Newt Gingrich on Matt Gaetz’s move
Those of you who think Gingrich was a good Speaker, and knowledgeable about the workings of the House, please take a look at what he wrote just prior to yesterday’s vote to oust McCarthy:
Newt Gingrich on Tuesday urged House Republicans to vote down an internal rebellion against Speaker Kevin McCarthy and remove the instigator from their conference.
“Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.) is an anti-Republican who has become actively destructive to the conservative movement,” wrote Gingrich, a former Republican speaker, in a Washington Post op-ed. “Gaetz’s motion to remove McCarthy should be swiftly defeated, and then he should be expelled from the House Republican Conference.” …
Gingrich first floated the idea of expelling Gaetz from the GOP’s narrow House majority on Sunday in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Is Gaetz secretly an agent for the Democratic Party? No one else is doing as much to undermine, weaken, and cripple the House GOP,” Gingrich opined in another post.
Other populist-leaning conservatives, including Rep. Chip Roy (R., Texas), the policy chair of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, and Fox News host Mark Levin have recently criticized Gaetz for refusing to support any stopgap measure to fund the government, thereby forcing McCarthy to pass a less conservative version with Democratic votes. It was McCarthy doing just that on Saturday that prompted Gaetz to move for his ouster.
Roy and Levin are saying that because Gaetz wouldn’t cooperate with a more conservative stopgap funding bill that McCarthy worked on, McCarthy passed a less conservative one. Then Gaetz accomplished the ouster with the support of 3.6% of the House Republicans and 100% of the House Democrats.
More from Gingrich [emphasis mine]:
“Gaetz obviously hates House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.)—and that’s fine,” Gingrich wrote in the Post. “But Gaetz has gone beyond regular drama. He is destroying the House GOP’s ability to govern and draw a sharp contrast with the policy disasters of the Biden administration.” …
According to Gingrich, Gaetz is also violating a House Republican Conference rule that the motion to vacate “should only be available with the agreement of the Republican Conference so as to not allow Democrats to choose the Speaker.”
“I served 20 years in the House, including four as speaker. On occasion, I fought against the GOP establishment. I led the fight against President George H.W. Bush’s 1990 tax increase after he had broken his word about ‘no new taxes.’ I felt bound to stay with my commitment to the American voters,” Gingrich recalled. “Unlike Gaetz, though, when I rebelled, I represented the majority view of the caucus at the time.”
For those who have forgotten some of what Gingrich did, here’s a refresher:
During negotiations with the Democrats who held majorities in the House and Senate, President George H. W. Bush reached a deficit reduction package which contained tax increases despite his campaign promise of “read my lips: no new taxes”. Gingrich led a revolt that defeated the initial appropriations package and led to the 1990 United States federal government shutdown. The deal was supported by the President and Congressional leaders from both parties after long negotiations, but Gingrich walked out during a televised event in the White House Rose Garden. House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel characterized Gingrich’s revolt as “a thousand points of spite.” …
In the 1994 campaign season, in an effort to offer an alternative to Democratic policies and to unite distant wings of the Republican Party, Gingrich and several other Republicans came up with a Contract with America, which laid out 10 policies that Republicans promised to bring to a vote on the House floor during the first 100 days of the new Congress, if they won the election. The contract was signed by Gingrich and other Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. The contract ranged from issues such as welfare reform, term limits, crime, and a balanced budget/tax limitation amendment, to more specialized legislation such as restrictions on American military participation in United Nations missions.
In the November 1994 midterm elections, Republicans gained 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time since 1954.
Gingrich was a conservative and certainly had cojones to spare. He also had some other advantages: he knew how to build effective alliances within the GOP. He had a detailed plan and the ability to articulate that plan to the American people and then execute it. In addition, he had the advantage of having a larger majority in the House than at present (it was 25 votes in the House, with a Repulican-controlled Senate as well, 53-27). That gave him more power to pressure Bill Clinton, who had been elected by presenting himself as a moderate. Under Gingrich, there were bills on welfare reform, tax relief, and a balanced budget. Two government shutdowns were involved.
Gingrich survived a challenge to his Speakership, but then in the 1998 election the GOP lost five seats, which sealed Gingrich’s fate and emboldened a group of Republicans (I’m not sure how many) to say they would challenge his Speaker position. He resigned.
Who succeeded Gingrich? Dennis Hastert, who was in turn succeeded by Nancy Pelosi, who was suceeded by John Boehner and then Paul Ryan, then Pelosi again, and then McCarthy.
But back to Gaetz. He has few supporters on the right – very very few. So the only power he has is borrowed power that the Democrats gave him. That is highly dangerous, and of course they will stab Gaetz in the back the moment it is to their advantage. What is his plan?
The “burn it down” crowd on the right doesn’t seem to think he needs a plan; at least, that’s my impression. They are okay with destroying the present powers in the party, because they have been a big disappointment. I share that disappointment, but I don’t think destruction without a plan – and accomplished with the help of self-serving Democrats, and with little GOP support – is ordinarily a good thing. If something good does end up coming from it, fine; for example, Jim Jordan would be an improvement, IMHO. But I’m not at all sure that will occur because, with such a tiny majority, the party needs unity to elect a new Speaker. And the party is not unified, nor do I see this Gaetz move as fostering unity. Au contraire.
Again, if I’m wrong in the gloominess of my prognostications, that would be fine with me.
The pro-Gaetz crowd tends to see no difference between the two parties as currently constructed, so destruction doesn’t bother them for that reason. But I see a big difference, as I believe we will find out if the Democrats gain control of the House in 2024 and keep control of the Senate, with a Democrat president. SCOTUS becomes dominated by the left, HR1 does away with voting security on a national basis, and Puerto Rico and DC become states. That latter act would assure Democrat control of the Senate and the presidency for the foreseeable future. And that would be just the beginning of the sharp moves we’d see to cement the power of the left.
because Gaetz wouldn’t cooperate with a more conservative stopgap funding bill that McCarthy worked on
What DC insiders would like us to forget is that McCarthy could have achieved the most conservative result–$0–by not doing anything.
Nothing can pass without the assent of the House. Instead, McCarthy actively worked to take our money and spend it, like he has done every time before when he could have done nothing and spent $0. Instead, he worked with the Dems to take $2 trillion from us and spend it.
McCarthy passed a less conservative one.
I’m sorry, this isn’t making McCarthy look better…. like every abuser, “look what we made him do”…
Unlike Gaetz, though, when I rebelled, I represented the majority view of the caucus at the time.”
Is it more important to do what’s right, or is it more important to stay with the majority of the caucus. The DC insider answer is of course there’s no difference. The people who are asked to support the GOP with money and votes do see a difference.
If it was right to enforce the Speaker’s promises, it was right regardless of how many were in favor. I recognize that other people don’t think necessarily think it was right.
