- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,971
- Reaction score
- 12,368
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Democrats select Rep. Hakeem Jeffries as caucus chair
By Seth McLaughlin and Tom Howell Jr. - The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 28, 2018
House Democrats on Wednesday selected Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, a rising party star, to be their caucus chair when they retake the majority in the new year.
Mr. Jeffries, a 48-year-old serving his third term, bested Rep. Barbara Lee of California, a 20-year veteran of the chamber, in a 123-to-113 vote.
Both are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, reflecting the diversity among Democrats who will seize the House gavels for the first time in eight years.
Mr. Jeffries said the caucus will be “member-driven” and focus “like a laser beam” on making sure they have a successful two years.
“We won the majority. Now, we have to keep the majority,” he said. “In order to do that, we have to get work done on behalf of the American people.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/hakeem-jeffries-selected-caucus-chair-democrats/
I preferred Lee.
This makes me a bit angry, frankly.
IMO Jeffries is nowhere near progressive enough for the future of the democratic party.Both Lee and Jeffries were worthy of the post. While I admire Rep. Lee, Jeffries was the better choice due to age and ability to rally the new Representatives.
It's not so much that I should or do have a say, it's more that I'm concerned what this choice means about the direction of the democratic party in the next years.Other than the Speaker of the House position, which is second in line of succession to the presidency, it's not at all clear to me why the general public, Democrats and others, should have anything to say about whom Congressional Democrats opt to emplace as their organizational and administrative managers, which is what these positions are, in the respective chambers. Basically, these roles are best held by individuals who are outstanding people and process managers and executors; thus there's no place for non-members of Congress to have a say in/about who holds them for the general public isn't keenly aware of the demonstrated managerial skills and performance of any member of Congress.
I mean really, AFAIK, none of those roles are even in the extant line of succession:
- The Vice President
- Speaker of the House
- President pro tempore of the Senate
- Secretary of State
- Secretary of the Treasury
- Secretary of Defense
- Attorney General
- Secretary of the Interior
- Secretary of Agriculture
- Secretary of Commerce
- Secretary of Labor
- Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
- Secretary of Transportation
- Secretary of Energy
- Secretary of Education
- Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- Secretary of Homeland Security
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/hakeem-jeffries-selected-caucus-chair-democrats/
I preferred Lee.
This makes me a bit angry, frankly.
Other than the Speaker of the House position, which is second in line of succession to the presidency, it's not at all clear to me why the general public, Democrats and others, should have anything to say about whom Congressional Democrats opt to emplace as their organizational and administrative managers, which is what these positions are, in the respective chambers. Basically, these roles are best held by individuals who are outstanding people and process managers and executors; thus there's no place for non-members of Congress to have a say in/about who holds them for the general public isn't keenly aware of the demonstrated managerial skills and performance of any member of Congress.
Other than the Speaker of the House position, which is second in line of succession to the presidency, it's not at all clear to me why the general public, Democrats and others, should have anything to say about whom Congressional Democrats opt to emplace as their organizational and administrative managers, which is what these positions are, in the respective chambers. Basically, these roles are best held by individuals who are outstanding people and process managers and executors; thus there's no place for non-members of Congress to have a say in/about who holds them for the general public isn't keenly aware of the demonstrated managerial skills and performance of any member of Congress.
I mean really, AFAIK, none of those roles are even in the extant line of succession:
- The Vice President
- Speaker of the House
- President pro tempore of the Senate
- Secretary of State
- Secretary of the Treasury
- Secretary of Defense
- Attorney General
- Secretary of the Interior
- Secretary of Agriculture
- Secretary of Commerce
- Secretary of Labor
- Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
- Secretary of Transportation
- Secretary of Energy
- Secretary of Education
- Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- Secretary of Homeland Security
I like Rep. Lee too; politically, however, California democrats have dominated the ranking House seats for decades, and I suspect they wanted to put someone other than another Californian in a Democratic Power position. Makes sense, and Pelosi is a genius in behind-the-scenes shuffling/deal-making.
Yep. It was the smarter move to not only shift the power from California democrats, but also let some younger blood in since there's been a lot of criticism regarding the established party ranks.
You clearly don't understand team politics. When one becomes so invested in their team, they want to have their opinion intrude on who is on the "game". Put 2 NFL team doctors on the field and one side would cheer/boo one physician and the other side would boo/cheer the other.
I see it a matter of who has influence in various leadership positions, within the "team" known as the democratic party.
And thus far it's mainly not any progressives.
IMO if the democrats want to maintain power they have to include progressives more.
Thus my dislike of this choice, who claims to be a progressive but does not support their core goals.
I don't think it's that simple.Seems like that should be a function of the voters back home, not their peers in Washington. You describe it basically as it is: Who gets to be the sheep dog to herd the sheep.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?