Connect with us

News

House Democrats battle distrust in struggle to pass infrastructure

Published

4 years ago

on

House Democrats were on the cusp of a deal to advance the party’s domestic agenda late Friday, breaking the logjam on an infrastructure bill that has languished for months and moving ahead on their $1.75 trillion social spending package.

In the end, a statement from moderates vowing to back the social spending plan later this month, pending a positive cost analysis, finally broke the fever.

“The whole day was a clusterf— right?” said senior progressive Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.). “At the end of the day what we all want to do is get the president’s agenda done and that’s what we’re going to do.”

The agreement is a huge victory for Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who reasserted control over her fractious caucus after months of infighting — and President Joe Biden, who has struggled since September to corral Democratic votes for the two key planks of his agenda.

The House was expected to vote late Friday on the $550 billion infrastructure bill, sending the legislation to Biden’s desk more than three months after it passed the Senate. In addition, Democrats would take a procedural vote to advance — but not pass — the social and climate spending package.

The two-track plan capped a dizzying day in the chamber that started with Pelosi’s team hopeful of passing both bills and nearly ended in disaster as centrists and liberals dug in against each other.

Democratic leaders worked into the night Friday to bridge the divide between recalcitrant moderates who refused to back Biden’s social spending package and progressives who didn’t want to support the infrastructure bill without further assurance from the centrist wing.

Biden also pitched in, making direct and specific pleas to House Democrats to support Pelosi’s plan on the floor, something he hadn’t done in past efforts to rally votes for his priorities.

“I am urging all members to vote for both the rule for consideration of the Build Back Better Act and final passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill tonight,” Biden said in a statement following a series of phone calls Democratic holdouts.

Democrats’ Friday night dash to try to push the infrastructure bill over the finish line — more than three months after the bipartisan legislation passed the Senate — capped off a dizzying day for the party. Pelosi and her lieutenants, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, kicked off the day confident they would have enough votes within the fractious caucus to both clear the infrastructure bill and send the much larger social and climate package to the Senate.

The effort, if successful, would’ve been a remarkable feat for Democratic leaders after months of public infighting between the party’s centrists and liberals threatened to derail — and then thwart — Biden’s domestic agenda.

The months of tumult have not been without significant cost – from Biden’s plunging poll numbers to an election night thrashing this week that saw Republicans triumph in deep-blue areas, foreshadowing a potentially disastrous midterm for the party next year.

But instead of coming together after their ballot box bruising this week, Democrats are set to again delay a vote on their $1.75 trillion party-line measure and turn their sights to just the $550 billion Senate-passed infrastructure bill — bending to the demands of their most vocal centrists in a last-ditch attempt to deliver at least one legislative win for Biden.

Democrats still planned to advance their broader $1.75 trillion climate and social safety net bill, set for passage without GOP votes, but it would only be a procedural move. And that’s not enough for many progressives.

The convoluted maneuver, first suggested by senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus, quickly became a problem for Democratic leaders. While they initially believed the move could cost them some liberal votes for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, they believed they could make up most of those from the GOP side of the aisle.

CBC Chairwoman Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) summed up the strategy: “Jim Clyburn came to me this morning and we sat down and we thought an initial dialogue might be good. To say, let’s vote on the rule to Build Back Better. At least you’re putting it out there …It’s a start. Is it the best solution ? I don’t know.”

“I think it was the starting point,” Beatty added. “I really didn’t think about what would happen along the way.”

Pelosi quickly pivoted to the new strategy, which she announced to the caucus in a Friday afternoon letter. But no sooner did she do that than a panoply of progressives dug in and refused to go along, trapping Democratic leaders in a game of factional Whack-a-Mole.

“I’m a no,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). When asked if she’d change her own stance against separating the two bills on the floor, Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) replied “absolutely not.”

It remains unclear how many progressives ultimately back the infrastructure bill during a Friday night floor vote. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said that “I’m open to all possibilities and I’m open to giving the leadership a hearing.” Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) signaled he’d support the bipartisan plan, but only if both bills passed on the same day.

Pelosi herself predicted a “large number of members of the progressive caucus” who are prepared to vote yes on infrastructure Friday night.

Members on Pelosi’s left flank have insisted for months that the social spending bill move together with the infrastructure proposal, and liberal opposition, helped scuttle previous attempts to move the infrastructure bill forward over the last two months.