The next Republican Speaker will know that he is expected to keep his promises to conservatives, instead of taking their support and helping the Dems to our money.
Melisande:
I was merely describing Levin’s and Roy’s position.
Any Speaker has to have the support of nearly every single GOP House member. For example, now that Gaetz has made this move, marshaling the entire Democrat wing of the House to allay with his own miniscule GOP group, what would stop the less conservative GOP House members from executing a similar ploy against a conservative Speaker?
@neo:what would stop the less conservative GOP House members from executing a similar ploy against a conservative Speaker?
Nothing stops them now, nothing ever did. Nothing stops them from caucusing with the Dems if they wish, or voting for a Dem Speaker for that matter. I’m sure there’s much more the less conservative GOP can do to betray conservatism further if they set their minds to it. I’m not sure that such people are best handled by not holding them accountable in any way in the hopes that they won’t do their worst.
“what would stop the less conservative GOP House members from executing a similar ploy against a conservative Speaker?”
Nothing. That’s how the process works. But your wording is deliberately slanted. “Ploy”… that’s not what I think holding McCarthy accountable for breaking his promises should be called.
He agreed to a set of rules and goals to get the gavel. He has now been removed from the big chair for failing to do what he said he would do.
Let’s all give up the gloom and doom weeping and gnashing of teeth (and dear Lord let the R gerontocrat Newt go back to sleep) and give this 72 hours to play out.
A good dose of “wait and see” is called for.
@John:dear Lord let the R gerontocrat Newt go back to sleep
He was the right guy at the right time, let’s not take that away from him. His successors in the GOP, however, threw away all he worked for, and those are the guys he’s apparently defending today…
But it’s the usual thing for the media to bring out the old conservatives to upbraid the new ones. Back then, they were calling him a Nazi…
There were 21 Republicans that voted against the first CR. While only 8 voted to oust McCarthy, I suspect more would have voted for his ouster if necessary.
These were the same ones that drug their heels through a 15 votes to elect McCarthy in the first place.
I agree that we need to see who replaces McCarthy before writing off the conservatives in the House.
Interest on the debt was at least $400 billion in 2022 and is estimated at $1.2 trillion in 2032 as the government has to role over their bonds.
“Looking further, by FY 2032, interest costs ($1.2 trillion) are projected to be larger than federal spending on Medicaid ($789 billion) and defense ($998 billion), and only 5 percent smaller than total nondefense discretionary spending.”
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/just-how-big-are-federal-interest-payments
Melisande:
Or maybe, just maybe, Newt Gingrich has a lot of experience with and knowledge of Congress.
Nor has Gingrich become a RINO. He was, for example, one of Trump’s earliest and staunchest backers, and he has continued to support him.
So because he disagrees with your present position, suddenly his point of view is worthless and he’s an old fogey?
And Levin is another, I suppose?
Melisande @ 4:34.
Absolutely.
John Guilfoyle:
No, it’s not how the process works. It never happened before that a tiny tiny group united with the entire opposition party to oust its own Speaker. As the quote from Gingrich says, “Gaetz is also violating a House Republican Conference rule that the motion to vacate ‘should only be available with the agreement of the Republican Conference so as to not allow Democrats to choose the Speaker.’”
So no, it’s not business as usual. Gaetz crossed a line, and now the anti-Gaetz forces can feel free to cross that line too. You may think that’s fine, but it’s certainly not the way it has always worked.
It was indeed a ploy to get all the Democrats to help only 8 Republicans accomplish this feat. That’s the ploy aspect. Definition of the word: “a cunning plan or action designed to turn a situation to one’s own advantage.”
@neo:So because he disagrees with your present position, suddenly his point of view is worthless and he’s an old fogey?
I said nothing like this, neo. I said that he was the right guy at the right time, and now he’s defending the people who threw away his legacy. I don’t speculate on his reasons. Certainly never said he was a old fogey with a worthless point of view because he disagrees with me.
I think you could be a little more fair in how you characterize my views… but it’s your blog…
Of course Gaetz can’t trust the (D). Look at what they did to McCarthy! At least the GOP may, finally, have learned that the (D) will not work with them, only to defeat them. Witness the eviction of Pelosi et al at the new (interim) speakers whim: Payback for interfering in the GOP majority leader selection (poor Nancy complaining of violating tradition).
This should be (and has a glimmer of appearance of) a wake up call that you can NOT work with the (D) based on FUTURE behavior. You need to get the benefits of the deal up front.
“Trump was the right guy at the right time but now ….” How do you like them apples?
Funny how successful conservative politicians are so expendable now. Look, squirrel, with hair! Orwell is calling.
To those who have found a new prophet and Dear Leader of all right and true; he owes the Democrats his “only” coup thus far (coup used in both Native American and European contexts).
Scorpions.
Poor Melisande.
A cluster.
It gives the Dems on MSNBC and CNN the opportunity to claim that the GOP is in chaos and can’t govern.
An idiotic waste of time.
I’m not a “burn it all down” person at all. I’ve voted for every Republican for all my adult life–in every election whether I thought highly of the candidate or not. The “burn it all down” moniker belongs to our officeholders lo these many years that have been playing with matches in the public sector: city, state and federal. Generational theft is what is at hand here. When I was a Freshman in college a marketing professor pointed out that at that moment, the recipients of Social Security would receive everything they put in plus interest within 2-1/2 years. At the rates as they existed at that moment, those of us paying in would have to collect for 17 years before we recouped our investment. Do I need to point out the escalation in percentage and ceiling have risen dramatically since then? Multiply that by myriad programs that hand out money to the poor, refugees and millions of people in our country illegally and you have theft on steroids, present and future generations. Our granddaughter was born in 2010. With her first breath as an American citizen she was $30,000 in debt. That has risen substantially since then wherein today a newborn is almost $80,000 in debt. Talk about taxation without representation. That is the “burning it all down” scenario–not John Q. Public, following all the laws, working hard with an open-vein to the system and believing the words of the politician that promises to right the course. Not at all.
Melisande:
If he agreed with you, I submit that you would most likely be saying what a wise old conservative he is. I say that because I see no other reason to dismiss his point of view as being said by someone old and outdated.
I think his point of view should be respected because of his history as a strong conservative – including his recent history of championing Trump, which was not a popular GOPe position. I think that there is therefore zero reason to throw his point of view away by arguing that he’s old and somehow has switched to championing people he used to oppose. I see nothing of the sort.
That doesn’t mean he is correct – but none of us knows the future, and he may indeed be correct or he may be incorrect. But there is no reason to imagine he is somehow obsolete or co-opted.
Kris:
I agree that trusting the Democrats is a bad bet.
Newt Gingrich should still be commended for all he managed to accomplish in the 1990s.
But it’s not the 1990s. 25+ years ago, but it feels like a century, given the utter upending of all of American society since then.
