Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, has openly questioned whether the GOP deserves to keep the House majority, lamenting the lack of accomplishments this Congress. He’s not alone.

When Congress began the new year, Rep. Andy Biggs gave a television interview and made a startling confession: House Republicans have done nothing they can run on.

“We have nothing. In my opinion, we have nothing to go out there and campaign on,” the Arizona Republican said on the conservative network Newsmax. “It’s embarrassing.”

Anchor Chris Salcedo responded with a bemused chuckle. “I know,” he said. “The Republican Party in the Congress majority has zero accomplishments.”

The exchange captured a dynamic that looms over Republican lawmakers heading into the 2024 election: They’ve passed little substantive legislation since winning the majority in 2022 and struggled to do the basics of governing with a Democratic-led Senate. Their first year was instead marked by fractiousness and chaos, complicating the party’s pitch to voters this fall. The challenge is accentuated by likely GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump making “retribution” against his enemies, rather than shared policy goals, the centerpiece of his comeback bid as he continues to spread fabricated claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    They could start by passing a clean Ukraine lethal aid bill in the House that exceeds what Biden is asking for. Funding for high paying American jobs always sells well. And it’s a win-win that those high paying American jobs are to produce modern weapons like PrSM to upgrade the US Army’s capability, enabling them to pass old ATACMS to Ukraine to dispatch Russian invaders.

      • Jaderick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think that guy is right though, strategically speaking. It would be in their (garbage republicans) best interest to pass some benefit for the military industrial complex that’s kept them in power, because right now they have nothing.

        It’s kind of hilarious that Russia was a US conservative’s worst enemy until 2015. 10 years ago a Ukraine bill would have basically no opposition (assuming post Maidan), but Russia has clearly made inroads with the far-right grifters lol.

        • kaitco@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          10 months ago

          Russia has clearly made inroads with the far-right grifters

          This is why they won’t pass any massive military spending bills, especially those that have to do with Ukraine. They’re all being paid by the Russians, and allowing Ukraine to continue to do well hits them in the pockets more directly than all the other super PACs combined.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Putin bought them out after we started supplying/selling weapons to Ukraine after the 2014 Crimea invasion, with Obama and everyone pushing hard to get Ukraine out of Putin’s sphere of influence. (complete with supporting the Euromaidan, and “the revolution of dignity”… )

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I think we should ship Putin everything he paid for. Air drop them into that village they built, just for expats…

      • Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m personally more hawkish than others on the left, i feel. Even if we cut the military budget in half we’d still have the strongest military by a large margin. If Ukraine isn’t a situation for the richest country in the history of the world to support, what is?

      • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not necessarily, but it really demonstrates that they can’t deliver even when their base and Dem colleagues would support it.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        In general, no.

        When it supports to defend itself and to drain Russia’s military capabilities through attrition, YES.