Let’s have a little House Speaker Gedankenexperiment
I’m no Einstein.
(I thought I’d get that out of the way first.)
However, I’ve always liked that word: Gedankenexperiment, otherwise known as “thought experiment.” I’ve got one for you about the current brouhaha over electing a Speaker in the House.
Imagine that the majority of GOP members of the House were staunch conservatives who agree with you, and they’ve nominated a person for Speaker who is a candidate you think would be good for the job. And yet, because the GOP margin over the Democrats is very small, only a few of those GOP House members can defect from the majority or this person you like cannot win the Speakership.
In fact, no one can win the Speakership without almost all the GOP votes. So, near-unity on a Speaker candidate isn’t just desirable for some abstract reason, it’s necessary for a very practical reason.
But there’s a very small number – it might be 5 or it might be as many as 20, but it’s small compared to the total of 222 – of GOP members of the House are holding out. They are all RINOs, and they want their guy (or one of several guys). Their guys have very little support and can’t win either; in one or two cases their guys have said they don’t even want the job and wouldn’t take it. But those 5-to-20 RINO supporters hold out, ballot after ballot after ballot. You’re not sure what their endgame is, but there’s a way – highly unlikely, but theoretically possible – for them to vote “present” and facilitate the election of the leftist Democrat around whom the Democrats are solidly (with no defections whatsoever) behind.
There is some indication that the 5-to-20 RINOs holding out are jockeying for more power for themselves in committees. You hear a lot of rumors, but you don’t know what’s really going on behind the scenes. Meanwhile, the business of the House is stalled. That includes things you want to have happen – such as the cutting of funds to the IRS, or the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, or any number of other things on the agenda:
“If we had elected Kevin McCarthy speaker we would have already voted to defund the 87,000 new IRS agents, new border security measures, and a select committee on China,” Rep. Michael Waltz (R., Fla.) told the Free Beacon. “We would also be sending notices to the Biden administration that we’re coming for answers on the FBI, Department of Justice, the Afghanistan withdrawal, and conflicts of interest surrounding the Biden family.”
Without a House speaker, the legislative body grinds to a halt. No members can be sworn in, introduce legislation, or issue subpoenas. For all intents and purposes, the United States currently doesn’t have a House of Representatives. But the failure to find a House speaker carries political consequences as well. The longer the fight drags on, the longer Biden, who is expected to run for reelection in 2024, goes without virtually any real oversight in the form of hearings and subpoenas.
So, how would you feel about all of that?
Commenter “Gregory Harper” writes:
What I don’t understand is why people like Dan Crenshaw also seem so desperate to have McCarthy elected. So desperate that he calls fellow Republicans “terrorists”. Surely there are alternatives to McCarthy. If McCarthy really cares about the party and the country, he should step aside.
If you contemplate the hypothetical I’ve offered in this post, maybe it’s easier to understand why someone like Crenshaw calls them “terrorists.” Maybe it’s also easier if we take a look at what Crenshaw actually said instead of the soundbite:
Look, [the holdouts] came into this without a plan. And look, if you want to and here’s. Here’s what I’ll tell them. What I’ve been telling them. If you wanted to have someone else as speaker, you know, you knew this moment was coming. Is like, you know, an election is coming. And when you know an election is coming, you start running. You start building support. You go out and you fundraise. If there’s somebody else wanted to run, if they want to run a different candidate, well, they could have been competing with Kevin McCarthy this whole time. But they didn’t. They had no plan. They have some list of demands that mostly have been met. The speech Scott Perry just gave about what needs to change and etc., etc., those have been met as have largely been agreed to in the rules package. So we don’t know what the hell he’s talking about at this point. They settled on Jim Jordan for a while. He’s obviously very well-respected conservative leader, but then they did some, but now they’re settling on a freshman named Byron Donalds. I, I don’t know where that came from. They’re they’re making the argument that it’s about identity politics and that we should have a black speaker, that that’s actually where they’re going with this. No one knows what the heck is going on or what their end game is. They basically closed all the doors and pulled, depends on the grenades and are staring at each other like, what the hell do we do? Everyone is trying to work with them in good faith to give them an off ramp, because this is this is a terrible situation for them personally. They are responsible for holding up a GOP agenda. They could be responsible for Democrats pulling some really clever deals, maybe forcing a plurality vote, maybe potentially getting a rules package the Democrats want. I don’t know. I mean, the possibilities we could talk for hours about them, but they’re dangerous for Republicans. The best solution here is go with the guy that already won 85% of our internal vote. He won the primary with 85%. And so the obvious thing to do after that is to vote for him in the general election, which is what we’re doing now. We’ve asked these different members repeatedly what they want and they can’t tell us they give us these policies to give us. It’s like they’re talking on the campaign trail. They say the place doesn’t work. Washington is broken. Enough is enough. We don’t trust the system. We don’t trust it. You follow the rules and we’re like, What? What does that mean? Give me something specific. And they won’t…
Lauren Boebert…gets up and she basically tells Donald Trump to f off [after his support of McCarthy for Speaker]. That’s what she just did. I couldn’t believe it. I mean, I just I just couldn’t believe it. So I don’t know what path they’re going down. I think, again, they’ve pulled the pins on the grenades and they locked themselves inside of a room and they were trying to give them off ramps and they weren’t articulate what those off ramps are. I mean, it’s genuinely frightening…
[If Steve Scalise is nominated] we all know [this dynamic] wouldn’t change, which is why we can’t give in. And so those of us who are standing against this, we’re standing for principle. They are standing for notoriety. They’re standing for that extra news that because nobody ever cares about them and they’re frustrated by that, and they want that extra news that we know that we can’t give in to this because then they will always run the conference and they’ll just get another scalp and another scalp, whether it’s whether it’s Boehner or Paul Ryan or them McCarthy. Scalise would just be next and we all know it. We just can’t allow that to happen. That’s why those of us are saying like, look, you pushed us into this corner. So now we’re now we’re saying we won’t vote for anyone but McCarthy. That’s why we’re saying it, because we cannot let the terrorists win. That’s basically what’s happening. And I do have to go.
You don’t have to agree with him to understand exactly what he’s saying and why he’s saying it. And he didn’t call the holdouts “terrorists” – he used an analogy that involves the inadvisability of giving in to the pressure of terrorists, a small group who want to throw their weight around and use threats of violence to do it. He sees the holdouts as basically destructive rather than constructive, as well as publicity seekers.
To me it makes some sense, mainly because of what he explains in the first paragraph I excerpted from his interview: they have no candidate of their own. They need a viable alternative or they leave themselves very open to charges such as Crenshaw’s.
NOTE: I realize that a lot of people detest McCarthy because he didn’t advance the right’s agenda when he could have done so, and therefore they don’t trust him at all (I’m hardly keen on him myself). Their argument is that he won’t do what he’s promised to do, such as investigating Biden or dealing with the IRS or any of it. He’s pledged to do it, the House members seem determined to do it, and someone like Crenshaw and lots of other House members like Jordan and Scalise (who voted for him for Speaker) seem to trust him to do it. Why not trust them? – because until a viable alternative shows itself, this current escapade seems merely a case of obstructionism.
I respectfully disagree, on many points. But since I’ve stated my position a few times, I won’t rehash it. I will simply state two things:
First, what Crenshaw did was despicable, regardless of whether ‘terrorists’ was meant as an analogy or not. This full frontal media assault on the 20 dissidents is a reprehensible, but not surprising, reaction of the establishment. The more intense and hyperbolic it gets, the more I’m convinced the dissidents are really on to something. This is another stage in breaking the GOP establishment that Trump started seven years ago. And that’s a very good thing in the long run.
Second, I’m utterly unpersuaded by the endless stream of articles and commentary bemoaning that the House can’t get started on investigating Hunter, Mayorkas, Afghanistan, etc. Is there some sort of time limit on doing so? How exactly does the delay of a few days, even a week, impact any of this? Loss of a little momentum perhaps; but that’s it.
McCarthy brought this on himself. He’s had seven years to build bridges with the Freedom Caucus. Seven years.
With Democrat control of the Senate and the Presidency the Republicans have one and only one power – appropriations. With the passage of the Omnibus, funding the govt through September, (thanks Mitch McConnell) there is nothing they can do except bloviate. Which they will.
One thing which might break the logjam would be for McCarthy to offer institutional concessions that are implemented beforehand and on which he cannot renege. In both chambers on both sides, the floor leaders and their camarilla have far too much discretion and are too entrenched. The current Senate Republican leader is 80 years old and has held his position for 16 years. Hag Pelosi is 82 years and has held her position for 19 years.
