These 38 Republicans voted against the Trump-backed spending bill

The Hill ^ | 12/19/2024 | Filip Timotija

[ransomnote]

Thirty-eight House Republican lawmakers voted against the President-elect Trump-backed government spending bill that failed to clear the lower chamber with just more than a day before the shutdown. 

These GOP representatives voted Thursday against the measure that would have prevented a government shutdown and suspended the debt limit:

• Aaron Bean (Fla.)
• Andy Biggs (Ariz.)
• Josh Brecheen (Okla.)
• Tim Burchett (Tenn.)
• Eric Burlison (Mo.)
• Kat Cammack (Fla.)
• Michael Cloud (Texas)
• Andrew Clyde (Ga.)
• Eli Crane (Ariz.)
• John Curtis (Utah)
• Jeff Duncan (S.C.)
• Russ Fulcher (Idaho)
• Bob Good (Va.)
• Paul Gosar (Ariz.)
• Andy Harris (Md.)
• Wesley Hunt (Texas)
• Doug Lamborn (Colo.)
• Debbie Lesko (Ariz.)
• Greg Lopez (Colo.)
• Morgan Luttrell (Texas)
• Nancy Mace (S.C.)
• Thomas Massie (Ky.)
• Richard McCormick (Ga.)
• Cory Mills (Fla.)
• Alexander Mooney (W.Va.)
• Blake Moore (Utah)
• Nathaniel Moran (Texas)
• Ralph Norman (S.C.)
• Andy Ogles (Tenn.)
• Scott Perry (Pa.)
• Bill Posey (Fla.)
• Matt Rosendale (Mont.)
• Chip Roy (Texas)
• David Schweikert (Ariz.)
• Keith Self (Texas)
• Victoria Spartz (Ind.)
• Thomas Tiffany (Wis.)
• Beth Van Duyne (Texas)

The bill, which Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) presented just a few hours before it was voted on, failed with a 174-235-1 vote. It did not reach the two-thirds margin necessary to pass as it was brought under the suspension of the rules. 

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I wouldn’t trust Nancy Mace to explain tic tac toe correctly. Boilerplate doesn’t take 1400 pages. The must be some other differences.

[Liberty Valance]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNCCAtmyAEQ
“NostraThomas” Massie Calling Out Swamp’s Christmas Omnibus

[PsyCon]

“Tell you what. If my Rep Gosar voted against then there was still something very wrong with it. Someone snuck something in we did not want. He normally backs Trump with everything he does. In fact he was at the podium speaking against the 2020 election and supporting Trump when the shot was fired jan 6th.”

Dittos…my guy as well.

[PIF]

Of the ones I heard:

Most argued that structural reform was needed; others argued that the House Speaker’s job is to govern the House, which no one has done in a long time. Until those things were done they would continue to vote NO.

All mentioned spending to one degree or another, but that was not fundamental to their vote. All seemed to feel that the bill used blanket numbers, rather than specific numbers - using $100 million instead of $96.2 million to address the specific need.

[curious7]

If that is truly the case, then I redirect my request to the other pukes who went along with the sham and recommend they get the Harry Reid treatment daily until their morals and ethics improve, or they retire.

[Taxman]

Thank you!

[Taxman]

Are Republicans capable of a WINNING “Bare Knuckle Political Fight?”

Perhaps they will gain that skill, now that DJT is in charge?

[markman46]

just shut DC down.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

It would be ludicrous for Republicans to suggest that the Speaker needs to take stronger control of the House, given that they expressly reduced the power of the Speaker at the beginning of this Congress. That was one of the conditions on which people agreed to vote for McCarthy.

The reform I'd like to see is the reduction of the discharge petition period from 30 days to 3. Essentially, that would let any bill that has the support of a majority of members be brought to a vote even if the leaders of each party don't support it.

That theoretically weakens the power of the Speaker, but that matters a lot less when the margin is as tiny as it is going to be.

[PIF]

It would be ludicrous for Republicans to suggest that the Speaker needs to take stronger control

—

Stronger control and governing are not the same things. Its not the Speakers job to control, but to govern. And that they try to control is exactly what is wrong with the way the House is run.

[kenmcg]

Good for them. The government has been spending outlandishly. As much as Trump is supported, it can’t be ignorerd that the national debt went up quite a bit during his first administration.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

In this context, what do they exactly mean by “govern” the house? In concrete terms, what would that mean for this current dispute?

[PIF]

what do they exactly mean by “govern” the house? In concrete terms, what would that mean for this current dispute?
—

Govern means govern. If you are going to parse the word, it will become meaningless.

If the Speaker would govern, then problems like this would never happen.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Govern means govern. If you are going to parse the word, it will become meaningless.

I think you defining the word with itself renders it meaningless.

So they want him to "govern", but won't say what that means? Gee, no wonder they're failing.

Saying they want the Speaker to "govern" (undefined), while having taken most of the authority away from the position, makes no sense. At least not without some kind of explanation.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I'm not trying to be a pendant here. The reality is the GOP caucus has a tiny margin, and is very divided internally. People on both ends of the caucus refuse to support legislation with which they don't agree. The only sense in which members actually want to be governed is when they envision the Speaker acting in accordance with what each of them believes as individuals. And if the Speaker doesn't "govern" the way they think he should govern, then they refuse to follow.

So what is the Speaker supposed to do about that?