My point is: while he has a wealth of knowledge and experience, I’m not sure how attuned to present political reality he actually is.
As to Levin, I’ve always found him a bit pompous and perpetually angry. Rush Limbaugh certainly could be angry at times, but he often came off as a ‘happy warrior’; serious at times, whimsical at others, but always really seemed to be enjoying himself. While Levin is brilliant, I can’t imagine anyone would describe him as a happy warrior.
That all being said, I agree Gaetz’s stunt was idiotic. He certainly isn’t a Democrat mole or anything that fantastic. But he does want attention and to pander to the frustrated GOP base as much as possible.
As I said yesterday, while idiotic, the dethroning of McCarthy in itself is unlikely to have much long term impact on the broader political scene. It’s all about what comes next. Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise have both announced for Speaker. Either is an excellent choice. If the GOP Caucus quickly and orderly selects one, with no further antics…the Gaetz stunt will be long forgotten by next year.
*If and only if*
@neo:If he agreed with you, I submit that you would most likely be saying
This is just trying to put words in my mouth, neo. Can you kindly stick to things I’m actually saying? There’s all kinds of political figures who may have agreed with me, but I’m not searching them out to cite. I feel the way I do because of what I value and what I’ve seen. I’m not omniscient and I’m open to new relevant facts.
I say that because I see no other reason to dismiss his point of view
Maybe that’s the only reason you can think of, but it is not fair for you to attribute that reason to me, because I may be able to think of other reasons of my own.
I think that there is therefore zero reason to throw his point of view away by arguing that he’s old
I think you must have me confused with someone else. Another commenter, not me, did say something very like that.
somehow has switched to championing people he used to oppose.
This is not what I said either. I said “he’s defending the people who threw away his legacy.” That’s not the same as “people he used to oppose”. A lot of them, after all, weren’t even in Congress in those days, some hadn’t even graduated high school I’m sure.
Melisande;
You don’t seem to understand the point I’m making. I’ll make it more clear: it is you who did not justify your position that Gingrich had become a turncoat and an outdated old guy. You simply stated it. Therefore I conclude that you say it because you disagree with him. If you have other reasons for saying it, you’re free to state them. I stated why I don’t see it that way, and it has to do with Gingrich’s history of knowledge of Congress, plus his recent stance on President Trump. For those two reasons, I see no justification for dismissing out of hand what Gingrich said.
As for “old,” you wrote this:
@neo:it is you who did not justify your position that Gingrich had become a turncoat and an outdated old guy.
This is not and never was my position. I’m sorry neo, you’re either confusing me with another commenter or deliberately misstating what I am saying.
Multiple times now I have politely requested you to stop, politely explained you were not stating my position correctly.
It is your blog and I have nothing further I can do, but politely request again that you stop attributing to me words I have explicitly and repeatedly denied… but please yourself, this place is yours and you kindly allow strangers to comment here.
Melisande:
See my comment above yours about “old.”
There was no other reason to dismiss out of hand what he said. That was your reason, as far as I can see.
You don’t have to agree with him, of course. I’m not even sure that I agree with him. But why do you think a guy with that sort of experience, and who has proven his conservative bona fides and has never wavered in his support of Trump, doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding Gaetz’s move?
@neo:That was your reason, as far as I can see.
But I have told you repeatedly it isn’t my reason and I can certainly think of others…anyone following along can read what I wrote, can read your characterization, and decide for themselves what they wish to take away, and I’ll need to be content with that.
When Melisande says “I think you could be a little more fair in how you characterize my views… but it’s your blog…” she has a point; and neo’s attitude here is unusual for her. A good example of an old conservative being used against the new ones would be Goldwater, remember?
1. I do not see Gaetz as a hero, and I don’t see too many treating him as such. What his defenders are saying is that someone needed to may McCarthy pay for breaking his regular order promise. That makes sense to me. (I do understand also that McCarthy was a little better than I expected. Just a little.)
2. Calling his opponents a “burn it down” faction is grossly unfair. Sure, there are some like that, but that is reading what a few say onto many others. Which is exactly what the lefties, from Brandon on down, do with MAGA.
3. I do take what Gingrich says seriously, and he may be right. Levin, OTOH, I’ve always thought a blowhard, and not overly accurate.
4. I do not see any force at all in the “HE WORKED WITH DEMOCRATS!” argument. If that standard were taken seriously, there might be 10 Republicans left; certainly not including McCarthy.
This whole exercise seems to me to be treating a strategic question as a moral one. It’s not personal, it’s business.
We can’t read your mind Melisande, we are left with reading what you write and drawing inferences.
Melisande:
So, what was your reason for dismissing Gingrich other than that you disagree with him? What I saw you saying is that he was the right person in the 90s but is apparently no longer the right person, and is an old conservative being trotted out by the media.
I think his history indicates he just might know what he’s talking about. You appear, as far as I can tell, to be dismissing that history.
As I said before, I don’t know whether Gingrich is correct or not. But I have a lot of respect for his point of view on this issue, because of his history and the fact that I haven’t seen any softening of his conservatism.
I’m not optimistic. If disaster ensues, I don’t expect the “no brains required” crowd to learn anything, they will just blame others. Which is not unlike blaming gravity for the fall if you step off a cliff.
Newt is a consummate liar and completely dishonest person. He and Clinton have both patted their backs until there’s a hole there for “balancing the budget for 2 years”. He doesn’t mention that the National Debt went up both years. How did that happen? Because there is an Off-Budget for USPS, SS, railroad pensions and other unbugeted expenses. And the Off-Budget had a big deficit both years. Newt sucks!
It seems to me that some are saying that any compromise with the Dems is a bad thing. I understand that the Dems don’t compromise, but the Rep have a very weak hand. To say just Shut It Down and spend “0” really doesn’t accomplish much.
Sometimes throwing Bombs accomplishes something and sometimes the results are not what the Bomber wants, more often than not.
Eeyore is spot on…
Gaetz is no hero, but neither is he Satan, which is precisely what the left & the leftist media thought of Gingrich when he was Speaker nigh 25 years ago. Newt is not someone I’m looking to as if he were Gamaliel. It’s tragic that the next generations of R congress folk indeed burned & then buried his legacy in trillions of debt. He shouldn’t be coming to their defense.
McCarthy also knew Gaetz had this particular tactic in his hands from day one. If you know someone you aren’t sure you can trust has the means to take a shot at you, maybe you act accordingly. Eeyore again: “What his defenders are saying is that someone needed to ma(ke) McCarthy pay for breaking his regular order promise. That makes sense to me.” Exactly.
And I will say it…Gingrich & Biden are the same age: 80. There’s been tons of ink spilled about Pelosi, Biden, Feinstein, et al as being a gerontocracy…a doddering one at that. Gingrich has always been smarter than all the others combined & still seems more capable than the others…but he’s been off the House floor for years. Let’s leave his experience where it was…’95-’99…and where it served admirably.