One other thing. When did the floor leader get to be the principal fundraiser and money slosher?
Crenshaw has a history of this sort of thing. Screw him.
“McCarthy brought this on himself. He’s had seven years to build bridges with the Freedom Caucus. Seven years.”
Precisely.
As well as what I think Art Deco said yesterday…that given the R-ripple not tsunami in this election cycle…McConnell, McDaniel, & McCarthy not resigning their positions is inexcusable. A complete pox on the R-establishment.
With a D Senate & a D-ementia installed POTUS the most a R House can do is make campaign speeches. So…I’m uninterested in the “investigations” to nowhere or any other hurry-up to “do business as usual.” Red line time.
Red line or what? They’ve made their point by humiliating McCarthy for three days now. They’re making no progress towards a viable candidate the caucus will vote for. What’s their plan now? 91% of the caucus is voting consistently for McCarthy. Who’s their alternative? How do they elect their alternative with 9% of the vote?
in the omnibus, they clipped 250,000, they blocked border enforcement on the granular level, that runs through next year, if memory serves, so there will be another funding bill, around the official start of the election season,* (it’s a forever campaign, but before things are set in stone) we have seen 28 years of inconclusive investigation, whitewater, fast and furious, benghazi, what has come of it,
Roy Lofquist:
Would you prefer that they work impossible miracles?
Short of that, would you prefer to have all the new IRS agents fully funded? Would you prefer to have no investigations of the Bidens, after all that was done to Trump by the Democrats?
Ackler:
As far as time goes, each House has only 2 years to do its work, and that’s with vacations and adjournments and all of that. It’s not long.
A few days’ delay isn’t all that important. But this could go on a very long time.
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. What the RINOs want does not become right simply because they are the majority of the GOP House. Doesn’t matter if there’s 20 of them or 200. Likewise, the 20 in the minority now aren’t wrong because they’re a speed bump in the way of the Uniparty for about a week.
As far as I’m concerned, the 200 voting for McCarthy are holding conservatives nationally hostage, if anyone is.
I’ve yet to see anyone answering my thought experiment question.
1. Crenshaw is not exactly an unbiased or impartial analyzer of these events.
2. Directly comparing someone to terrorists instead of simply calling them terrorists is pretty damn close to a distinction without a difference.
3. That Crenshaw compares McCarthy to Boehner and Paul Ryan kind of gives the game away, doesn’t it?
4. If Kevin McCarthy is the only one in the House GOP who could be Speaker, that’s an indictment of EVERY House Republican and is good evidence the GOP shouldn’t be in power.
5. Did McCarthy know these 20 holdouts existed last week? If not, he’s an incompetent boob who shouldn’t be Speaker. If he knew the holdouts existed and decided to go forward with this embarrassing farce, he’s an incompetent boob who shouldn’t be Speaker.
Mike
I saw a tweet somewhere to the effect that this will break sooner rather than later. Until a Speaker is selected, no one can be sworn in. If not sworn in as members, they cannot be paid. If true, this may be an important point. There’s already a new member who couldn’t rent an apartment because he had a bad credit rating.
“I’ve yet to see anyone answering my thought experiment question.”
That’s because it is nonsense. Pardon the Godwin, but it’s like asking “What if it was the Jews holding the Nazis in concentration camps, huh? What about that?”
Mike
@neo:I’ve yet to see anyone answering my thought experiment question.
I would never compare anyone to a terrorist merely for their Speaker vote, so I can’t answer your exact “thought experiment”. But if the positions were reversed, the RINOs would still be wrong and the non-RINOs would still be right, because what the RINOs want to do is wrong, and it doesn’t matter how many of them there are, what they want to do is wrong. Bless the non-RINOs and I hope they keep it up until the GOPe gets the message.
Without the House majority nothing the Dems want to do can possibly get done, except Supreme Court Justices and treaties. So good. The non-RINOs are using the tools they have, which are not immoral to use, for ends which are not immoral. The same would not be true of the RINOs if reversed, as their ends are immoral.
It wasn’t a tweet. It was Steve Hayward, at Power Line:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/01/the-impasse-in-the-house.php
Among other things, he says, “A better tactic would be to demand the next Speaker allow votes on specific riders to appropriations that force the Biden Administration to roll back its war on domestic energy production, and similar things. These have a better chance of success even in the Democratic senate.”
Under normal circumstances I would find Crenshaw’s argument somewhat persuasive. The rebels don’t really have a plan and there doesn’t at present seem to be a viable alternative to McCarthy. (Although I think the argument about delaying the business of the House is trivial. In their current position they’re not going to accomplish much and a delay of a few days or weeks will of very little consequence.)
But these are not normal circumstances. Our country is in crisis. Huge swathes of Americans have lost all faith in our government and its institutions and as the Twitter files continue to document, there are very good reasons for this loss of faith. The response by the Republican leadership to the corruption of our elections and our institutions and the elimination of the basic rights of thousands of their fellow citizens has been feeble at best.
Under these circumstances I find it almost obscene that the same people who did precious little to stop this mess now ask to be given more power. McCarthy should at least be able to realize the enormous amount of frustration that is building across this country, a frustration that will grow increasingly toxic if it continues to be ignored. Even if he really believes that he is the best person to be Speaker, he should be smart enough to realize that a very large segment of the population doesn’t trust him and doesn’t want to return to business as usual. He has an opportunity to actually help unite the party by stepping aside and working towards finding a consensus candidate. Apparently McCarthy is a very good fundraiser and gets on well with the donors. There may have been a time when he would have been a good choice for Speaker, but now is not that time.
@MBunge: Pardon the Godwin, but it’s like asking
A less fraught way to put it is that the GOPe wants to help a little old lady cross the street in front of a speeding car, while the others want to help the little old lady cross the street somewhere else that is not in front of the speeding car.
Neo’s “thought experiment” implicitly takes the stance that what matters is that the majority of the GOP Congress should get its way. But since it’s not immoral to vote against a candidate for Speaker–the rules allow for this–then what matters is not the vote, but what the vote intends to accomplish. McCarthy is the “business as usual, cave to the Dems so we get our friends’ appropriations and tell the base to elect more of us next time’ candidate and that is simply wrong for the country. So it is right for the 20 in the minority to vote that way, and would still be right if the positions were reversed.
A united House GOP majority is an absolute veto on all legislation and budgeting. But they have no intention of being that. Because it would get in the way of appropriations. What they plan to do is cave by a few liberal R’s every time they get some more pork by doing so, and tell conservatives to send more money and vote harder next time. That’s the McConnell playbook as well as the general GOPe playbook since at least 2001. Looks like conservatives are getting wise to the scam, finally. Some anyway.
Short of that, would you prefer to have all the new IRS agents fully funded? Would you prefer to have no investigations of the Bidens, after all that was done to Trump by the Democrats?
Tell me that McCarthy will vote to repeal Obamacare or reopen the Benghazi hearing if he’s elected Speaker and maybe I’ll agree, LOL. Tired of paying for kabuki theater, and glad to see I’m not alone.
Finally we’ve got some R’s willing to do what D’s do routinely, which is use any and all procedural tactics as leverage. We can’t spare these people, they fight.
I realize that a lot of people detest McCarthy because he didn’t advance the right’s agenda when he could have done so, and therefore they don’t trust him at all (I’m hardly keen on him myself).
On that note:
“If we had elected Kevin McCarthy speaker we would have already voted to defund the 87,000 new IRS agents”
So what, Waltz? Just a couple of weeks ago, when he could have voted not to fund the 87,000 new IRS agents in the first place; McCarthy as minority leader couldn’t get 9 Republicans from voting to fund the agents. McConnell lost 18. These are the leaders we should get behind?
Why don’t we have an alternative from the GOP? People can claim the 20 holdouts that have a viable alternative, but the fact is neither does the other side of the GOP. Empty promises that won’t be kept about defunding IRS Agents is a dumb argument. You had that vote 2 weeks ago and lost.
I already made my comment about Crenshaw, and while I appreciate Neo’s defense with the full transcript; Crenshaw has already gone another news cycle further and made matters worse.
And another vote with 19-1-1 not for McCarthy. Or is that old news? Hard to tell from the other side of the planet.
His numbers appear to be getting worse?
Good.
