Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D) calls for new house leadership

[867-5309.]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[WarGamer]

1. The optics are bad...

The Pelosi's are such active and successful stock traders that there are LITERALLY traders that follow the Pelosi trade movements for their own trades...

I don't think ANY Congress-person should own or trade individual stocks and I'd like to limit them to broad etf's like SPY or QQQ.

Not many people know... as of a couple years ago, multiple members of the Armed Forces Committee owned defense contractor stocks.

[867-5309.]

2. Agreed

and the delays in getting the bill out don't help.

[OAITW r.2.0]

3. Timing is everything. This ain't the time. nt

[former9thward]

10. This IS the time.

After an election the bill will never be called up.

[JohnSJ]

17. No. You don't do it two months before the midterms. You want to replace Pelosi, do it

after the midterms, either as speaker or minority leader in the House, depending whether we win the House or not.

Spanberger spewing we need new leadership before the midterms is a piss poor strategy. Challenge her after the midterms

It is more than just Pelosi. There is a real question if the votes are there, in both the House and the Senate

It will be called up if the Democrats win both Houses

[former9thward]

20. It has never been called up when Democrats controlled both Houses.

And it has always been an issue.

As far as Pelosi goes, in 2018 she said 2022 would be her last year as Speaker. She repeated that statement in 2020:

At a news conference on Wednesday following her nomination by Democrats to another term as speaker of the House, Pelosi was asked how long she planned to stay in the role – and said this:

“There was a move to put limits on the leadership and the chairs of committees. They said they were going to do it, they didn’t do it. But what I said then was whether it passes or not, I will abide by those limits. I can’t wait to be working with Joe Biden. … I don’t want to undermine any leverage I may have, but I made the statement.”

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/politics/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker-leave-position/index.html

[JohnSJ]

23. From my perspective the only thing that matters is winning the midterms

[ShazzieB]

35. +1000!

[W_HAMILTON]

4. "Bad things about Democrats."

I think I'm gonna take a page out of the book of how some other posters have started replying to the stories you choose to push.

[Kingofalldems]

34. Every freaking day too.

[Demsrule86]

5. No it didn't 'grow' with the GOP. I must ask why you feel the need to post this and why this

Rep feels the need to say this so close to a midterm. Clearly, she is not ready to be in leadership.

[texasfiddler]

6. Addressing the broken hand in the emergency room while the person next to them is bleeding out.

I am more concerned about fascist GOP members about to take control of congress. We can address this important issue on November 9th.

[msongs]

7. well she won't have to worry about this if repubs take the house and she is in the minority nt

[Celerity]

15. Spanberger's one of our most vulnerable frontline Dems, many of whom were supporters of the old bill

I have had a few issues with Spanberger, but in this case she was on the right side about the bill

Steny Hoyer was the power player lead opponent of it, with aid from the retiring Stephanie Murphy, and of course, Pelosi.

The original bipartisan bill framework had a decent chance of passing, but the leadership-approved new bill was DOA.


Here is a short right-up I received 3 days ago in an email from Punchbowl News:

STOCK Act faces uncertain future

House Democratic leaders are barreling ahead as if they’re going to put their bill banning lawmakers and senior aides from stock trading on the floor this week. But privately, there are serious concerns with the proposal and whether it could pass.

First of all, here’s the bill. It was released late Tuesday night. The legislation applies to lawmakers, spouses, dependent children, the president, vice president, political appointees, “judicial officers,” Federal Reserve governors and presidents and vice presidents of Federal Reserve banks. The Democratic package requires these public officials – upon entering government service – to either divest their financial investments, liquidate them, donate to a charitable organization or put these assets in a qualified blind trust. There are a number of exemptions. These elected and appointed officials and their spouses can own mutual funds, ETFs, Treasury bills, government bonds, Thrift Savings Plans and equity in small businesses that don’t “present a conflict of interest.” There will be some wrangling over that small business language if this measure ever gets passed into law. Every corner of the economy presents potential conflicts for members of Congress and senators.

Right now, we think it’s unlikely the bill comes up for a vote before the House leaves town for the midterm elections. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is opposed to the bill, as we scooped Tuesday. But he’s far from alone. Republicans are angry at being left out of the drafting process, so they’re unlikely to help Democrats pass this bill. And several other Democrats, including some Frontliners, don’t want to vote on the proposal. Remember, Democrats only have a four-vote margin. We caught up with Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida – who is waiting out Hurricane Ian from her Orlando-area district – to discuss Democratic opposition. Murphy is a chief deputy whip and a retiring Frontliner. “Given the kind of nebulous outlines of the proposals, there’s enough members that are uncomfortable that we wouldn’t have the votes to carry it on the floor,” Murphy told us.

