I respectfully disagree, The House Dems did *not* dump McCarthy. He was never one of them and he consistently tried to push legislation while cutting the Dems out completely, relying entirely on his Caucus. This was in spite of the fact that he knew that the proposals passed in the House this way would be DOA in the Senate. He reg…
I respectfully disagree, The House Dems did *not* dump McCarthy. He was never one of them and he consistently tried to push legislation while cutting the Dems out completely, relying entirely on his Caucus. This was in spite of the fact that he knew that the proposals passed in the House this way would be DOA in the Senate. He regularly insulted and abused those on the other side of the aisle, strictly to keep the support of the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus and the gavel. Aside from the debt ceiling negotiations and this past weekend's passing of a CR he never sought any input or backing from a non-R, and even in these two cases he never asked for Dem opinions.
The Dems were, nor are, under any obligation to support someone who considered them below something he'd scrape off the soles of his shoes. My Kevin made his bed, and he was forced to live with the consequences of his perfidy.
I don't dislike McCarthy, but I don't trust him. His word was always subject to change if the political winds contradicted his past statements.
I wouldn't pin the hopes of the New GOP on either Jordan or Scalise, neither can gain bipartisan support which, imo, will be essential for the House to get back to its job description: legislating for the good of the country writ large while taking into consideration the various districts' constituencies. Elsewhere on this thread I suggested the best option would be someone out of either the Problem Solvers Caucus or the Republican Governance Group in a reply to Fitzpatrick as a possibility -- as co-chair of the PSC he would be a good choice, but not the only one.
I hope you’re right, but a more moderate member won’t get the votes of the Freedom Caucus—the Trump Wing—at least not without significant Dem support. I still think the saner and more expeditious option was to negotiate with McCarthy, concessions for votes.
I agree that My Kevin should have sought the support of Dems, making concessions as necessary, to keep the gavel. Even so, I'm not so sure that McCarthy was willing to compromise in any way with the Dems at the risk of further antagonizing the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus, bipartisanship can be hazardous to one's future in the New GOP under the sway of these asshats. Currently the bomb throwers still retain enough clout to sink legislation that doesn't kowtow to their expressed wishes and goals., and McCarthy needed them to overcome Dem opposition -- never mind that a Republican-only approved bill would be DOA in the Senate.
You make valid points, but on the other hand, the status quo was not awful. Disaster was averted when the debt ceiling got raised. Infrastructure got passed. Just last week, we got a short term spending bill, when a shutdown seemed inevitable. In this case, I would have chosen the devil I know—even though he’s undeniably a rat.
I'm going to remain an agnostic on "the devil I know." There's no doubt McCarthy's short reign was head and shoulders above what Jordan or Scalise will be like, if either garners enough votes [turns head and spits three times between index and middle fingers]. I'm waiting to see who else throws their hat into the ring and who ends up with the gavel.
It might be wishcasting, but I believe the new speaker will be more centrist than McCarthy; that's basically the only option if the House ever plans on returning to legislating, and for the Republican party to heal itself; that the new speaker will isolate the denizens of the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus by announcing that bipartisanship is the way forward, or at least as much as is possible, and is the cure for what ails them.
(Actually, Gaetz might have done the country a solid by allowing the House to choose a new speaker that *hasn't* self-castrated to gain the support of the right wing wacks, and can bypass them completely when writing, marking up and passing legislation.)
Ms Cyr,
I respectfully disagree, The House Dems did *not* dump McCarthy. He was never one of them and he consistently tried to push legislation while cutting the Dems out completely, relying entirely on his Caucus. This was in spite of the fact that he knew that the proposals passed in the House this way would be DOA in the Senate. He regularly insulted and abused those on the other side of the aisle, strictly to keep the support of the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus and the gavel. Aside from the debt ceiling negotiations and this past weekend's passing of a CR he never sought any input or backing from a non-R, and even in these two cases he never asked for Dem opinions.
The Dems were, nor are, under any obligation to support someone who considered them below something he'd scrape off the soles of his shoes. My Kevin made his bed, and he was forced to live with the consequences of his perfidy.
I don't dislike McCarthy, but I don't trust him. His word was always subject to change if the political winds contradicted his past statements.
fnord
100% agreed, but is Jim Jordan better? Scalese? Both of them are more MAGA than McCarthy.
I wouldn't pin the hopes of the New GOP on either Jordan or Scalise, neither can gain bipartisan support which, imo, will be essential for the House to get back to its job description: legislating for the good of the country writ large while taking into consideration the various districts' constituencies. Elsewhere on this thread I suggested the best option would be someone out of either the Problem Solvers Caucus or the Republican Governance Group in a reply to Fitzpatrick as a possibility -- as co-chair of the PSC he would be a good choice, but not the only one.
fnord
I hope you’re right, but a more moderate member won’t get the votes of the Freedom Caucus—the Trump Wing—at least not without significant Dem support. I still think the saner and more expeditious option was to negotiate with McCarthy, concessions for votes.
I agree that My Kevin should have sought the support of Dems, making concessions as necessary, to keep the gavel. Even so, I'm not so sure that McCarthy was willing to compromise in any way with the Dems at the risk of further antagonizing the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus, bipartisanship can be hazardous to one's future in the New GOP under the sway of these asshats. Currently the bomb throwers still retain enough clout to sink legislation that doesn't kowtow to their expressed wishes and goals., and McCarthy needed them to overcome Dem opposition -- never mind that a Republican-only approved bill would be DOA in the Senate.
fnord
You make valid points, but on the other hand, the status quo was not awful. Disaster was averted when the debt ceiling got raised. Infrastructure got passed. Just last week, we got a short term spending bill, when a shutdown seemed inevitable. In this case, I would have chosen the devil I know—even though he’s undeniably a rat.
I'm going to remain an agnostic on "the devil I know." There's no doubt McCarthy's short reign was head and shoulders above what Jordan or Scalise will be like, if either garners enough votes [turns head and spits three times between index and middle fingers]. I'm waiting to see who else throws their hat into the ring and who ends up with the gavel.
It might be wishcasting, but I believe the new speaker will be more centrist than McCarthy; that's basically the only option if the House ever plans on returning to legislating, and for the Republican party to heal itself; that the new speaker will isolate the denizens of the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus by announcing that bipartisanship is the way forward, or at least as much as is possible, and is the cure for what ails them.
(Actually, Gaetz might have done the country a solid by allowing the House to choose a new speaker that *hasn't* self-castrated to gain the support of the right wing wacks, and can bypass them completely when writing, marking up and passing legislation.)
fnord
The devil you know?
“Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
The Merchant of Venice