Wait & see.
“This whole exercise seems to me to be treating a strategic question as a moral one. It’s not personal, it’s business.” Absolutely.
Does anybody else recollect a novel published by Newt Gingrich —maybe while still Speaker of the House, or perhaps not long after him leaving that office under duress— in the Le Carré style… involving inner circle DC players (the good guys?) and some kind of neo- or paleo-Nazi cabal/plot which the good guys were trying to bring down. Predictably, the evil Nazis were heavily into rape and torture, and Gingrich devoted many many pages describing in precise and delicious detail what they were doing to several captive women. He seemed to really be getting off himself on that. I was astonished both at how self-revelatory that had to be of #3 in the presidential secession’s intensely dark interior side. But even moreso, how there was no wave of astonishment and disgust arising from whoever the reading public was for that espéce de merde (Newt and his book). Maybe Hastert was influenced, Google that up too.
Our hostess Neo owes us absolutely nothing, but if she can chart a path to financial and societal survival by following the path that we have been on, and that Speaker McCarthy continued, I respectfully request that she share it with us.
Otherwise, I will continue to support anyone, including Rep Gaetz, who is at least trying to stand athwart this misdirected train attempting to redirect it.
One person cannot stop a train, of course, and Rep Gaetz may suffer for his attempt, but at least he is drawing attention to the destroyed bridge ahead.
Gaetz also gets my approval for at long last bringing some accountability to DC. Nobody has paid a price for lying through his teeth in Washington since GHW Bush and his “No New Taxes” pledge.
Finally, what Eeyore said.
McCarthy agreed to allowing a vote of confidence by one person, rather than a majority of the conference to get the majority vote to become speaker. I don’t think this changes the rules going forward.
West TX Intermediate Crude:
I am not optimistic either way, as I’ve already indicated.
I think the basic key lies not in who is Speaker, but in halting and actually reversing the Gramscian march. In the meantime, I think the best approach is one most designed to keep the GOP in power even if it isn’t doing all that much to help things but might be slowing them down and postponing them. Over time, this holding pattern would (hopefully) be replaced by more people on the right in office, and a drift towards more conservatism. The danger of Gaetz’s move, as I see it, is to turn moderates off even further from the Republican Party, and usher in the Democrats to cement their power even further. Then it’s checkmate.
The danger of McCarthy staying in there is that the so-called “base” becomes angrier and more turned-off, and doesn’t vote. That also leads to the Democrats cementing their power even further.
As I said, not optimistic at the moment. But I see somewhat more danger in what Gaetz did than in McCarthy staying as Speaker. The reality is that the country is not conservative. The parties are split more or less evenly, but what percentage of people who vote Republican are conservatives of the Gaetz variety? Maybe a third or even a half? In my opinion, that’s not enough to make what he’s doing popular.
That is up to Matt Gaetz WTIC.
Oh, his responsibility ended with his coup?
Or is the next speaker the next target? I’m sure the Democrats would enthusaistically support a coup against the next one to be Gaetz’d.
Scorpions.
Apologies in advance for the length.
I’m a former legislator at the state level, and while I can’t speak to Congress, in my state there was a fight to oust a former Speaker who was very powerful on the D side, and also a caucus fight to oust the R leader as well within the span of around 2-4 years. The sooner we all ignore the drama and let the R’s settle on a new leader, and focus on picking 3 pieces to target with reform legislation, and message the heck out of that, the better.
Why?
First, during the fights in my state, almost everything that the media reported on the leadership fights was 90% wrong. No-one knows the whole story, people routinely lie about what is going on, who is doing what, who is up, who is down, etc. Everyone whose livelihood depends on the legislature is constantly pumping everyone else for any nugget of information, jockeying for position, etc. Legislators don’t know what is going on in their own caucus, but everyone wants to cut deals to be seen as in favor with whoever wins, wants to keep their committee chairs, etc., and doesn’t want to be on the losing side, and since everyone leaks like a sieve, everyone gets even more paranoid.
Second, don’t assume that anyone is a tactical or strategic mastermind during this process. For example, in the other side’s leadership fight in our state, there probably would have been a different outcome if one faction’s leader hadn’t been drinking heavily in a bar one night, because in that time, another faction swayed support for a couple other people who were believed to be in his faction, so by the time he decided to work some more phones for his preferred candidate, deals were cut, his preferred candidate thus couldn’t cross the finish line. Then he cut a deal with the winner too. As another example, I suspect the leader of one faction went with the eventual winner precisely because she figured he would be easier to oust in the long run in favor of her taking the gavel in a few years’ time. The guy being ousted pushed hard to stay in power, but once it became clear that a minority group of his caucus would stick together so he would never have the votes, he withdrew his name, and then a whole new batch of candidates for the job came forward, who never would have “crossed the king,” but were now willing to chance it. (In this way, I respect McCarthy for stepping back. But don’t think he doesn’t have self-interest–he wants one of his allies in that job).
Third, anyone who won their election by 3 points or less does not want to be on the outs with whoever wins the battle, because welcome to a million dollar campaign season and/or a primary. And no lobbyist/donor who supports the leadership victor will cut the big checks/bundles to anyone who crossed the eventual winner, especially if the one who wins is a DC insider. I don’t doubt that Gaetz is well aware that he has support from many more in his caucus who couldn’t afford to vote against McCarthy on this ballot publicly on the chance that if he won, they would lose those seats/campaign support. They now owe Gaetz precisely because he didn’t make them vote against McCarthy.
This just just a taste of why these are ugly, nasty, inside baseball fights where, yes, what is “objectively” right for the people only fortuitously crosses paths with legislators’ own goals and aims. Few people can actually can tell the whole truth, really, of what occurs, just as a matter of political preservation. (I had to vote to oust the speaker so I don’t get primaried by MAGA-guy. I’ll be your vote Matt, but if McCarthy has already lost because he can’t pull Dems, I’ll vote McCarthy because that is better for my district, since Biden won it by 3 points. Kevin assumed he had B’s support because he did XYZ for B, but B got lit up phones saying get rid of that RINO SOB, etc., so B votes for Gaetz).
This is also why the whole 95%/5% thing is also not a particularly meaningful argument. There will be a far larger number of that 95% who are thrilled with this outcome.
Separately, it behooves most R’s to show the DC crowd that they will stick with leadership (anyone lobbying for anything first starts with the leadership and only goes to individual members if a committee vote is likely to be close, or leadership says “poll the members, I’m not whipping it for you). It engenders trust and makes the legislation wheel stay lubricated/sausage gets made.