There are a variety of reasons why Democrats could vote no. Some of them are angry about the process. They’re being asked to support an extremely complicated bill with little time to review the actual text. House Administration Committee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) has been in charge of drafting the bill. Other Democrats don’t like some of the underlying provisions in the bill. Murphy signaled she would vote against the bill if it came to the floor this week. “It’s important to be thoughtful and provide people with plenty of time to understand the consequences of what the proposed legislation would be,” Murphy said. “We need to spend a little more time working on the specifics of the bill, socializing the specifics and then taking another swing at it when we have a bit more time. This week’s plate is already full legislatively with the need to fund the government.”

Murphy also gave a shout-out to Hoyer, who is the leadership member closest to the Frontliners. “As always, vulnerable members are grateful to Mr. Hoyer for standing up and reflecting their concerns and taking the public stance for positions that they share with him privately,” Murphy added.

[W_HAMILTON]

29. I don't know how you can read that and think that Spanberger is in the right here.

Considering everyone claims that it is such a popular bipartisan issue, the fact that it might not even pass points out how inherently flawed the current bill is.

And that's not taking into account that the House-passed bill will almost assuredly never be signed into law, because the Senate is working on its own version and its versions almost always take precedence due to how much more difficult is it to get bills passed in the Senate.

And that's also not taking into account that even if it were to pass the House, it would require Democratic members to be forced into hurriedly voting for a bill that many of them see as flawed, and for what? For it to be immediately DOA in the Senate.

I know that Spanberger has a vested self-interest here in that she wants to be able to tell her constituents that she helped pass this pet project of hers, but if her reelection relies on tricking voters into thinking she played a major role in passing a consequential bill, when reality is that whatever the House passes almost assured will never even make it into law (for reasons I previously mentioned), she should have picked a better reelection strategy.

[JohnSJ]

8. FFS, we are two months from the midterms, and this is the time for this? Really

We don’t need repukes to help us lose, we have Democrats who feel this is the time to go after Pelosi

Can’t this be done after the midterms?

[onenote]

9. How does blocking this from being voted on help any Democrat?

Spanberger is an incumbent Democrat in a close race. She's campaigned on her efforts to get this legislation passed. This hurts her, huts our chances of holding the House, and I can't see anything positive for Democrats from Pelosi sitting on this.

[JohnSJ]

14. That wasn't my point. Challenging the Democratic speaker two months before the midterms

helps us how again?

Wait until after the midterms, and if we are fortunate to gain the majority in the House, that is the time to challenge her leadership, not now

Hey, but what do I know.

[W_HAMILTON]

16. Because...

...(1) supposedly some members have problems with portions of the bill that has been proposed thus far and having them vote for a flawed bill or vote against the "preventing Congress from insider trading" bill (which is how it will be spun by their opponents) are both bad options; (2) the vote will be meaningless since the Senate is crafting its own bill and it will not vote on the House bill before the November elections and, if history is any indication, they won't even vote on the House bill and instead will send their finalized version of the bill to the House and force them to vote on it since it's easier to pass a bill in the House than it is the Senate; and (3) Democrats fighting Democrats at a time when their attention should be focused squarely on their Republican opponents is of course not helpful to Democrats.

I mean, I could probably go on and on. There is no shortage of downsides. The better question would be, what are the upsides? At best, you have a bill passed in the House that is going nowhere in the Senate until after the November elections anyway. It just would be for show with no actual substance behind it.

[betsuni]

21. Thank you. I always wait until someone says what's really going on when I see these

sorts of thing.

According to the tweet's comments, everybody's enjoying outrage at Pelosi, the usual Democrats-are-corrupt-and-only-think-about-money-we-need-new-leadership, that Pelosi is holding this up because she's thinking about her stock portfolio. Always the same, when something doesn't get a vote it's conspiracy theory time and the assumption it's now or never as if it can't be voted on in the future. Of course following the rule of never giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt until facts come out.

[W_HAMILTON]

22. And it's all made worse, because...

...Nancy Pelosi is one of the absolutely best ever at navigating the very divergent factions in her caucus and still getting substantial, meaningful bills passed -- even with the narrowest of margins.

For every Democratic House member that thinks they are going to get everything they want passed if they could only get Nancy Pelosi out of the way, they need to think again. She's the one that can get the AOCs of the party and the Spanbergers of the party on the same page. When she's gone, good luck finding someone that the experience and political savvy to do that. I guess they will just go from blaming leadership to blaming each other.

[betsuni]

28. It's cynical pessimism for the present leadership and fantasy utopia for "new blood."

And when the anti-establishment becomes establishment, they're in exactly the same situation. As we can see, they blame everyone else (except Republicans) but themselves, the victims of whatever.

[W_HAMILTON]

30. Exactly. Except it will be even worse...

...because when that "new blood" becomes the new establishment, there will be even more in-fighting and less getting-things-accomplished because they will be less experienced and their leadership will not carry the same weight as long-time, storied Democratic leaders like Pelosi, Clyburn, etc.

As I said elsewhere, look to John Boehner's leadership during the Tea Party era as an example. Maybe a certain segment of Democrats want a Democratic House that passes feel-good bills that go nowhere and never make it into law, but I -- and most Democrats, I imagine -- want to see actual progress being made.