Has anyone seen an authoritative list of the concessions to which McCarthy has supposedly agreed?
ever seen any significant revelation rising out of a congressional committee when dems are involved, whereas they always make a mountain out of a molehill, with trump or going even farther back with abramoff or enron, whereas madoff or mf global, or epstein, never really stick to them,
we see how every effort trump put forward, was stonewalled or downgraded and nearly all ultimately were erased, the opposite is true for obamacare or some other prog icon,
Frederick:
That’s the correct answer you gave at 4:43 PM – if it’s right for the very right wing, then it would be right for the RINOs. But my guess is that most people here would not be the least bit happy or approving if RINOs did the exact same thing.
My other point is that you are assuming McCarthy will do what he did before. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. A lot of people like Jordan, whose conservative bona fides are good, seem to disagree. My sense is that they may know more about McCarthy and his plans than you do or than I do or than some random person online does. They could be wrong, of course, but they’re more likely to be right than people who don’t have access to the inside negotiations.
Leland:
I don’t know whether you’re familiar with this, and although I’m pretty sure you’ll reject the reasoning in it, I think you should read it anyway.
My other point is that you are assuming McCarthy will do what he did before. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. A lot of people like Jordan, whose conservative bona fides are good, seem to disagree.
As a private citizen with an interest in this, I’d like to see the beef.
among some of the holdouts, are at least one of the new members from florida, miss luna, she replaced stephanie murphy I think, the omnibus has checkmated many if not all substantive measures that the house might have pursued, if there was a larger complement of populist republicans,
Oh noes! Crenshaw made the analogy of negotiating with terrorists. Would it have been less distressing if he had used the wrestling with pigs analogy? Or the time honored moving goalpoasts or Calvinball played by 20 analogy?
Looks like The Globetrotters.
The twenty want to have the spotlight; their 15 minutes of fame.
Revenge and spitefullness.
@neo:if it’s right for the very right wing, then it would be right for the RINOs.
Let’s be very clear what I said was “right”. The very right wing is right, minority or not, because their ends are right and their means are right, and the RINOs are wrong, minority or not, because their ends are wrong even though their means would not be wrong. It’s not the “obstruction” I object to, it’s the purpose of the obstruction and its desired end result.
My other point is that you are assuming McCarthy will do what he did before. Perhaps yes, perhaps no.
Giving him what he wanted the first time would have given him little reason to change. He’s had 8 chances to get his mind right…
they’re more likely to be right than people who don’t have access to the inside negotiations.
If only we could trust the insiders to be open and transparent with us about what they know… instead of selectively leaking to get what they want….
10th House Speaker vote ends: McC 200, Hak Jeff 212, Donalds 13, Hern 7, Others 0, present 1
The U.S. national debt is $31.3 trillion, and the current 2022 U.S. GDP is $25.7 trillion. Divide the former by the latter to arrive at a U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio of 121%.
So the debt has increased $2.9 trillion in 14 months. From 2019 until today it’s increased $8.6 trillion. The estimate for fy 2023 is nearly $1 trillion.
The debt to GDP ratio was 119% in 1946 after a world war and a great depression.
What do the rebels want? They want McCarthy gone. They don’t trust him. In this interview on Fox, Matt Gaetz makes that clear. The only way they’ll allow him to be elected is if a rules package is passed that removes power from the Speaker.
This isn’t just about a few reps seeking more power. It’s bigger than that.
This appears to be the Alamo. Think 1856 and 133 votes to elect a speaker.
Fast forward to 2:19 in the interview to hear Gaetz explain what he’s doing and why.
I applaud them and wish them success.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpAeBc1FNU&t=52s
The only way they’ll allow him to be elected is if a rules package is passed that removes power from the Speaker.
I would hope Speaker and floor leaders on both sides. For starters, why not debar a given member from holding a seat on a particular committee for more than 10 years in any bloc of 12 and distribute by lot seats which have opened up due to retirements or due to rotation-in-office rules? While we’re at it, why is it so impossible to produce and vote on appropriations bills rather than these horrid catch all continuing resolutions? Why not rotation-in-office rules and mandatory retirement for the Speaker, floor leaders, and whips?
“Has anyone seen an authoritative list of the concessions to which McCarthy has supposedly agreed?” Art Deco
Upon what basis should the ‘obstructionist’, conservative House members believe anything to which McCarthy has supposedly agreed? The GOPe, of which McCarthy and McConnell are certainly members in high standing have continually broken nearly every substantive promise they’ve made for decades. The GOPe’s actions, like the current FBI and DOJ have removed ALL trust in them. So much so that the assumption they’re lying about everything they claim to support and will work to do the exact opposite is a near certainty.
“If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.” Abraham Lincoln
It’s usually the other way around, isn’t it? A conservative can win the Republican primary, but he can’t win the general election because liberal Republicans won’t support the nominee of the party. That’s how a state like Kansas ends up with a Democrat governor.
Here’s a thought experiment: to what extent would Fred Upton or John Katko have taken an interest in procedural changes in re the House floor, in committee, in the caucus, in the process of making committee assignments, &c? Who, in the House Republican caucus, objected to how Steve King was treated by McCarthy?
Upon what basis should the ‘obstructionist’, conservative House members believe anything to which McCarthy has supposedly agreed?
If the procedural amendments remove discretion from the floor leader and the Speaker and vest it in the whole caucus.
Matt Gaetz wants to decide who will be the Speaker of the House. Interesting how this will play out, sort of a new thing, a precident.
What could conceivablly go a gley?
Unintended consequences? Not possible! Some just like to see things burn, all the while Brandon and the junta party on.
Simple.
Suppose this is their true intent. Then it may be that all talk of “negotiating deals” or “making concessions” is no more than unsubtle propaganda spread to sully.
@om:Looks like The Globetrotters.
If some of the Washington Generals were refusing to play unless the game became a real basketball game instead of a fake one, that analogy would be apt.
And if some Generals fans were criticizing them for not getting back on the court because the Globetrotters will just score hundreds of points in the next game if the Generals don’t suit up, the analogy would be even more apt.
What stops it from being apt is that people who go to Globetrotters games know it’s a show and want to see the show, not a real basketball game. If ever people got tired of that, the teams would go out of business. Unfortunately that part of the analogy fails, as Congress does not go away when we lose our willingness to pay to watch them pretend to do things.
while Brandon and the junta party on.
They can only party on when a House majority allows them to. The GOP is that House majority, and McCarthy is one of the lead enablers. He will not use his majority to block Brandon’s Junta–which he could–he will use it to extract concessions at appropriation time. Which is he will pick your pocket to enrich his friends and tell you to vote harder next time and send money. He will sell you over and over, and you will spend your time making excuses for him, for free.
Everyone is trying to work with them in good faith to give them an off ramp, because this is this is a terrible situation for them personally. They are responsible for holding up a GOP agenda. They could be responsible for Democrats pulling some really clever deals, maybe forcing a plurality vote, maybe potentially getting a rules package the Democrats want. I don’t know. I mean, the possibilities we could talk for hours about them, but they’re dangerous for Republicans. The best solution here is go with the guy that already won 85% of our internal vote.
–Dan Crenshaw (from neo’s quote)
_________________________
Assuming his version is accurate, I find Crenshaw’s reasoning persuasive. Also his earlier point:
_________________________
If you wanted to have someone else as speaker, you know, you knew this moment was coming. Is like, you know, an election is coming. And when you know an election is coming, you start running. You start building support. You go out and you fundraise. If there’s somebody else wanted to run, if they want to run a different candidate, well, they could have been competing with Kevin McCarthy this whole time. But they didn’t. They had no plan.
Well Neo, I think you got your answer. NO and not just NO but Hell No. Give no quarter kills more people. Somehow I find it interesting that I agreed with OM, most likely for the first time. I believe that the No’s have gotten almost all of what they want, but not all. No one ever gets all. They have shown they have the power to stop things, now how about the power to get things done. They do not have a viable replacement for McCarthy, Donalds certainly isn’t. Come up with a good replacement that would get the votes. To me now they are showboating.
I forgot to add that posting the entire comments from Crenshaw shows that a sound bite travels around the world before the truth goes an inch. Tucker has caused more damage to the truth with his bias and claims.
But they didn’t. They had no plan.
Why would Crenshaw know for what they would settle? Isn’t it just that his impoverished imagination gives him no clue as to what their plan might be?
When McCarthy withdraws Shirehome, the whole Republican caucus can choose a nominee for Speaker acceptable to the whole caucus. This would be good, don’t you think?
What sdferr said.
McCarthy off the table for good.
Then let’s see.
if they want to run a different candidate, well, they could have been competing with Kevin McCarthy this whole time. But they didn’t. They had no plan.