Likewise, anyone in leadership (eg Jim Jones) MUST stick with the existing leader if they can, and Gaetz knows this, which is why he hasn’t been fussing against them, because trust is also how things have to get done in your own caucus. If you show you will knife your own leadership team, you will not be invited on the next guy’s leadership team.
I also haven’t checked to see the order of vote-taking. I’d be curious to see how many R’s passed to let the Dems go up on the board first, and then went in direction A or B as a result.
I will say this though: assuming it wasn’t staged for press, McCarthy tweeting “bring it on” to Gaetz without having his caucus votes genuinely locked down means that McCarthy would never, ever be an effective Speaker.
The most important thing as a Speaker is to be able to (a) competently count your own caucus; and (b) know where your opponents are. If he was genuinely trusting a few Dem’s would cross the line to keep him on, he has breathed in too much swamp gas. (I’ve met him in person at an event. All politicos have some ego to them; McCarthy is a class A narcissist who epitomizes the CS Lewis quote that the tyrant who believes in his own virtue is one of the hardest to endure).
Gingrich also is not exactly an unbiased observer on all of this. He is raking in cash as a “consultant” (not sure if he officially registered as a lobbyist) and I would be highly surprised if he did not have a close (and lucrative) relationship with McCarthy that he has leveraged. That economic value has just gone up in smoke. It doesn’t mean he is necessarily wrong, just more, take it with a grain of salt vs. treating it as gospel.
Now, what does that mean for we the people?
Here’s some of what I learned as an “outsider” legislator.
1) R’s stink at writing genuine legislation (as opposed to what I call “sound bite” or “red meat” or “message” legislation–filing a bill that will never become law because it excites a part of your base). I would write my own, and leadership staff would complain that I wanted to file all these bills that would “never go anywhere.” Problem is, if you don’t write it and publish it and start socializing it, and figuring out where the interest groups are, nothing happens either. So when you do have that window of 2 years of unity, if you don’t have legislation in the hopper, 2 years is actually very little time to get anything major accomplished.
While I get that we want things NOW, writing any decent reform legislation on a major or complex program is HARD. Witness Chesterton’s fence on overdrive, because every lobbyist, NGO, agency, etc. will have a thought on the most common-sense bill you think you write, and reasons why your language can’t work, problems with things that you may never have even thought of. Those issues need to get resolved, because if they aren’t, even if you get the bill out of your chamber, it dies once it gets shipped to the next. (Even scheduling the meetings of 3 agency heads to try to pound out language when you are all aligned on an issue is not easy to get done).
Add to that that any R reform bill is going to get slaughtered by D judges on the bench even if it does pass, if the special interest feels their interests were ignored, and decides to just file suit vs. work it out.
This takes a lot of time, work, and effort. (It took me 3 years to get one bill done in my own chamber because I FINALLY managed to get enough face time to persuade the chair of a committee to let it through, after countless meetings with individual legislators on the other side to get their support. But because one of the agencies didn’t like one part of the language, they were able to kill the whole bill in the Senate, and I had no clout to get it to move it for a vote, then the legislative session ended, again.).
2) When you are the party routinely NOT in power (which the R’s were in my state, and which has been the case in Congress as the article explains), your members don’t cultivate the skill to actually get legislation passed, find the members on the other side who might support, get the lobby/interest groups to “neutral” or at the very least have enough enlisted support from one side to offset the other side.
The R leadership gets what I call Stockholm syndrome, because they really hate the idea that they lack any power (and if they lack power, then bye bye campaign funding, which means bye bye seats, which means less power), so they will try to cut deals, usually when D’s want to do something bad where they need the cover of calling the legislation “bipartisan,” to be able to say they accomplished SOMETHING (which is usually small relative to the D relentless juggernaught). Congress is even worse based on their committee structure, because their culture is that it is bad form for a legislator to “meddle” in areas that are not really their committee assignment topics unless this is pre-cleared by the committee chair.
3) The D’s have a massive institutional advantage of think tanks, activist groups, etc. who actually WRITE legislation, and implementing regulations to go with it. (Want to know why all of a sudden Medicaid/Medicare will cover transgender hormones? Because Planned Parenthood, university activists, NGOs, unions, etc. will have already drafted and socialized the legislation within their networks, and gotten all of them to agreement, and agreed who will be the lead negotiator for all of them, so that when the moment strikes, a D legislator just has to put their name on it and file it).
R’s have a lot of people who write on blogs, and talk on the radio, but nowhere near the power writing actual legislation that could work to move the needle on “conservative” issues, let alone the networking skills to get the messaging out. You want to get rid of Obamacare? You will have thousands of pages of drafting, which interrelate with 60+ other statutory sections, and they all have to be meticulously reviewed, etc.
This is also why Trump, as a businessman, with no legislative experience, was at a severe disadvantage. You can’t just write legislation to “build a wall.” You have to draft legislation directing one or more agencies to exercise authority, establish the terms and scope of rulemaking power, the appropriation source, and if it is multi-agency (the wall would include at least border patrol, DHS, Army Corps of Engineers, DOJ, etc. etc., and that is before you even start dealing with the eminent domain and state issues) then you ALSO have to figure out how they are all going to work together; how they are going to have authority to hire for headcount; get a contracting process in place for procurement, and a ton of other details that take time and effort to pull together. You have to have policy and budget wonks who know how the government bureaucracy operates to find all of these nuances.
And on drain the swamp–he actually had a golden opportunity during the govt shutdown threat during his term to reorganize the bureaucracy and do RIFs without the usual due process problems you would have (esp. cleaning out the SES) — but he either didn’t know it, and/or didn’t have the people in place supporting him who would know it. (And yes, I despise McConnell and Ryan because they surely knew it, and stood for the insider class).
4) The rules of procedure dictate the power of a chamber’s leadership. In both my state and the pre-McCarthy House rules, the Speaker (and minority leader for his/her caucus) has enormous power to decide what bills come forward, and when; who gets to sponsor, who gets to sit on committees, be the chairman, who is appointed to oversight committees, commissions, etc. There are enormous costs to any legislator who gets on the bad side of leadership.
This is why Gaetz at the beginning used the rules to his advantage. McCarthy was desperate for the power, so he agreed to them, but was too arrogant to live by them, and so he lost.
A new Speaker will emerge, but if anyone wants to actually help the cause, start learning about legislative language, and form an advocacy group that can start learning, networking, etc. Because if we do get a window, THAT is what we will need to get long-lasting reform.
Blah. Jim Jordan, not Jim Jones.
That was very interesting, former legislator.
But IMHO, if everyone in both Houses followed Jim Jones we’d be much better off.
As I said, I learn a lot here. Thank you “former legislator”.
Bay Area Democrats were big supporters of Jim Jones…
I think neo is spot on here, especially in view of former legislator’s comments, and building on neo’s post yesterday about the dearth of opportunities Republicans have had to hold full power in Washington.
