsing Smucker. Smucker and Reed both voted for the plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they voted for Trumps tax law last fall, two highly contentious and overwhelmingly partisan votes. Although they have more moderate voting records than the bulk of their caucus, many Republicans in the Problem Solvers caucus supported both efforts. ...
No Labels and its affiliated super PACs have thrown millions of dollars into the 2018 elections on behalf of Problem Solvers candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a money-in-politics watchdog. A group tied to No Labels spent about $1 million helping Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, fend off a left-wing challenger in a district often regarded as more liberal than Lipinski. ...They are just roadkill in the legislative process, Jim Manley, who was an aide to former Senate majority leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said of the Problem Solvers. Their track record is nonexistent, said Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a liberal member of Congress. Its more of a political cover operation than real legislative operation theres no policy product. ...
Thanks for posting this, Suffragette. I missed it.
Autumn
(45,037 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And this "rules change" attack explains what it's providing cover for right now.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)is very interesting.
Isnt he one of the nine this group has put forward against Pelosi?
And im using put forward on purpose here, since it looks like the whole group, including the Republicans, took part in that summer planning.
I think Grijalva nailed it in terming them a political cover operation.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Their attempt to cover their main agendas, including attack the woman, probably isn't going as planned as they're getting a lot of the wrong kind of publicity here.
We have a rules committee that isn't mentioned in any of this, so guess Nancy's playing her usual lightning rod "attract-and-diffuse-harmlessly into-the-ground" role. We've already been planning our own major rules overhaul, of course, repairing much of what the Republicans have done. Rep. Jim McGovern, previous ranking member, will replace Pete Sessions as chair.
Although Nancy, and supposedly McGovern, met with them last week (the article was as of 10/23, so that'd be the week before last), they haven't provided these poseurs an answer on which of their demands the committee might be open to.
They're not all older white men, just mostly, and do average out with less than a full head of gray/white hair. Rep. Murphy is Vietnamese American.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)trying to undercut decision making now that the Democrats will have control of the committee.
The more I know about this, the more vile it is.
And LOVE your last comment, especially the italicized part. So apt.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)If it was not, Paul Ryan would have lost on some bills that passes the House with uniform democratic opposition. If it was not, 1-3 pieces of legislation that had broad democratic support would have been put up for a floor vote via a discharge petition procedure.
Forget this problem solving BS, it is all about republicans trying to prevent majority democrats from voting on legistlation that the majority of voters have said that they wanted.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)pwb
(11,258 posts)Some surprised me. It was disheartening.