Oh good Lord! They are not trying to have their own candidate. They are not trying to have a plan to take over the GOP Congress.
They are telling the GOPe that the gravy train is over if they don’t start being conservatives for real instead of just in the elections! If the GOPe want the gravy train to start back up, they have to agree that they are going to advance conservatism. It’s that simple. If they do that they can still wet their beaks, bring home bacon, etc.
Crenshaw’s smart, which means he’s deceiving us.
Why is it up to the rebels (patriots is a better description) to find a suitable replacement? It’s up to the majority to find a replacement they can support, suitable to the patriots.
Gaetz said (some paraphrasing) there are two outcomes– “kevin bows out or brings the house into session and puts on a straitjacket that does not allow much discretion for the Speaker of the House. The reason we have demanded that is we do not trust McCarthy, and it’s from a large body of work… This town needs to change… having the most fundamental rewrite of the rules in my lifetime….Some of the 20 might vote for Kevin if conservatives get control of rules and appropriations committees that don’t allow bad rules and bad appropriations.”
Anybody remember the Secure Fence Act of 2006?
“It’s true that in 2006, the Republican-controlled House and a large bipartisan majority in the Senate passed, and President Bush signed, the Secure Fence Act, requiring 700 additional miles of double chain-link and barbed-wire fences with lights and camera poles.
But in 2007, the Homeland Security Department complained of being, er, fenced in, arguing that different types of terrain required different barriers.
So Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, authored an amendment that DHS would not be required “to install fencing . .. if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.”
We need to put a straitjacket on Congress. We can start with the House.
I really don’t think the 20 and their supporters have thought this all the way through.
Say they 20 win and we get Byron Donalds or Kevin Hern or whoever in the Speaker’s chair. Say they reimplement the regular order, keep the GOP caucus together, and pass all of the normal appropriation bills for 2024 with sane spending levels just as we would all like.
Do you know what Chuck Schumer will do then? He’ll do nothing. Or maybe he’ll put the appropriations bills up for a vote to demonstrate that they can’t pass the Senate.Then the GOP either negotiates the least bad omnibus bill it still can or (more likely) precipitates a shutdown, and then caves to end the shutdown.
So, man, if there’s a potential Republican Speaker who could break out of that pattern and get a different result, I’d love to hear about it. But I don’t think there is any way out of that pattern while Democrats control the Senate, the White House, and the press. The time to get spending under control and get back to regular order is when Republicans control the Congress and the White House. (Say, why didn’t we do that in 2017 or 2018?)
All that the 20 are doing is giving the party a black eye and duping the base into thinking they are some kind of heros. Unless whoever Lauren Boebert thinks of while walking to the rostrum to vote has magic powers that cause Democrats to forget how much leverage they have.
Clearly, it’s a metaphor, but one is responsible for the metaphors one chooses.
I also don’t understand why not supporting McCarthy makes the dissenters RINOs.
It would be good if the opponents were going for real policy concessions from McCarthy, but with Democrats (and McConnell) controlling the Senate, none or few of those policy concessions will be translated into legislation, so the opposition is going for personal perks and changes to the internal rules of the House. That doesn’t look good, but the weren’t going to get real legislation and policy changes.
It would also have been nice if the dissidents had chosen a candidate and mounted a campaign against McCarthy from the beginning, but Crenshaw doesn’t make the rules and define the game. He and McCarthy have to deal with the current situation and not just object that the situation should have been different.
Well, if you go to Wikipedia, you will learn that Byron Donalds, the person favored by some of the anti-McCarthy crowd, is a convicted felon. He also has a grand total of two years in the Congress.
His is the only name I have seen mentioned as a serious consideration other than Jordan; who unfortunately is not interested.
So, tell me how the favored alternative to McCarthy is an improvement.
I don’t think Donalds is a serious candidate. More of a placeholder.
I’ve read Scalise is well regarded.
It sounds like they’re making progress on a rules package. Final piece of the puzzle would be putting more conservatives on rules and appropriations.
back in november, they did a canvas and mccarthy showed he was 24 votes short, but he thought he could brute force it, not much has changed since then, he ran a ‘seinfeld campaign’ about nothing, and got very little out of it, in addition to the fraud factor, and ranked choice and other little tricks up the democrats sleave,
11th vote done (tentative tally): McC 200, Hak Jeff 212, Hern 7, Trump 1, Others 12 (Donalds 12), present 1
[CSpan, by the by, is another propaganda arm of the Democrat Party]
Neo, about the link.
Of course, Republicans supported the Defense Spending. There is an aspect of that which truly has become a wedge due to Donald Trump and his supporters, as many of them are tired to the spending on defense and war. Having worked in the defense industry much of my life, I’m most definitely not in that group.
I understand the rest that many Republicans felt like they had better concessions than they would get later. However, when you read that section from the link; you do realize the underlying assumption is clear. The Republicans assume they won’t get what they want from Democrats, so they decide to go with Democrats now and take whatever they can get. This may be fine in a split legislative body.
But now how about this? Or this?
In that first link, you’ll find “the plan” being followed today was outlined as far back as November 11, 2022. You and I can disagree with the plan or agree but not think it is complete. But it is a plan and McCarthy was made aware of months ago. In the second link; you’ll find plenty explaining why the first link is a very reasonable position to take.
My point in providing those links and previous comments is to challenge for better arguments from those wanting this to go away. You may recall, neo; that I agreed with you just a couple of days ago. So, I am a bit insulted that you think I would dismiss your link. But more to the point, the dismissiveness is all I’m hearing for those wanting to just vote in McCarthy. I’m struggling why I or anyone should find being dismissed as a compelling argument. Let me add, your link is a bit less dismissive than your own comments, so perhaps you didn’t intend how it sounded to me, and I certainly intend to recognize that you provided a better argument with the link.
So The Globetrotters put up a placeholder. How cute, and The Globetrotters (Gaetz or Roy or whomever) get to decide whom is acceptable from the rest of the caucus, but don’t really have to put up a real candidate?
Funny little power trip these Globetrotters are playing.
Tell me agin how this is a serious thing and that the Democrats are the priority threat to thus country?
The perfect is the enemy of the good. It applies to most things in life, even the Republican House of Representatives.
Rome burns and the 20 fiddle. Revenge and spitefullnrss.
What if Scalise, like Jordan, doesn’t want to play “Please the 20 game?”
If you are going to “kill the king,” Globetrotter’s need not apply.
I think the blog swallowed my previous response. I’m not going to rewrite it, but it address the this with two other this’s, and the primary point is I’m seeing argument on the side of McCarthy that just are weak. So let’s just talk about Rep. Waltz points:
“If we had elected Kevin McCarthy speaker we would have already voted to defund the 87,000 new IRS agents”
“We” is the House, which is irrelevant when the Senate won’t have the vote nor a President to sign the bill, and even if somehow that was negotiated months from now, no time is being lost at the present. The argument is hollow.
“new border security measures”
There are already laws on the book regarding our border not being enforced by the current Administration. McCarthy had the chance in 2017 to do this and failed as the majority leader.
“a select committee on China”
For what? A boondoggle trip to the country? I have no idea what this means.
“We would also be sending notices to the Biden administration that we’re coming for answers on the FBI, Department of Justice, the Afghanistan withdrawal, and conflicts of interest surrounding the Biden family.”
McCarthy sent a public notice on August 9th for AG Garland “to clear his calendar”. Did that win him a larger majority?
I’ll repeat again, McCarthy is better than Jeffries, but Jeffries doesn’t get in unless the GOP wants him in. So tell me why McCarthy must be Speaker. The arguments against him where laid out as far back as November 11th. What’s happening now is exactly as was warned back then, so what was the GOP plan? Hope for the best?
Want miracles? Let’s try the 100 day plan!
Leland:
How many commenters make how many comments here a day? I try to at least skim them all, and now and then I respond. But believe me when I say that it would be very strange were I to be able to remember everything each person wrote day after day after day.
The problem for me with your Thought Experiment is that it ignores the earliest negotiation between the dissidents and McCarthy. The big ask was a return to Regular Order. RO means an end to the Continuing Resolution (now in its 12th year) and the re-establishment of voting for as many as 20 separate funding bills. The fact is that no Congresscriminal wants to do this. It would expose to the voters exactly what their elected criminals really believe. The dissidents have then tried to find alternatives to RO and to their dismay they find that they are the only ones worried about the future of America – all the rest are worried about the future of their back pockets. I believe that the best the dissidents can do at this time is to deny McCarthy the Speakership. I guess that will be some solace as we swirl down the toilet bowl.