[betsuni]

31. It could be "Democrats can be too big of a tent" and purity tests. Disaster.

[kentuck]

32. I think we have to look at it from the perspective....

...does it help to unite or to divide the country? The times are different today.

[onenote]

24. Banning stock trading by members of Congress is a popular issue.

Spanberger's bill has 58 Democratic co-sponsors, including Katie Porter, Jerry Nadler, Don Beyer, and Ilan Omar -- which is a pretty good cross-section of the party.

Given the popularity of the issue, given the breadth of support among Democrats, how would passing it before the elections be "meaningless" even if the bill died in the Senate after the election. The Republicans are masters of introducing legislation that they know won't pass but that they can point to as appealing to their base. This is a smart and easy vote for Democrats.

[W_HAMILTON]

25. If it were as popular as everyone claims, it would have passed already...

...and it will pass before the end of the session; that is, unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that """Democratic leadership""" like Nancy Pelosi is inherently greedy and doing this not to force a controversial vote on a flawed bill right before the November elections but to protect her moneymaking ability in an institution she likely will retire from forever in a few short years.

And it's funny you bring up Republicans, because I was going to bring them up in my other post about how we will miss experienced leaders like Pelosi that can build a consensus among a diverse caucus once they are gone. Just ask John Boehner how well a caucus warring with itself ultimately performs. Tax cuts for the rich and a whole lot of nothing else is what they accomplished.

[onenote]

37. And what will we accomplish if McCarthy is speaker?

I don't think a single Democrat running for Congress would be endangered by voting for a bill to block stock trading by members of Congress and it will help some who are in very tight races who have made it an issue they are campaigning on.

And I'm less concerned with the ability (or desire) for Republicans to pass legislation than I am in their ability to prevent us from passing legislation. And their strategy seems to be working pretty well -- they've controlled the House 14 of the past 22 years and are the verge of regaining control again.

[W_HAMILTON]

38. I'm certainly not advocating for McCarthy as speaker...

...in fact, I think unnecessary divisiveness within our party this close to the November elections only makes it that much more likely that Republicans will regain control of the House, which is why I think this is an idiotic thing to do right now (for the reasons I've made clear abundantly throughout this thread).

Also, from another poster's post in this thread (Celerity maybe?), the issue isn't so cut and dry as you and others make it seem. For all the talk of it being a bipartisan issue, Republicans don't want to give Democrats votes to pass it. Some Democrats see problems with the bill, others won't more time to adequately review it before voting on it rather than being forced to take a vote right now simply because the House will be going on break soon, etc. And, even in a best case scenario, it passes without any further in-fighting -- and it goes nowhere, because the Senate is working on its own version and will almost assuredly not take up the House-passed version. So, what has really been accomplished other than a symbolic vote, which, at the present time, is apparently divisive due to the myriad of problems I've laid out?

[onenote]

39. If Republicans want to vote against a ban on stock trading, please give them the opportunity

There are over a dozen Republican co-sponsors of Spanberger's bill and if the rest of the Republican caucus wants to vote against it for whatever reason, fine. But it makes no sense for any Democrat to vote against it -- indeed, if it is just a "symbolic" vote, that makes it one with no downside and lots of upside during the final month of campaigning.

[W_HAMILTON]

40. Republicans have voted against much worse.

And it doesn't hurt them because their voters don't care.

And it does make sense to vote against it, at least right now, based on the reasons I already said.

If Spanberger can't run her campaign and win reelection based on the MUCH more substantial and significant legislation that House Democrats have actually passed and seen signed into law, she has more problems than a symbolic vote on congressional stock trading will ever be able to fix; furthermore, based on their history, the biggest proponents of such a bill are also the types that will immediately complain about its shortcomings as soon as it is passed.

[867-5309.]

42. Pelosi didn't want any bill, but felt some pressure - that's a good thing

Spanberger's bill has been worked on for many months and has bi-partisan support

The House Administration Committe wrote a different bill more recently with no chance of passing. It's this bill that was written too late and is causing the confusion

[leftstreet]

12. Wasn't her district redrawn and her seat's no longer safe?

Sounds like she's campaigning for GOP votes or something

[UTUSN]

11. Does she want to help?

[Phoenix61]

13. Bash Dems enough and you'll get new house leadership

It won’t be Dem but it will be new

[brooklynite]

18. New House leadership is almost certain post-election...

...regardless of the outcome.

[jalan48]

19. Good to hear.

[kentuck]

26. In my opinion...

There should be new leadership on both sides of the aisle. Neither has shown great leadership during these very trying times. It would be better for the country to have new leadership.

Just my opinion.

[AntivaxHunters]

27. Good! She's 100% correct

Our lawmakers have NO BUSINESS owning stocks and their spouses & immediate family shouldn't be able to own them either!
Talk about a conflict of interest.....

[Kingofalldems]

33. Wow--twice today.

[betsuni]

36. +1

[Autumn]

41. It's time for her to pass on the baton.