To make a battle analogy, the right’s game now is to hold territory and make what tactical advances are possible while building strength to make an ultimate push to victory that isn’t possible right now. The alternative is total defeat, as the left has prepared the ground well for their own total victory – (i.e., hello 52 stars on the flag, a packed, progressive Supreme Court, and basically no chance for right-of-center people to hold any level of power at all for the foreseeable future).
On the left’s preparation – the left has had nearly a century of progressive “reforms” to the federal government that have more or less superceded the Constitution as it was written – with regard to the congressional power, executive power, and the like. The left has cemented these “reforms” with social spending that is politically impossible to modify, at least right now. With regard to congressional power, the damage was done in the middle part of the last century. With regard to executive power, the damage is ongoing. The left’s game is for Congress to make itself obsolete by extreme delegations of power to the executive. The trap was sprung during the Obama administration when the executive began claiming legislative powers for partisan gains. A lot of the time, the executive is actually on steady legal ground because Congress has delegated the right to “waive” and “modify” statutes. Even when the executive is acting extra-legally, we’re now so used to the idea of the executive waiving or modifying statutes that we’re numb to it- and partisanship plays a role. For example, it’s in the news this morning that Mayorkas has “waived” 26 statutes to build a wall. Good for him on policy, but excuse me? If Congress passed a law, then show me in the Constitution where it says that the executive can “waive” it? This is why stunts like state secretaries of state “waiving” election statutes in 2020 succeeded. We’ve been socially conditioned to accept the idea the extra-legal idea that the executive can “waive” laws. This is a digression, but it is just one of the many, many ways that the tenticles of the left now permeate even our ideas about government. The whole abandonment of regular order in favor of CRs is another.
So from the perspective of the right, we’re up against nearly a century of progressive “reforms.” These are not going to be undone overnight. It’s more than likely going to take a generation or two (or more). And it may take a serious fiscal crisis before Americans are ready to deal with entitlements and the special interests who are willing to fight to the death over every spending line item.
This is why I get so frustrated with Trump, Gaetz, and the whole MAGA crowd. The left is very close to total victory. We are alive near the nadir of the American right. There is a pile of blame to go around, and the anger at the leaders from the right over the past few decades is well-justified. But, the question of the day is not “when will the right achieve total victory?” It is actually “how low will we go before things start pointing up instead of down?” If we keep turning to circus acts like Trump, Gaetz, and the like, I don’t think anyone will like the answer to that question.
WIth that as background, the “shut it down and don’t let them spend anything” tactic is just not going to result in any solution to our fiscal problems. The reason that Republicans always get jitters and collapse like a cheap suit over shut downs is that the one thing they know how to do is get elected and they know that shut downs make that less likely. It seems great now, but what happens when Special Olympics start running ads showing all of their disappointed Special Olympians who can’t compete now because those meanie Republicans cut their funding? And a hundred other heart-wrenching special interests start doing the same thing? (You don’t think the Democrats will find a de-funded rape crisis center and cut an ad with a rape victim? Do you know Democrats? The public has no appetite for that. Maybe they should, but they don’t.
Same with Trump. I’ve been saying here for years that, in addition to his other faults, Trump was completely incompetent in office. Read former legislator’s post for more details. Trump appeals for votes with emotion and he plays on a genuine concern for the state of the country, but he’s a snake oil salesman. You just cannot do what he promises with showmanship and “fight.”
Trump, Gaetz, and the like are also the best friends of the left. The left knows how close it is to total victory. I think they also know how vulnerable they are because of policy failures. 2024 is not about total victory for the right or even making America great again. That’s not possible in the short term. 2024 is about the last, best chance that the right will have stop the momentum of the left.
And if you need more of a preview of what total victory for the left looks like, consider Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnut’s comments on Anthony Kennedy in the run-up to the 2016 election. Without Tushnut’s Kinsleyian gaffe, I believe there is a very good chance that Trump would never had been president.
Your alternative seems to be surrender, accepting these scraps of garbage you swallow so readily,
I’m old enough to remember when newt was the infant terrible, that worked until 2006, when we discovered hastert was a stone cold sociopath,
“It’s more than likely going to take a generation or two (or more).” Bauxite
You must be the consummate optimist. That ship sailed. I live in Los Angeles, ground zero for the results of these policies over time. The clock is ticking. Believe me.
Concerned Conservative™ was making sense for the first half and then fell off the wagon and had to lump Trump, MAGA, and Gaetz (a basket of deplorables).
CC™ doesn’t recognize that part of politics, essential actually, motivation of voters. Cold oatmeal doesn’t bring a crowd to a breakfast buffet. Even if Trump was totally ineffective, he wasn’t as bad a CC™ misremembers, at a minimum he kept the Hildabeast away from power. Her minions were forced to do the inside dirty work, and they did quite a bit.
If the next speaker can get the house back to regular order appropriations then it may have been worth the chaos. Because that is the first step toward budget sanity. They need to properly do their jobs!
If nothing positive comes from the ouster but the Dems making hay about it all then Gaetz should be moved to the background.
And I don’t like the fact that Gaetz ignored his conference rules and perhaps he should be censored or something.
Exhibit “A” an “B” illustrating why the dumbpublicans can’t get much done;
They elect folks like John Boehner and Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House
And there you have it.
I have looked over the span of 30 years and newt was probably the high light with hastert plunging us into the deep defile, boehner doing the best impression of a lump on a log, and ryan…what was that again,
SharonW:
Indeed, I saw a story that LA cops can no longer have “high capacity” magazines for their pistols (i.e., 15 rounds of 9mm)? The “logic” being that “criminals” aka “property redistribution professionals” or “community reparations representatives” should not be disadvantaged in kinetic interactions with subhuman fascist scum (law enforcement). (sarc)
Kind words and a cheerful disposition will certainly produce a just, equitible, and civil society once the fascist scum are disarmed and disbanded. They can’t be reeducated or reformed, born that way ….. (sarc x infinity)
I think Melisande has the better of the argument here.
==
After Gingrich, the GOP in the House was led by Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy is a man who has been employed by legislative bodies since 1987 in one capacity or another. (He was born in 1965). Ryan’s entire employment history from 1992 to the 2019 was either in legislative bodies or Washington advocacy groups. Evidently, he has some skills which would allow him to work as a fitness instructor, but he’s never been employed in that trade. He went into lobbying after leaving Congress. Dennis Hastert was a public employee from 1965 to 2007, first as a schoolteacher, then as a legislator. He made a nice chunk of change buy buying up real estate which was later seized under eminent domain to build roads. He also went into lobbying on retirement. John Boehner is unusual in that he’s the odd character in the Speaker’s chair who actually ran a business before being elected to Congress. It was a small business (fewer than 10 employees), but he did it for 15 years. That’s all very well and good. He also loathes Ted Cruz, drinks too much, and produced a pair of daughters who are no one’s idea of good breeding. Only Ryan among them evinced any interest in political and social thought, and, as it turns out, he’s an open-borders extremist.