Dan Crenshaw, the Texan who did his part to enact new gun laws (Red Flag), is someone I would not trust to tell the truth or to argue in good faith. And according to @unusualwhales, he is also one of the Congressional Insiders who has done exceptionally well with his investments, beating out even Nancy Pelosi when it comes to making spectacular investment choices with companies doing business with the Fed Gov. So: He is GOPe through and through, an insider to boot. Of course he advocates for McCarthy.
Regarding the Gedankenexperiment: I see this controversy as representative of the GOPe doing their best to eradicate Trumpism within their caucus. And yet, if I recall correctly, there are 70 million people that voted in favor of this in the last Presidential election, and a substantial subset of that comprises people that are fed up with the status quo and business-as-usual – not just run-of-the-mill republican voters. But in any case – the thought experiment premise includes a track record, in the case of the GOPe and in particular, in the case of McCarthy – he’s been a go-along-to-get-along for 7 years, not so? What particularly notable stands has he made on conservative principles when advocating in the House? And if Dan Crenshaw is up on his hind legs saying that nobody has a plan, then where was McCarthy when it came to counting his votes and polling his supporters? Did he just think the vote was a formality, no need to break a sweat ensuring he had votes in advance? Isn’t this a pretty standard procedure in Congress, building consensus before the vote? What happened? Dan? Dan? Bueller?
Enlighten me about your complaint about the border in 2017, Leland. How specifically did McCarthy as majority leader of the House of Representatives have the power to enforce laws that were on the books? I am missing something here. I thought the Executive Branch, i.e. Trump in 2017, had the responsibility to enforce laws.
Besides, any complaints about McCarthy’s actions as Majority Leader are likely spurious as he was obliged to follow the dictates of the Speaker.
In politics you sometimes have to accept what is possible. You also sometimes have to go with the best person available.
No one in this clown show has put forth a better alternative than McCarthy, since Jordan opted out. Scalise has been mentioned. The only context in which I have ever heard of Scalise was getting shot. Maybe someone knows of exceptional leadership qualities that have escaped notice.
I will beat a dying horse, by pointing out that McCarthy was acceptable as leader of the caucus for many hard years, right up until there was power to be grabbed. Fie, on the grabbers.
I see both comments are up now and a response. I won’t respond any further but to say again I’m looking for good arguments. (If it isn’t clear, I wouldn’t come back if I didn’t expect better arguments here).
Albertson:
No, the dissenters are not RINOs. I was giving a hypothetical thought experiment where the roles and politics were reversed.
Kevin McCarthy’s “Commitment to America” campaign debacle is enough reason to disqualify him from the Speakership.
“The impact of McCarthy’s “Commitment to America” is a fair measure of its effectiveness: It crashed on takeoff. The mainstream media ignored it as did the conservative media. And deservedly so.”
It was a disaster. It had no impact on the midterms. I’m not sure what supporters of McCarthy see in him.
Bauxite:
Crenshaw certainly doesn’t think they have a plan. I don’t think they have a plan either, except self-aggrandizement and destructiveness. If they had a plan other than throwing their weight around, I think we would have heard it by now. I think they are feeding off the anger on the right, and are raising their own profiles. Now, maybe they have a point at which they’ll give in, but so far I haven’t seen any indication of what it would be other than McCarthy withdrawing his name in favor of people who don’t want the job.
I’m skeptical of Crenshaw, he seems swampy to me, but I certainly agree with neo’s take on his statement. When I read that headline yesterday I went and read the actual exchange. His use of the word was apt and not particularly hyperbolic in the context of the conversation, especially when viewed from the RHINO side.
Regarding neo’s Gedankenexperiment, with the pieces where they currently are on the chessboard, her play is the “best” play politically. Cave, go with the majority and vote for McCarthy.
If the game is Swampball, that’s the play. Maybe Boebert, Gaetz and the others negotiate some smoke-filled room promises of pork for their districts, or plum assignments before they cave.
The fact that we are here is an indication that the GOP has no desire to change course at all and are very happy with the Uni Party continuing ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad paupert?s.
Well, if you go to Wikipedia, you will learn that Byron Donalds, the person favored by some of the anti-McCarthy crowd, is a convicted felon.
He’s a stand-in. This isn’t that confusing.
I think an insistence on regular order and on replacing discretionary committee assignments with a lottery would be a good goal. I doubt McCarthy would agree to either unless his nuts were in a vise.
The Globetrotters have the ball, can they rewrite all the rules for the other
Republicans before the mob (the Democrats) kick them both out of the gym. I would think that Republican voters are getting a bit tired of this fiddling. Time will tell.
Pretty telling when a “conservative” muses that Jeffries would be more acceptable than McCarthy.
Revenge and spitefullness.
After the losses by clowns in 2010 by Angel, Odonnell, and Akin and Mourdock in 2012 in think it was Ace who wrote that its one thing to have a candidate who you agree with , but they also have to be effective politicians. I agree that ideologically McCarthy isn’t conservative or Maga enough, but he has risen high enough to show he has political skills. Perhaps after all of this he will not stab the base in the back like Ryan and Boener did. Or to paraphrase Milton Friedman- its easier to get bad politicians to vote the correct way than to get good ones elected.
Because nothing says you are serious as a stand in.
Globetrotters got to be in the spotlight.
Brian E:
If a small group wants to oppose the plans and wishes of a larger group – well then yes, they need to propose an alternative. I would have thought that obvious. Otherwise they are merely destructive.
You also quote this:
And then you comment on the quote by adding: “We need to put a straitjacket on Congress. We can start with the House.”
Do you think it’s obvious that when Hutchinson and the department said that different types of terrain require different solutions that they were lying, or wrong? Have you done a survey of the border? Have you any idea what they’re actually referring to? I wrote about some of these logistical problems here.
Also see this:
Or areas such as this:
I’m impressed by the commentary. Multiple times I uttered ‘yes!’ out loud while reading through them.
As to some of the criticisms of the dissidents (by Neo and others):
The ‘they have no plan’ attack is disingenuous. Their plan is clear and simple: extract as many concessions out of McCarthy or force him to stand aside. They’d prefer the latter but most will probably be fine with the former. One can say their plan is stupid, destructive, self serving, unrealistic, etc. etc. But there clearly is a plan.
The ‘they have no alternative’ criticism is also weak. There’s no alternative…until there is. Donalds and Hern are placeholders; neither would actually become Speaker. Jordan and Scalise insist they don’t want the position, out of loyalty to McCarthy. That’s fair. But if McCarthy withdrew, dollars to donuts one or both of them would suddenly become very interested.
As to the dissidents acting out of self-aggrandizement….oh that NEVER happens in politics! [/sarc]. I’m sure that’s a motivation for many of them; so what? It doesn’t change the fact that the goals they are seeking will be hugely positive in the long term
Ackler:
It is your argument that is disingenuous – or perhaps you didn’t understand what I said. Let me lay it out for you again:
If their plan is to extract concessions and then give in, that’s fine with me. I’m not a McCarthy fan. But several of them have said their plan is to hang tough and refuse to EVER vote for him no matter what. This is therefore neither clear nor simple. And yet they have offered no viable alternative to McCarthy. There is nothing clear about that, either. And yes, they need to do so to be taken seriously. Till then, they are merely blowhards.
Agree to disagree, Neo. I’m certainly not trying to be disingenuous, anyway.
I know the hardliners have said ‘Never McCarthy!’ but who knows? Some of that is grandstanding. In any case, I can envision a way out: the five hardliners vote ‘present’ while the other 16 vote McCarthy giving him a narrow win and allowing them to save face.
I think they have offered a viable alternative to McCarthy: Jim Jordan. Most of them voted for him on the second and third rounds; he disclaimed interest, they moved on to other placeholders. But that act was signaled they find him acceptable. If McCarthy withdraws, I think he’s the clear compromise choice and hopefully can be prevailed on to accept, just like Paul Ryan seven years ago.
So, they are serious in my opinion. Blowhards? Yes, at least some of them. So is Crenshaw. That’s part and parcel of the process
Re McCarthy: “He’s pledged to do it, the House members seem determined to do it, and someone like Crenshaw and lots of other House members like Jordan and Scalise (who voted for him for Speaker) seem to trust him to do it.”
