Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, may retire from Congress next year with a reputation that is anything but gilded among his fellow Democrats.
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., is seeking re-election in a competitive district. But some of her colleagues may consider “MGP” to be notorious if she returns to Capitol Hill in January.
The House of Representatives is now out — again — until Sept. 14. That follows a six-week sabbatical over the summer. But were it not for Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez, House Republican leaders may have had no other choice but to send members home early a few days ago. The duo committed something close to a parliamentary heresy, handing the GOP the necessary votes on a procedural matter to unlock the floor for the majority.
Republicans lacked the votes to do it on their own – had Golden and Gluesenkamp not intervened.
JEFFRIES THREATENS ‘SERIOUS RESPONSE’ AFTER DEMOCRATS HELP GOP ADVANCE ANTI-SOCIALISM VOTE
However, the most schismatic betrayal was that neither one briefed Democratic leaders on what they planned to do. Congressional leaders from both sides are never pleased with members who stray from the party line. Especially on a procedural vote, which is almost always the responsibility of the majority to pass. But at the very least, leaders like to be clued in. They might give someone a pass if they understand the reasoning.
“Did they give you a heads up that they were going to vote with Republicans on that rule?” asked Fox News’ Kelly Phares of House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass.
“They did not. They surprised us,” answered Clark.
Yours truly observed to Rep. Tim Kennedy, D-N.Y., that in politics it’s always best to “stab someone in the front” rather than “in the back.”
“There’s a lot to be said for that,” replied Kennedy.
Let’s start with the nature of the dissent by Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez.
Most major pieces of legislation in the House need what’s called a “rule” before the body can debate the measure. The House must debate and approve a “rule,” dictating how much time and what amendments would be in order. The House can’t debate a bill until it first OKs a rule. And except on rare occasions, the majority party is expected to carry the rule. It’s simply something the minority party rarely assists with – except in extreme circumstances.
Last week, the House planned to debate a resolution to condemn socialism, green-light the SAVE America Act, maintain the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine and consider a plan to help the nation’s lobster industry. The House adopted the rule, 210-208. However, five Republicans voted nay on the rule.
It’s about the math.
Those GOP defections would have killed the rule and frozen the floor for the rest of the week. In fact, the vote may have compelled House Republican leaders to cut everyone loose from Capitol Hill. The House was stalled considering any legislative traffic.
But Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez voted yes, unlocking the floor for the remainder of the week.
Democrats seethed at their colleagues for blindsiding them.
“The two Democrats who have voted to move a procedural bill forward didn’t do the right thing,” said Kennedy.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Clark and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., issued a rare, joint condemnation of the dissenting duo. They characterized the revolt “a significant breach of trust,” adding it “necessitates a serious response.”
“It’s a mistake to vote against our caucus. We have to be unified,” said Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa.
Golden said he voted with Republicans so the House could pass the bill safeguarding Maine’s lobster industry.
“It’s about protecting the working-class communities those men and women support. In my district, lobster fishing is the backbone of towns up and down the coast,” said Golden. “In some towns, 20 to 40% of residents hold a lobster license.”
Political observers view the infighting as a misstep for the party ahead of November.
“As a member, you should be able to communicate with your leaders and how you intend to vote,” said Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev. “Something was skipped along the way.”
While some lawmakers blamed Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez, others said this was the fault of Jeffries. Others put it on Clark. Still, there were those pinning this on the entire leadership team.
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., knows something about his own members undercutting him. Republicans stripped McCarthy of the speaker’s gavel nearly three years ago. But the California Republican believes the problem with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez falls on the shoulder of Jeffries.
“You would know who would be the five to eight Democrats who would leverage that [vote],” said McCarthy. “You would have reached out to them.”
One former Democratic aide noted that it wasn’t even what Jeffries, Clark and Aguilar said in their statement. But it was the very fact that a statement appeared. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., never would have sent a statement. Her leadership power was implicit. Everyone knew not to cross her. Or, if there was an issue, at least have a conversation.
HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN
Jeffries has not been the House’s top Democrat in the majority. That could change if Democrats win the House this fall. But McCarthy argued the statement said a lot about Jeffries.
“If Hakeem has to put out a statement that he’s strong, it’s a sign that he is weak,” said McCarthy.
One senior House Democratic leadership source said rank-and-file members demanded accountability by Jeffries. Golden is done in January. Gluesenkamp Perez has repeatedly defied political gravity in a district which favors President Donald Trump. The source didn’t believe anything Machiavellian was afoot between Democratic leaders and Gluesenkamp Perez. But the source indicated that Gluesenkamp Perez tussling with the Democratic brass probably helps the Washington Democrat back home.
Still, some Democrats demanded retribution.
“I think there should be consequences. I think at the end of the day, we have a caucus united against what Republicans are trying to do,” said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee.
Actions speak louder than words. Remember that Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez voted against a “rule” in the House. Gluesenkamp Perez appeared at an unrelated meeting of the Rules Committee the next day. During her testimony, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the panel, swiveled around in his chair and sat with his back to his fellow Democrat.
Jeffries hoped to turn a corner with the renegades. He spoke briefly with Golden. But had a deeper conversation with Gluesenkamp Perez.
“Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and myself were able to talk in a very forward-looking way about how to make sure that we’re all on the same page as we approach the midterm elections and beyond,” said Jeffries.
He indicated that McGovern and Gluesenkamp Perez also talked.
But the leader was cryptic when pressed why he even had to issue an admonition.
HOUSE DEMOCRAT LASHES OUT WHEN GRILLED ON WHETHER SOCIALIST VICTORIES WOULD THREATEN DEM UNITY
“Does that say something about where the Democratic Caucus is and if they follow your leadership?” I pressed Jeffries.
“Res ipsa loquitur,” answered Jeffries. “That’s Latin for ‘the thing speaks for itself.’”
Not really.
Was the statement just a warning shot as Jeffries tries to flex his muscles in anticipation of becoming speaker and presiding over a Democratic majority next year? Where’s that “serious response” that Democratic leaders spoke of?
Some Democrats who are angry about the desertion will demand action. And if Jeffries doesn’t respond forcefully – despite a declaration otherwise – some members may interpret the warning statement as prattle.
That said, Democrats need Gluesenkamp Perez to win her district in order to claim the majority. And more specifically, Jeffries needs Gluesenkamp Perez to support him for speaker if Democrats have control next year and the margin is close.
Res ipsa loquitur? If Jeffries doesn’t take action – that speaks for itself, too.
