All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[numberthirty]

More details on the situation in question...

[numberthirty]

[CSTowle]

Regressives.
They want to drag society back to the 1950's.

Many of them to the 1850s. Get rid of that BLM problem.

Something that doesn't seem like it really came up. Along with it? A pretty obvious pair of questions...

First, why wouldn't you make absolutely certain that Katie Porter stayed on the Financial Services Committee?

Second, just what is it that Democrats have to do before folks start second guessing if the party is actually looking out for them?

That's a shame, really like her. Would have liked to have seen her as a serious contender for VP.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Yep. We have to remember when we see paintings of Jesus he should never look middle eastern at all. But rather like like a man at a Phish concert.

Or Ted Neely:

[JCAll]

Regressives.
They want to drag society back to the 1950's.

I like "Extremists", it invokes the feeling of being as far from "Conservative" as possible. Which is accurate for the GQP.
Or maybe I'd just go with "Terrorists", if I'm feeling saucy.

[Tendrin]

Many of them to the 1850s. Get rid of that BLM problem.



That's a shame, really like her. Would have liked to have seen her as a serious contender for VP.

She picked her committees, naming two others ahead of it, and asked for a waiver to stay on that one. She didn't get it. It's not a conspiracy about the Dems 'not fighting for you'.

Leave it to 30 to repeat braying, clickbait, conspiratorial nonsense when it can be used to whine about the Dems while ignoring the GOP in its entirety, as usual.

If you really want to blame someone for Porter being off it, blame the Americans who sent fewer Dems to the House in 2020.

[numberthirty]

She picked her committees, naming two others ahead of it, and asked for a waiver to stay on that one. She didn't get it. It's not a conspiracy about the Dems 'not fighting for you'.

Leave it to 30 to repeat braying, clickbait, conspiratorial nonsense when it can be used to whine about the Dems while ignoring the GOP in its entirety, as usual.

If you really want to blame someone for Porter being off it, blame the Americans who sent fewer Dems to the House in 2020.

Unless someone has to wind up wearing an eye patch to give her the waiver in question?

It don't have to be some X-Files-sized conspiracy to flat out be that they decided to bench someone who actually was trying to look out for John/Jane Public.

Never mind that a bunch of other waivers probably got handed out "No Sweat..."

Nothing stopped them from making sure she wound up on that committee.

They decided she wasn't going to.

Simple as that.

[Tami]

Unless someone has to wind up wearing an eye patch to give her the waiver in question?

It don't have to be some X-Files-sized conspiracy to flat out be that they decided to bench someone who actually was trying to look out for John/Jane Public.

Never mind that a bunch of other waivers probably got handed out "No Sweat..."

Nothing stopped them from making sure she wound up on that committee.

They decided she wasn't going to.

Simple as that.

There are rules and procedures.

The stated reason for her ouster is an arcane set of House Democratic caucus rules. The Financial Services Committee is an “exclusive” committee, which means that members who take a seat on it can serve solely on that committee, unless they ask for and receive a waiver to take on more than one such assignment.

In the last term, Porter did just that, and received a waiver from the House Steering Committee — which is in charge of such things — so that she could also serve on the nonexclusive Oversight and Reform Committee. For the new congressional session, Porter attempted to get a waiver so she could serve on the Financial Services Committee, in addition to the nonexclusive Oversight and Natural Resources Committees. This is uncommon, but it is sometimes granted. Not this time. Instead, Porter received assignments to the Oversight and Natural Resources committees — and not Financial Services.

Insiders say that’s the breaks. “It’s a gamble,” as a senior Democratic aide told me. “If you have primary committee like that and you are a permanent member and that is your top priority, you should never give that up.”

Being on a Committee is as much political as anything else in Congress. If Porter wanted to stay where she was, she should have understood the risks of over-reaching.

[numberthirty]

Something that only rises to the level of "Uncommon..." is the reason that the woman in question will not be on that committee.

Again, they decided that she would not be there.

[numberthirty]

Never mind that this was the actual title of that article...

Opinion: Katie Porter is off the House Financial Services Committee. We’re all worse off for it.

[numberthirty]

You know what?

It's also worth pointing out that this is in the body of that article...

I get it. But this is why people outside the Beltway can sometimes hate Washington so much. If you are an American desperately seeking help with your finances and looking for someone, anyone in Washington to listen, arcane congressional protocols are the least of your concerns. You want a champion. You want a Katie Porter.

Porter is not pleased with the decision, and not shy about saying so. She first took to Twitter to complain, before releasing a statement Friday, saying in part: “Over the last two years, I have a clear record of getting things done on the Financial Services and Oversight Committees, calling out powerful people, exposing corruption, and inviting the American people into conversations. When I got to Congress, I wanted to change up what we see in hearings — I wanted to actually ask questions and get answers. Too often, what we see instead is stonewalling and speechifying.”

But still, at a time when millions of Americans are under the worst financial pressure they’ve ever experienced, Katie Porter’s voice is needed on the Financial Services Committee, as well. If there was ever a time for an exception to the rules, this is it.

[Tendrin]

Never mind that this was the actual title of that article...

If she wanted to stay on it, she could have stayed on it. It was her choice. Level your criticism at her. She put two other comittees ahead of the one that you're declaring is oh so important that she stay on. *She* decided what was important to her, and where the best path forward for her was. She plainly didn't value that slot as much as you want her to.

[numberthirty]

If she wanted to stay on it, she could have stayed on it. It was her choice. Level your criticism at her. She put two other comittees ahead of the one that you're declaring is oh so important that she stay on. *She* decided what was important to her, and where the best path forward for her was. She plainly didn't value that slot as much as you want her to.

She could have stayed on it with a simple waiver.

Not something where a party would have had to strike a deal with the devil.

A waiver.

That they are in a position to issue.

Trying to create some "Attack The Person Who Has Actually Been Trying To Do Something..." scenario?

Ain't gonna happen.

[Tendrin]

She could have stayed on it with a simple waiver.

Not something where a party would have had to strike a deal with the devil.

A waiver.

That they are in a position to issue.

Trying to create some "Attack The Person Who Has Actually Been Trying To Do Something..." scenario?

Ain't gonna happen.

She ranked it third, 30. They gave the slot to someone else who ranked it higher than their third priority. This is another illuminating episode of you not knowing how congress actually works.

[numberthirty]

If she wanted to stay on it, she could have stayed on it. It was her choice. Level your criticism at her. She put two other comittees ahead of the one that you're declaring is oh so important that she stay on. *She* decided what was important to her, and where the best path forward for her was. She plainly didn't value that slot as much as you want her to.

As for this bit...

She valued it enough to take issue with it while pointing out what the actual issue here is.

Again, about as simple as that.