I would like to believe that’s all which is necessary. But a politician giving their word and then going back on it is such a common trope it’s almost expected, while the ones that don’t are the exceptions. And after the last 6 years I’m convinced that the vast majority of Congressfolk are not worried about the country or their constituents – but they’re very much concerned about their power and status within the HS-like confines inside the Beltway.
My conclusion on this is that we have put into place politicians for whom the appearance of progress and change is far more important than actually changing the things which concern the voters. They are no longer responsible to us. We peasants in flyover country are not important – while the guy in the next desk over had better be happy with what you’re doing or you’re going to be on bottom-tier committees and never invited to the good parties.
And as a political animal (otherwise known as ‘politician’) you’ve got to get to the good parties to make the right connections to advance your career. The peasants will keep you in office, but it’s the guy two desks over that’ll make you rich.
That’s more important than any border control proposal, immigration reform package, budget package, or any of the myriad details and issues that they’re supposed to actually care about. The people are no longer important. We don’t matter.
And I wish I could believe otherwise.
Jim Jordan is much more useful as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee than as an emasculated Speaker.
Also, if Strassel’s sources are correct about the concessions that McCarthy has already made, neo is absolutely right about the dissenters.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mccarthy-house-speaker-vote-trump-freedom-caucus-budget-spending-committee-republican-majority-11672956869?mod=opinion_featst_pos1
sdefrr, if McCarthy is gone then magically the Republican will suddenly unite behind one person? Just how would that happen. Don’t you think there might be 20 people on the other side that would stop the process too.
Hutchinson’s amendment said:
“Nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.”
A 700 mile fence was specified back in a 1996 bill. The 2006 bill specified the fence would be double barrier. Besides essentially telling DHS they could do nothing in area they thought didn’t need it, giving the department a pass on the double barrier fence, allowed 300 miles of vehicle barrier, 300 miles of pedestrian fence and only 36 miles of double barrier fence.
The border is almost 2,000 miles long. Surely they could have found 700 miles of that distance to build a fence on.
The Otay Mountain example is a red herring. Even without Hutchinson’s axing of the fence, there would still have been nearly 1,400 miles without any fence.
My point is from the 1996 bill, the 2006 bill, the 2008 bill, the failure to fund Trump’s fence and obstruction, Congress, including Republicans have given lip service to a fence, but done little to build it.
President Trump’s legal efforts to tamp down illegal immigration probably did as much or more as the physical barrier. But a physical barrier provides a deterrent effect to discourage people making the trek to the border.
Congress passes a bill, never funds it and the rubes in flyover territory aren’t supposed to notice.
As to the straitjacket metaphor, I was referring to a previous comment, where Gaetz said they would only accept a rules package that puts McCarthy in a straitjacket.
As to the rebels/patriots putting forward an alternative– they did Donald. Of the 20 holdouts, only five are never-McCarthyites, the rest are just looking to get enough concessions to make the House the people’s House again. I have no idea whether or not McCarthy can peel of one of the five. One of the concessions was McCarthy agreeing to not primary the holdouts next election.
As to immigration, I believe we need a healthy immigration policy in this country, tied to economic growth. It’s in the best interests of the country that the immigration be diversified from a variety of countries.
I saw Gaetz interviewed on the Ingraham show tonight. He’s a never McCarthy man and it looks like it’s personal. I think he didn’t get the support from McCarthy that he thought he deserved when he was going through his ethics investigation. He didn’t say that, but his disdains for McCarthy is very strong.
This will come to an end eventually because, until a speaker is chosen, none of the Members can be sworn in. No one can be paid until they are sworn in. Not all the House members are wealthy. At some point they will want to get paid. In fact, it’s rumored that one member cannot rent an apartment until he can show proof of a paycheck. He has a bad credit score. We’ll see how this angle plays out over the next few days.
“One of the concessions was McCarthy agreeing to not primary the holdouts next election.”
It truly will be tragic to see Karma come to visit them.
F around and find out.
Brian E:
I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Did you read the article I linked in my comment to you? See this:
The 700 mile fence was built – is your complaint that it wasn’t all double barrier?
Ackler:
For Jordan to be a viable alternative he would have to be willing to take the job. He says he is not. That make him a non-viable alternative. I like him, you may like him, but “viable” doesn’t just mean “person we like.”
Perhaps you think he’s lying? I take him at his word. I actually think Speaker is an awful job: herding cats, and you get blamed when they won’t stay properly in the herd. And you have to raise money, too. I think McCarthy is better at it than most, and at the moment the other candidates we would like to see in the job are not willing to do it.
Trump, who has many skills, does not have the skills required, either.
After the losses by clowns in 2010 by Angel, Odonnell, and Akin and Mourdock in 2012
Christine O’Donnell is someone who has no business in public life. The other three were not and are not ‘clowns’. Mourdock in particular was not an eccentric at all.
Bauxite’s link to Kim Strassel’s column is behind the paywall; I can read it. Her point it that these dissidents have forced McCarthy to agree to returning the House to most of the pre-Pelosi rules and procedures. Implemented, these will make the House once again a body which considers bills one by one, with discussion in committee and with amendments permitted on the floor. In fact, it would be a legislative body and not merely a rubber stamp for whatever monstrous bill the Speaker concocts and forces through. Strassel says the dissidents should just take the win. I agree.
This is the perfect time for the “rebels” to be making their stand.
There is no chance for the House’s Republican agenda to be enacted anyway. How are they going to repeal the funding for the 87,000 new IRS agents? They’ve already passed the budget that funds them. Are they going to pass a law repealing that funding? Great on them…how are they going to get it past the Senate or get it signed by Biden?
“If we don’t get our way we can’t pretend to do any of the things we wouldn’t be able to do anyway.” Not a persuasive argument to me.
Investigations? Like the Benghazi investigation? How many people were prosecuted over that debacle? Oh yeah…none. That’s another point Gaetz made…they want investigations too, but real ones, with teeth, that name names and provide actionable evidence for the people to see; not just more kabuki theater like we’ll get from the GOPe.
BTW…the claim has been made (not necessarily here, but I’ve seen it) that McCarthy should be speaker because he’s proven himself as a fund raiser. OK…how? By selling his soul to the big money people – by promising the million dollar donors that he won’t rock the boat and will “keep their gravy train flowing” as another on here put it. That’s hardly a positive attribute if you ask me.
I have to admit, I’m a little fearful about the actions of the 20, not because I think they’re wrong…they’re not; but because McCarthy is a true swamp creature and puts his own power ahead of everything else. He won’t give in to the 20 because he won’t give up the power that goes along with the speakership and he won’t drop out because he sees it as being owed to him. I fear rather than make a substantive deal that will appease the 20 enough to get at least 16 of them to vote for him, he’ll make a deal with the Democrats to get 18 or 20 of their votes instead. Because that’s how the GOPe works – power is the most important thing to them and if they have to throw the entire republican voter base under the bus to get it…well…them’s the breaks right?
McCarthy will go down in history as making a 1.7 trillion mistake on the 1 yard line
Art Deco – Everyone makes mistakes, and grace is undervalued these days. However, if you run for public office, yet lack the basic mouth control to avoid opining on “voluntary rape,” then “clown” really isn’t that much of an exageration, if at all. The GOP had no business losing Indiana and Missouri Senate seats in 2012.
It’s the same old story, cycle after cycle. The base can’t abide candidates who actually know what they’re doing and stand a chance of winning because they’re “GOPe” or whatever. So we nominate a bunch of extremists and novices who aren’t ready for prime time and lose. Then we don’t have the power to actually make positive changes. Then the rump group of extremists who did manage to get elected decide that every skirmish is a hill worth dying on, embarass the party, and make it more difficult to recruit the candidates who actually know what they’re doing for the next cycle.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
I disagree about o donnell she was exactly who delaware needed look at the party apparatchiks they have had their for a dozen years akin was another stabbed in the back by a worthless rove
The candidates who surrendered all the leverage in the omnibus a tragedy that need not be
Sailorcut – You write as though this matter is about 20 versus 1, i.e., McCarthy. It’s not. It’s about 20 versus the 200 other members of the caucus who vote for McCarthy.
That 200 includes many members who share the same policy goals as the 20, but disagree about whether opposing McCarthy is the right tactic. (Jim Jordan comes to mind.)
Everyone makes mistakes, and grace is undervalued these days. However, if you run for public office, yet lack the basic mouth control to avoid opining on “voluntary rape,” then “clown” really isn’t that much of an exageration, if at all. The GOP had no business losing Indiana and Missouri Senate seats in 2012.
The people who lacked ‘mouth control’ were the characters working for the RNC who assisted the media in manufacturing sh!tstorms out of nothing. You defend these clowns reflexively because you’re as bad as they are.
Mccarthy is a man without honor
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/402631.php
Were the roles reversed as in neo’s thought experiment I would not be upset about this situation any more than I am, which is not at all. The minority in this case, the more conservative Reps, are using the power they have to get what they want. This is how politics work. And they don’t trust McCarthy and Crenshaw and the rest to simply accept their assurances and promises. There is likely also a fair amount of residual anger at McCarthy’s and the GOP’s lack of support for the more conservative candidates in the recent election, which undermines trust.
Crenshaw is wrong on the analogy and with his demand that the minority has an obligation to put forth alternative candidates if they don’t like McCarthy. It was McCarthy’s job, if he wants the job of Speaker, to work with the minority over the past several weeks and months to secure their support. Running 11 failed votes is evidence of his lack of leadership.
The squad gets all their wishes come through and its considered amusing no matter how destructive
You’re right, you know.
@Bauxite:So we nominate a bunch of extremists and novices who aren’t ready for prime time and lose.
The Dems have figured out how to nominate the brain-damaged and win. It’s because they use the power available to them to deliver what their party wants.
Then we don’t have the power to actually make positive changes.
Right now the GOP has the power to stop negative changes–but the GOPe has no desire to use that power. You yourself said the GOP should be cutting deals to make things the Dems pass less bad, but they have an absolute veto on passing anything, whether budgets or laws, if they all actually vote the same way.
So why do any “deals” need to be “cut”? The Dems are stopped utterly if the House GOP all votes against what they want to do. The only reason to “cut deals” is so individual Congressmen can get their pork.
A lot of us are tired of the same old “we’ll delay what the Dems want by three months or cut what they want 5% no matter how large our majority, now vote for us and send us more money and maybe when we have bigger majorities we’ll get you some tax cuts”. This isn’t a new thing. When these guys had big majorities they squandered them, and it’s the same people, and now they have a slim majority and we’re supposed to vote harder and send more money?
No, they need a lesson, and if some of them are missing some paychecks, or have credit problems, my heart bleeds, it really does, won’t do them harm to live like the rest of us for a while and hopefully this focuses their minds that the base expects some conservatism now that they are here. They have a veto over budgets and legislation and they need to be using that to do what’s right for the country, not what gets them good press (the press that votes lockstep Dem).
Running 11 failed votes is evidence of his lack of leadership.
I have a suspicion that if McCarthy and his camarilla had agreed to a satisfactory set of procedural reforms and had it adopted and implemented beforehand, there would not have been 11 failed votes. Install a temporary speaker, get the right rules packages in place, then the temporary speaker can depart and you can vote in a speaker for the balance of this Congress. Possible candidates for temporary speaker might be a retired member of Congress who hasn’t been a combatant in the skirmishes between the Freedom Caucus and John Boehner et seq and hasn’t any interest in sticking around for longer than a month. Robert Bauman, if he’s lucid at age 85, might be the man for the job.
and if some of them are missing some paychecks, or have credit problems, my heart bleeds,
Frank Luntz can spot McCarthy the rent.
Strassel says the dissidents should just take the win. I agree.
How is ‘the win’ defined? What avenues exist for McCarthy to renege?
https://www.newsweek.com/kevin-mccarthy-drama-underscores-impotence-republican-elite-opinion-1771729
Crenshaw just called the 20 a “Cartel” on fox. He is NOT backing down, and the more he spews his crap, the less I, as an Independent, care about the Republican party who isn’t any better than the Democrat party. The only ones trying to save America are the 20 the Uniparty are trying their hardest to destroy. Let it burn down.
It’s sad that they are being called extremists, when the real extremists are the ones bankrupting our country as fast as they can.
It’s sad that they are being called extremists, when the real extremists are the ones bankrupting our country as fast as they can.
Bauxite assures me the people who need ‘mouth control’ are Todd Akin and Doug Mastriano.
A contrarian assessment of the Speaker Coup:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2023/01/06/framework-for-a-speaker-deal-emerges-n1659185
Or how to loose the House in 2024. But this has been interesting, at least for the first day. Hostage situation with the Dems just having to watch the Republicans burn down their own house and now they will gather around and piss on the ashes.
“Crenshaw just called the 20 a “Cartel” on fox.”
Name calling and the questioning of motives and integrity is no way to win friends and influence people.
he Republicans burn down their own house
LOL, no one has a right to priority in committee assignments or continuing resolutions for 12 years or the Speakership, and no one outside a tiny minority is even following the issue. And the Dems can’t get a Speaker unless some R’s vote for it, the rule is an absolute House majority, not first past the post. It’s not the conservative R’s who’ll be voting for Dems if they can’t get their gravy train started back up.
It’s interesting to see who comes out for the status quo even when what’s at stake is negligible. It’s also interesting to see who defaults to media framing of what conservatives are doing.
A contrarian assessment of the Speaker Coup:
Thin on arguments and facts.
Re: Thought experiment: That is how we get Dole, McCain, Romney as candidates (and the same thing happens in UT to get squishes elected to the senate — Larry Corriea has some posts on this).
Nassim Nicholas Taleb also talks about how a small, intolerant subgroup can dominate a much larger group. See also, LTBQ+, CRT, Reparations, Green New Deal, etc in local, state and federal groups.
The question of how you feel is if you agree with he intolerant or the ‘tolerant’. For the better part of the last 28 years, the intolerant RINOs have run the show. They ‘lost’ to Trump in a really weird 2016, and the never trumpers and democrats threw a world changing fit. Some others have decided to return the favor.
Art Deco – You make this too easy. Two GOP Senate nominees responded to press questions about rape exceptions to abortion laws by claiming that it isn’t really rape if you get pregnant. Somehow, in your mind, the consequences of these gaffes were the fault of the big bad GOPe? Really? I have no knowledge of what RNC employees did in 2012. But do you think the press would have missed what Akin and Moudock said if RNC employees hadn’t purportedly reminded them? Do you think Democrats would would have forgotten to feature Akin and Mourdock in nearly every ad from that cycle if RNC employees hadn’t spilled the beans? Really?
Also, I am unambiguously pro-life, but Akin and Mourdock’s comment were a big deal, not to mention unbelievably stupid. I have no persomal animosity towards either, and I’m sure both had positive accomplishments in the House, but the big stage isn’t for everyone. They clearly weren’t cut out for it.
Frederick – You’re sadly mistaken about the power that the GOP has. On must-pass legislation, like spending bills, the GOP absolutely does not have veto power. They have the power to shut down the government if the Senate and/or White House fails to act on whatever they pass. That’s it. Then they get to watch their poll numbers go into the dumper while the government is shut down until they eventually have to cut a bad deal to make the pain stop.
That’s lousy, but it’s reality.
The Globetrotters are determined to stay on the court. What is their plan, Piled Higher and Deeper? Concession are not enough, Never McCarthy is their hill and they will die for it.
But the PhD has been crying for years that his Uniparty is how things are so he is toots fine if the truly evil party comes out ahead?
Your Globetrotters are putting on a fine show.
Then they get to watch their poll numbers go into the dumper while the government is shut down until they eventually have to cut a bad deal to make the pain stop.
That’s the excuse.
Art Deco:
Regarding the Rick Moran opinion what do facts have to do with this charade? Emotion, animus, and lust for power on both sides.
A Phyrric victory is being played out.
Go Globetrotters, The Magnificent 20! (disgust)
Two GOP Senate nominees responded to press questions about rape exceptions to abortion laws by claiming that it isn’t really rape if you get pregnant.
Neither of them said that. One of them said physiological defenses inhibit conception in the case of rape. The other one said that children conceived of a rape are still children. The thing to do when one of your own is under attack from our fraud media is to start firing from the upper floors. In the case of Mr. Akin, the RNC was attacking him. Screw those people and anyone who defends them.
Also, I am unambiguously pro-life
Let go of my leg.
Regarding the Rick Moran opinion what do facts have to do with this charade? Emotion, animus, and lust for power on both sides.
He has no information on nor any critique to offer of any proposed deal. Screw him.
That is how we get Dole, McCain, Romney as candidates (and the same thing happens in UT to get squishes elected to the senate — Larry Corriea has some posts on this).