It’s unlikely enough Republicans would be able to make up the difference if the expected number of progressives defect during a planned floor vote on the infrastructure package. Past GOP whip counts had Republican yes votes hovering around 10 for the Senate-passed measure, though some have privately warned the numbers could change if Democrats kept delaying the vote.

Democrats are still in talks about exactly when they would vote on passage of the social spending bill, although Pelosi and other top Democrats vowed to do so before Thanksgiving if possible. Nonetheless, an official budgetary analysis on potential costs may not come until Thanksgiving week.

Many in the caucus were baffled by the moderates’ resistance to pass the massive social spending bill. They argued it wasn’t the final version anyway, since the Senate was all but sure to make changes.

But for most centrist holdouts, that was exactly the problem: Democrats such as Murphy and Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) have been beating the drum for weeks that they won’t vote for any legislation that can’t pass the Senate.

Doing so, they warned, would amount to a politically toxic vote on a sprawling bill packed with new spending and tax changes, only to see it be shredded by Senate centrists or be plucked from the bill by the chamber’s budget rulekeeper.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Houston

Turnout, Trust, and Ground Game: What Decided Houston’s Runoff Elections

Published

6 days ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Low-turnout runoff races for Houston City Council and Houston Community College trustee seats revealed how message discipline, local credibility, and voter mobilization determined clear winners—and decisive losers.

The final ballots are counted, and Houston’s runoff elections have delivered clear outcomes in two closely watched local races, underscoring a familiar truth of municipal politics: in low-turnout elections, organization and credibility matter more than name recognition alone.

In the race for Houston City Council At-Large Position 4, Alejandra Salinas secured a decisive victory, winning 25,710 votes (59.27%) over former council member Dwight A. Boykins, who garnered 17,669 votes (40.73%). The margin was not accidental. Salinas ran a campaign tightly aligned with voter anxiety over public safety and infrastructure—two issues that consistently dominate Houston’s civic conversations. Her emphasis on keeping violent criminals off city streets and expanding Houston’s water supply spoke directly to quality-of-life concerns that resonate across districts, especially in an at-large contest where candidates must appeal to the city as a whole.

Salinas’ win reflects the advantage of message clarity. In a runoff, voters are not looking to be introduced to candidates—they are choosing between candidates they are already familiar with. Salinas presented herself as forward-looking and solutions-oriented, while Boykins, despite his experience and political history, struggled to reframe his candidacy beyond familiarity. In runoffs, nostalgia rarely outperforms momentum.

The second race—for Houston Community College District II trustee—followed a similar pattern. Renee Jefferson Patterson won with 2,497 votes (56.63%), defeating Kathleen “Kathy” Lynch Gunter, who received 1,912 votes (43.37%). Though the raw numbers were smaller, the dynamics were just as telling.

Patterson’s victory was powered by deep local ties and a clear institutional vision. As an HCC alumna, she effectively positioned herself as both a product and a steward of the system. Her pledge to expand the North Forest Campus and direct resources to Acres Home connected policy goals to place-based advocacy. In trustee races, voters often respond less to ideology and more to proximity—those who understand the campus, the students, and the neighborhood. Patterson checked all three boxes.

By contrast, Gunter’s loss highlights the challenge of overcoming a candidate with genuine community roots in a runoff scenario. Without a sharply differentiated message or a strong geographic base, turnout dynamics tend to favor candidates with existing neighborhood networks and direct institutional relevance.

What ultimately decided both races was not a surprise, but execution. Runoffs reward campaigns that can re-mobilize supporters, simplify their message, and convert familiarity into trust. Salinas and Patterson did exactly that. Their opponents, though credible, were unable to expand or energize their coalitions in a compressed electoral window.

The lesson from Houston’s runoff elections is straightforward but unforgiving: winners win because they align message, identity, and ground game. Losers lose because, in low-turnout contests, anything less than that alignment is insufficient.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Africa

Nigeria–Burkina Faso Rift: Military Power, Mistrust, and a Region Out of Balance

Published

6 days ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

The brief detention of a Nigerian Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft and its crew in Burkina Faso may have ended quietly, but it exposed a deeper rift shaped by mistrust, insecurity, and uneven military power in West Africa. What was officially a technical emergency landing quickly became a diplomatic and security flashpoint, reflecting not hostility between equals, but anxiety between unequally matched states navigating very different political realities.