==
Now have a gander at the Senate. Four men have led the Senate Republican caucus since 1985. Only one of them (Bill Frist, 2003-07) built a professional life outside of politics. Trent Lott, who did things like exchange lifetime judicial appointments for baubles like seats on regulatory commissions, was an employee of the U.S. Congress from 1967 to 2006, after which he went into lobbying (he was born in 1942). Glitch McConnell, our octogenarian Senate-Republican-Leader-for-Life whose betrayals of public trust are too many to count, has been a public employee for 50 of the last 56 years. He landed a position in the Department of Justice in 1975 because private practice in Louisville wasn’t working out for him. Bob Dole was a veritable paladin compared to Lott and McConnell, but he was also a man on public sector payrolls from 1952 to 1996 and really had no professional life outside of politics and a very truncated family life as well.
==
Republican members of Congress have an enemy. They each get a look at him when they shave in the morning.
The “burn it down” crowd on the right are sheer nihilists.
Former legislator, yes, interesting and educational comment. Should be a chapter in a HS civics book as to why and how the government “of the people” really works.
But on D vs R backup capability from NGO’s etc. to draft legislation ahead of time, etc., do you have an opinion about Heritage Foundation and their abilities in that role?
Plus any views on their recent initiatives (Mandate for Leadership 2025) to develop some legislation, and find supportive conservative staffers ahead of a “hoped for” Republican presidency?
Bauxite on October 5, 2023 at 8:55 am
“The left’s game is for Congress to make itself obsolete by extreme delegations of power to the executive.”
” The whole abandonment of regular order in favor of CRs is another.”
Two statements that are obvious when explicitly written out, but deserve to be repeated more often. Thanks.
But “the “shut it down and don’t let them spend anything” tactic is just not going to result in any solution to our fiscal problems.”
However, this can’t be a standalone posture. There has to be a strong accompanying explanation in the vein of Thatcher’s comment about running out of other people’s money, and something from Sowell about “there are no solutions, only tradeoffs”. Something like “we are compromising on selected otherwise needful programs to obtain the funding for border security to ensure our national security and avoid future terrorist attacks, even attacks on Planned Parenthood centers”… or something similar.
I keep wanting to be optimistic, and so many here are forcing us to face realism. Great if sometimes contentious dialog here, so thanks to Neo for this platform to explore all sides somewhat amicably.
Or more properly, something like “WE ARE BANKRUPT!!” Then proceeding to the Thatcher statement, etc.
Without Tushnut’s Kinsleyian gaffe, I believe there is a very good chance that Trump would never had been president.
==
I’m sure swing voters follow Tushnet’s remarks religiously.
om – If voter motivation was everything you claim, then we would have witnessed MAGA victory after MAGA victory since 2016. Trump won once and lost his second race to the functional equivalent of a corpse. Nearly every other MAGA-type candidate needs at least an R+7 state or district to win.
I mean, if Trump and his endorsees were some kind of electoral juggernaut, you might have a point. But they’re not.
Art Deco – That Tushnut interview was widely circulated in social conservative/Christian circles in 2016. Recall that Trump polled horribly among social conservatives in 2016 and was buoyed in the primaries by less religiously observent Republicans. I’m not talking about swing voters, I’m talking about Republicans and social conservatives who would have stayed home or voted third party.
R2L – Isn’t that more or less what Paul Ryan tried? He made a serious effort to address our fiscal problems with a compromise plan developed with progressive Alice Rivlin, and Democrats leveraged it to four more years of Obama. They’ll absolutely do it again.
So where do we go from there? The left has made the price of taking the country’s problems seriously include cedeing power to them. Do we try anyway?
Art Deco – That Tushnut interview was widely circulated in social conservative/Christian circles in 2016
==
I recognize Tushnet’s name, was at one time a subscriber to First Things and Touchstone, and have been for nearly 20 years a participant on Catholic and evangelical blogs. No, I’ve never heard of it. Your handlers need to feed you better arguments.
“Trump was completely incompetent in office” -Bauxite
Wrong.
Short list.
Abrahamic accords.
Re-negotiating NAFTA
Remain in Mexico policy after a Republican congress refused to do anything about building the wall. In addition he found a way to divert existing funds.
Brought down ISIS without new military buildup in the ME.
Created a space for the Kurds.
Justified killing of Soleimani.
Dismantled the Iran deal.
Created opportunity zones to help poor communities.
Increased the number of Black and Hispanic voters in 2020 from 2016.
Kept us out of a new war.
He was stymied by leftist judges. We are now seeing these judges changing our legal system before our eyes, with the aid of leftist state AG’s.
The entire justice/intelligence department was used with the sole aim of bringing the President down. Few individuals could have emotionally/financially/physically withstood what happened to him.
As General Flynn describes it, Jan. 5, 2016 there was a meeting at the White House where the coup against President-elect Trump began.
You accuse President Trump of lying. The liars are the two-faced Republican politicians that campaign on conservative principles, but never put their positions on the line to defend those principles. They have their noses at the trough. They are professional politicians– as Art Deco has noted about previous House Speakers.
Neo may have distinguished differences between those that think McCarthy’s refusal/incompetence to bring the appropriation bills to the floor was sufficient justification for his removal. Not everyone that thinks this was necessary want to “burn it all down”.
One of the things I came to understand during the Trump presidency was to avoid drawing any conclusions for the first few days of anything reported out of Washington. Most often, the story was slanted and most often just plain wrong. We are constantly being lied to by self-serving politicians and media.
CC™ views all politics through an orange filter?
If you are going to win an “unfortified” election be it a primary or general you have to be able to motivate voters to actually, wait for it …., vote for you or even better, wait for it ….., convince voters to convince other voters to vote for you.
But this is lost on CC™; vote for Cold Oatmeal (peas porridge cold, nine days old). He may be cold, he may be old, but he’s not orange.
CC™:
I know more than a few staunch, committed, evangelical Christians who’ve supported Trump since 2016, they judged better than me in 2016, BTW.
Your assertion is just more gas IMO.
If Gingrich is correct, and the House Republicans did not enforce the rule, are they not therefore all complicit in the “ploy”?
The danger of Gaetz’s move, as I see it, is to turn
moderatesRINOs off even further from the Republican Party….I think the only people paying attention to this “coup” are political junkies.
Yes, Gingrich was regarded as a bombthrower in his early years. That was one of the things about him that gave me trouble. Yes, he did have some ideas about what government should do and was able to put them into effect. And yes, he did get coopted by Washington. Remember his famous picture with Pelosi and the message about global warming?
30 years ago, Newt was Matt Gaetz. Bob Michel and the leaders at the time thought so. Republicans didn’t have a Speaker who could be deposed so Newt couldn’t go that far. He’s right to say that when he made his move, he had a majority of the caucus behind him, but for a long time he didn’t and irritated DC insiders and a lot of outsiders outside the Beltway. Anyway, he’s been co-opted, but he’s also learned, and perhaps — in his own way — mellowed with age.
________
Budget negotiations are a long drawn-out process. There aren’t going to easy, early wins for Republicans. It’s not always clear if an early move is a temporary compromise or a collapse, or if a Republican leader is a compete failure, or holding his own and trying to cope with a thankless situation, or moving towards a small victory. I don’t think McCarthy would have come out of the appropriations battle a victor, but I do distrust early condemnations when the process is still ongoing. In any case, I don’t think he should have been deposed.
_________
I don’t remember that Tushnet article and have never seen it mentioned, so I doubt it was a major factor. Pence solidified Trump’s appeal with the Evangelical community. I do think that the Tushnet family saga must be fascinating, given how Mark and his daughter Eve have ended up.
People may not be paying close attention to this, but at some level it gets through to them and reinforces the impression that the Republicans are chaotic and disorganized.
According to Gingrich, Gaetz is also violating a House Republican Conference rule that the motion to vacate “should only be available with the agreement of the Republican Conference so as to not allow Democrats to choose the Speaker.”
It was foolish to accept a rule that the motion could be put to a vote whenever one Representative wanted it if the intent was that the whole Conference had to support putting the motion.
Jordan Rivers, Gingrich is full of hot air about this (a single representative calling for a vote on the Speaker). I think it’s needed to revisit the election of McCarthy. Part of the deal McCarthy made to win the Speakership was allowing a rule to be passed that made for the ‘snap vote.’
This wouldn’t have been possible, had McCarthy not agreed to it. It’s not inconsistent when McCarthy didn’t keep his promises regarding regular order, among other things. Had he kept his word, this wouldn’t have happened.
Twenty-one conservatives opposed McCarthy’s nomination. Eventually 15 of those representatives changed their votes to aye. The final six conservatives that only voted present allowed McCarthy to win. They should have held out– since the fact they couldn’t trust McCarthy proved to be true.
From a New York Times article:
“In the end, Mr. Crane, Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, Representative Bob Good of Virginia and Mr. Rosendale all switched their votes to “present,” clearing the way for Mr. McCarthy to finally win the post that had so long eluded him. Mr. Gaetz again voted “present.”
The final tally was 216 for Mr. McCarthy and 212 for Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader, with six, all Republicans, voting “present.”
With Mr. McCarthy elected, he immediately turned to swearing in the 434 members of the House to officially seat the 118th Congress. Republicans announced that they would wait until Monday to consider a package of rules for the chamber, which is expected to enshrine many of the compromises Mr. McCarthy made to win his post.
The concessions Mr. McCarthy agreed to, which he detailed in a party conference call early Friday, would diminish the speaker’s power considerably and make for an unwieldy environment in the House, where the slim Republican margin of control and the right-wing faction’s appetite for disarray had already promised to make it difficult to control.
“What we’re seeing is the incredibly shrinking speakership, and that’s most unfortunate for Congress,” former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said as she entered the chamber on Friday afternoon.
Mr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.
Also part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.
Those compromises delivered a breakthrough for Mr. McCarthy, who in votes on Friday afternoon won support from a sizable chunk of the Republicans who had consistently refused to back him — though he remained short of the majority to win.
They included Representatives Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Michael Cloud of Texas, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Byron Donalds and Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Andy Harris of Maryland, Mary Miller of Illinois, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Chip Roy and Keith Self of Texas. Representative Victoria Spartz of Indiana, who had voted “present” in previous ballots, also voted for Mr. McCarthy in the 12th vote.
“You never get everything you’re looking for,” said Mr. Perry, explaining his vote to reporters, and noting that “the biggest win is the overall framework of it.”
“The motion to vacate is accountability,” he added, referring to the measure allowing a snap vote to remove the speaker.”
Dear Former Legislator:
I had such a good laugh over this I invited DH to come and read it. I thought he was going to cry! “It’s as sick as the Russian Duma!”
Thank you so much for taking the time to provide us with the necessary insight!
Brian E on October 5, 2023 at 2:53 pm
Thank you for the clarifications from that NYT article. I was getting confused as to just what the real operative rule to initiate a vacate action was or would be, with McCarthy as Speaker. Allowing a single rep to initiate that might have been a dumb position to accept, but presumably he accepted it.
Bauxite on October 5, 2023 at 12:30 pm said:
“R2L – Isn’t that more or less what Paul Ryan tried? …” I don’t recall the details resulting from that, but I agree and recognize he and Alice Rivlin had put some compromise position together. I just don’t remember it doing any major good in reducing the debt/deficit situation.
From the Romney/Ryan ticket of 2012, I do recall Ryan acted like he and Mitt would be providing “leadership” on the entitlement 3rd rail, addressing it forthrightly for the American public. I was watching fairly closely for something meaningful to be proposed, and I did not see anything come forward later in the campaign. From my perspective it seems that they punted on their “leadership”
in that case, too. If someone recalls it differently, I welcome further clarification.
Thanks, former legislator, for that illumination.
I still don’t know what to make of the removal of McCarthy. I think I can see some sense in both sides of it.
HEAR!! HEAR!! Brian E @1:11 pm . Totally agree.
1) R’s stink at writing genuine legislation (as opposed to what I call “sound bite” or “red meat” or “message” legislation–filing a bill that will never become law because it excites a part of your base). I would write my own, and leadership staff would complain that I wanted to file all these bills that would “never go anywhere.”
==
3) The D’s have a massive institutional advantage of think tanks, activist groups, etc. who actually WRITE legislation, and implementing regulations to go with it. (Want to know why all of a sudden Medicaid/Medicare will cover transgender hormones? Because Planned Parenthood, university activists, NGOs, unions, etc. will have already drafted and socialized the legislation within their networks, and gotten all of them to agreement, and agreed who will be the lead negotiator for all of them, so that when the moment strikes, a D legislator just has to put their name on it and file it).
==
OK. Can someone tell me what the employees of Heritage, AEI, and ALEC do all day?
Brian E:
Thanks for introducing facts and reality here.
Gaetz is very popular with conservative voters. He calls out the RINOs, corruption, and stands up for the conservatives who were sick of McCarthy playing “nice” with the Dems, folding on issues important to GOP voters, and “business as usual”. We are sooooo far past the point of “respecting” congresscritters, because they don’t even pretend anymore to actually “represent” the wishes of their constituents. We’re sick of their crap.
Delilah and Wendybar:
Gaetz says Brandon impeachment hearings are a sham. Crickets?
“Cleanup on isle four.”
Ditto on Art Deco’s question about Heritage, AEI, and ALEC.