A hypothesis. From 1988 to 2012, about 1/3 of the Republican primary electorate cast ballots for ‘the-guy-whose-turn-it-is’. That provided a floor to which they could add those among the other 2/3 who actually favored them. Note, someone who gives evidence of having principles which withstand poll results is not typically ‘the-guy-whose-turn-it-is’, so Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum were dead meat even though they were the runner up in one year. Ronald Reagan is the only conviction politician who has ever grabbed ‘the-guy-whose-turn-it-is’ vote. In 1996, the-guy-whose-turn-it-is was the runner up in 1988; in 2000, it was the son of the former President; in 2008, it was the runner up in 2000; in 2012, it was the more protean of the two men who had tied for runner up in 2008. One feature of 2016 was that there was no ‘guy-whose-turn-it-is’ because Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee were too crisp and eccentric to be that guy. I suppose you could call Jeb! Bush that guy and he was certainly the donors’ candidate. What disrupted that was a fellow with massive name recognition willing to do something that only Pat Buchanan had ever dared do: put immigration law enforcement front and center. (The billionaire backing Scott Walker extorted a promise from him to avoid promoting immigration enforcement; you can see what that did to his campaign in the fall of 2015). That this happened told you that the base and the donors were enemies, for the most part.
“Concession are not enough”
What are the concessions made by McCarthy at this point?
If the “concessions” being reported are the concessions, they are not enough.
Vote on term limits? Seriously
Promise for a balanced budget in 10 years? If McCarthy is still in power in 10 years, we’re doomed
I’m still waiting to read that the House will return to regular order.
The only real concessions are those which take power from the speaker and the floor leaders and are so structured that he cannot renege on them.
Art:
Point noted and you proved it. It is beyond facts, just emotions now.
Enjoy getting spun up y’all.
Neo,
This is a problem with Washington. No, 700 miles of fence were not built. 300 miles of that “fence” was vehicle barricades to prevent the cartels from just driving drugs across the border.
They pretend to do things. And we pretend they’ve done them.
The title of bills are lies. Secure Fence Act. Inflation Reduction Act. I’d have to stop and think to name more, but if you assume that any bill will do the opposite of the title, you’d be right much of the time.
There was a time when the news media would keep them somewhat honest. Now all we get is the horse race, seldom the issues.
Why did the governor of Arizona resort to stacking shipping containers to fill in sections of the border? (Incidentally, that’s an innovative solution.) No, it will not stop determined invaders or the cartel. But it will discourage many.
There will never be a perfect solution to immigration. I worked with a chemical engineer from the Chech Republic, here on a temporary work visa trying to get a permanent visa to stay in the country. While here, he had a son. The son was a citizen and he would be able to bring his parents back to the country when the child turned 21. This person spent thousands of dollars in legal fees to get permanent status.
“Every year, 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, as many as one out of 10 births in the United States is now to an illegal immigrant mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and U.S. passports.”
“Second is the issue of chain migration. A child born to illegal aliens in the United States can initiate a chain of immigration when he reaches the age of 18 and can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. When he turns 21, he can also sponsor his parents and any brothers and sisters. Family-sponsored immigration accounts for most of the nation’s growth in immigration levels; approximately 2/3 of our immigration flow is family-based. This number continues to rise every year because of the ever-expanding migration chains that operate independently of any economic downturns or labor needs.”
This testimony was in 2015, before the current uptick in illegal immigration.
We need a change to our immigration policy. HR140 was an attempt to make a change to birthright citizenship. I don’t think it’s passed.
https://cis.org/Testimony/Birthright-Citizenship-it-Right-Policy-America
So now what is it about Globetrotter fans?
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/01/06/huge-shift-in-speaker-battle-chip-roy-and-others-now-back-kevin-mccarthy-n684510
Closing thought from bonchie
“How one will feel about this development will depend on one’s goals. Is burning it all down the point or is the point to get McCarthy to fall in line and empower conservatives in the caucus? I’m not saying one view is “right” or “wrong,” but they are distinctly different goals, and that’s the split happening now. In the end, I think Roy’s strategy is the best path because it offers the most return for conservatives, but we’ll see how things develop from here.”
Point noted and you proved it. It is beyond facts, just emotions now.
Proved by whom, what, and when?
Die gedanken sind frei
My thoughts freely flower
Die gedanken sin frei
My thoughts give me power
No hunter can trap them
No scholar can map them
No man can deny (except B.F. Skinner)
Die gedanken sind frei.
(Pete Seeger recorded this, except for my editorial aside, in the 1960s)
Art Deco:
The point is that the argument has moved past facts (way past statistics or data) to just emotive outbursts, as you said “Screw him.”
Brian E:
It’s not that simple – for example, in one of the links I put in the post, it goes into the lawsuits filed by environmental activists that stall or halt construction. And that’s part of what’s been happening with the area of the Arizona border where the containers were placed:
Art Deco:
Sometime “excuses” reflect reality.
The Globetrotters are now five short of a full team and will have to play with just The Magnificent Seven:
Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)
Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)
Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)
Bob Good (R-Va.)
Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)
Andy Harris (R-Md.)
Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.)
Will anyone who leaves the team be called a traitor or sellout?
Time will tell. There are other more pressing matters to take up IMO.
The point is that the argument has moved past facts (way past statistics or data) to just emotive outbursts,
You prefacing your remarks with ‘the point is’ do not change one reality, which is that the author you’re linking has no knowledge of what the precise points of contention are. It’s not a commentary worth reading.
Neo,
There’s never a shortage of excuses why something can’t be done.
I just read your response to Art Deco. Point taken.
As opposed to your opinions? Just askin’.
“Steve Scalise can save Congress”
“I haven’t wanted Kevin McCarthy as speaker for some time. I figured Scalise would be the perfect alternative. He is liked. He has proved himself.
Maybe DC Republicans will pressure McCarthy. Maybe he will stop listening to Paul Ryan (or whoever is giving him the bad advice to hang in there). Maybe RINOs look around and decide it is time to put the first conservative since Newt in the Speaker’s chair.
But McCarthy keeps pushing for a seat that won’t be his. It should be Scalise’s.”
More about the negotiations (or maybe not, since it’s being denied) in the story.
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2023/01/steve-scalise-can-save-congress.html#more
Center for biological diversity is pure lawfare it prevents drilling it keeps the border wide open it leaves us defenseless and cripples our natural advantages
Another opinion. What if Steve Scalise doesn’t want the gig? Oh, noes! Missed it by that much?
Curious that Congress must now be saved from “the dread Pirate Roberts” (McCarthy) now that Republicans are freed from the thrall of the lesser evil, Nancy.
@BauxiteOn must-pass legislation, like spending bills, the GOP absolutely does not have veto power
LOL. Just LOL. Thus speaks the Swamp.
Without a House majority vote, no bill passes. You can scrawl “must-pass” on it in purple crayon all you like, but no bill passes without a House majority vote. You can review Article I if you need to. I did, and there’s nothing in there about “must-pass” bills–and no past Congress can bind a future Congress.
Swamp creatures call these “must pass” to dodge accountability. But their has to be a majority vote.
Pelosi showed the potential power of the house, when the other party controls the house and Presidency.
McCarthy and the eGOP ran against Maga candidates, both in primaries and the general election.
I don’t think McCarthy expected the Gop to control the house. It was a very near run thing. NY and Ca over performed for the Gop.
Be nice if McCarthy see showed the same backbone to the Democrats, as he has to the gop dissenters.
Pingback:Is the House Speaker impasse coming to an end? - The New Neo
@ Ray SoCa > “I don’t think McCarthy expected the Gop to control the house.”
That’s a very interesting point, and might explain why he didn’t really have any plan for becoming Speaker other than wishful thinking.
He didn’t spend the intervening months developing one either, once the opposition was plain.
That is still very curious to me.
Ray SoCa; AesopFan:
That doesn’t make sense to me. What does make sense to me is the idea that McCarthy actually expected that big Red Wave to materialize. If that had happened, 20 opposition votes would not have mattered. I think it’s very clear he wanted to become Speaker, and he couldn’t have done that without the GOP controlling the House.
As far as what he did when the opposition became plain after the election, I don’t know what his interactions with them involved. He may have made efforts that didn’t succeed. Whatever those efforts were, they simply might have gone unreported. And we don’t know how they responded to any efforts, or if they did. At any rate, he certainly didn’t effectively thwart the opposition in time, and therefore had to make concessions.
However, I am probably practically alone in saying that, except for the new rule that only one GOP House member can ask for what amounts to a vote of confidence on the Speaker, I don’t think McCarthy’s actually all that bent out of shape about the more conservative agenda he’s had to adopt. I suppose time will tell whether that’s just wishful thinking on my part.