On December 8, 2025, the Nigerian Air Force transport aircraft made an unscheduled landing in Bobo-Dioulasso while en route to Portugal. Nigerian authorities described the stop as a precautionary response to a technical fault—standard procedure under international aviation and military safety protocols. Burkina Faso acknowledged the emergency landing but emphasized that the aircraft had violated its airspace, prompting the temporary detention of 11 Nigerian personnel while investigations and repairs were conducted. Within days, the crew and aircraft were released, underscoring a professional, if tense, resolution.

Yet the symbolism mattered. In a Sahel region gripped by coups, insurgencies, and fragile legitimacy, airspace is not merely technical—it is political. Burkina Faso’s reaction reflected a state on edge, hyper-vigilant about sovereignty amid persistent internal threats. Nigeria’s response, measured and restrained, reflected confidence rooted in capacity.

The military imbalance between the two countries is stark. Nigeria fields one of Africa’s most formidable armed forces, with a tri-service structure that includes a large, well-equipped air force, a dominant regional navy, and a sizable army capable of sustained operations. The Nigerian Air Force operates fighter jets such as the JF-17 and F-7Ni, as well as A-29 Super Tucanos for counterinsurgency operations, heavy transport aircraft like the C-130, and an extensive helicopter fleet. This force is designed not only for internal security but for regional power projection and multinational operations.

Burkina Faso’s military, by contrast, is compact and narrowly focused. Its air arm relies on a limited number of light attack aircraft, including Super Tucanos, and a small helicopter fleet primarily dedicated to internal counterinsurgency. There is no navy, no strategic airlift capacity comparable to Nigeria’s, and limited logistical depth. The Burkinabè military is stretched thin, fighting multiple insurgent groups while also managing the political consequences of repeated military takeovers.

This imbalance shapes behavior. Nigeria’s military posture is institutional, outward-looking, and anchored in regional frameworks such as ECOWAS. Burkina Faso’s posture is defensive, reactive, and inward-facing. Where Nigeria seeks stability through deterrence and cooperation, Burkina Faso seeks survival amid constant internal pressure. That difference explains why a technical landing could be perceived as a “serious security breach” rather than a routine aviation incident.

The incident also illuminates why Burkina Faso continues to struggle to regain political balance. Repeated coups have eroded civilian institutions, fractured command structures, and blurred the line between governance and militarization. The armed forces are not just security actors; they are political stakeholders. This creates a cycle where insecurity justifies military rule, and military rule deepens insecurity by weakening democratic legitimacy and regional trust.

Nigeria, despite its own security challenges, has managed to avoid this spiral. Civilian control of the military remains intact, democratic transitions—however imperfect—continue, and its armed forces operate within a clearer constitutional framework. This stability enhances Nigeria’s regional credibility and amplifies its military superiority beyond hardware alone.

The C-130 episode did not escalate into confrontation precisely because of this asymmetry. Burkina Faso could assert sovereignty, but not sustain defiance. Nigeria could have asserted its capability, but chose restraint. In the end, professionalism prevailed.

Still, the rift lingers. It is not about one aircraft or one landing, but about two countries moving in different strategic directions. Nigeria stands as a regional anchor with superior military power and institutional depth. Burkina Faso remains a state searching for equilibrium—politically fragile, militarily constrained, and acutely sensitive to every perceived threat from the skies above.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

News

Bizarre Epstein files reference to Trump, Putin, and oral sex with ‘Bubba’ draws scrutiny in Congress

Published

1 month ago

on

November 14, 2025

By

The latest tranche of emails from the estate of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein includes one that contains what appear to be references to President Donald Trump allegedly performing oral sex, raising questions the committee cannot answer until the Department of Justice turns over records it has withheld, says U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.

Garcia insists the Trump White House is helping block them.

In a Friday afternoon interview with The Advocate, the out California lawmaker responded to a 2018 exchange, which was included in the emails released, between Jeffrey Epstein and his brother, Mark Epstein. In that message, Mark wrote that because Jeffrey Epstein had said he was with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, he should “ask him if Putin has the photos of Trump blowing Bubba.”

“Bubba” is a nickname former President Bill Clinton has been known by; however, the email does not clarify who Mark Epstein meant, and the context remains unclear.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending