A line from movie A New Leaf when accountant tells the rich fool he’s broke & he’s incredulous, accountant says “well sir you are now poor in the only sense the wealthy understand the term and that is that you are no longer rich!” That’s Trump.
We have to ask ourselves how likely a Trump Speakership is requires us to answer just how griftable that position is. Can he make money off it? is it a way to get into the news every day for free as he runs out of money to run a campaign cuz it's all going to legal fees? Does Mary Trump's assessment have merit that he won't want it because it requires work, but couldn't one say that about that other govt job he already held (POTUS)? didn't he go for four years without a lot of actual work in the oval? Didn't he show up at 11am and watch TV alot? Yet, perhaps it is harder to hide in the Capital. My bet is not Speaker Don.
What I can't figure out is why McCarthy even wants the speakership, it's a dead end job and his career ends in the house. He'll never be Senator or Governor of California. I can appreciate his trying to bring some Reganism in but those who would rip off his face did not convert.
I hope they do make Donald the Speaker. That will further expose him for the dummy and nihilist he is. Until we get rid of the GOP majority nothing will get done anyhow. That is getting more likely every day.
You do understand that if t***p is speaker that only puts two bullets between him and the WH and he will make not so veiled suggestions to his MAGAs how to put him there
I never liked weaselly liar Eric Cantor--I mean, he was just a lying weasel from the get go. But when he lost the primary to Dave Brat--because Cantor was "soft" on immigration? This is not your father's GOP (as they say where I come from...).
But McCarthy..... If the GOP Speaker were anyone else, other than McCarthy, there might have been a chance the Democrats would have stepped up for him... Or maybe enough of them..... But not My Kevin--Never for My Kevin.
And why?
Two McCarthy stories....
In Adam Schiff's book about Trump's first impeachment, Midnight in Washington, Schiff goes on a digression about when he was first elected to Congress, McCarthy lied to his face & screwed him in the press. Schiff suggests that EVERYONE in Congress has a McCarthy story like that....
Second, in the aftermath of Trump's second impeachment, SOMEBODY'S head had to roll.... so, McCarthy goes after--among a few others--Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-3). Okay, fine ... So, in Washington State's jungle primary, Herrera Beutler comes in third, behind Joe Kent (who is insane) and blue dog Gluesenkamp Perez....which flips a seat from being an easy win to a loss.....
Now Charlie, you have no idea how low Eric Cantor would have groveled had he not been defeated in that primary . And we have seen the craven nature of Paul Ryan. Young guns indeed ...
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.
Piffle on stilts is exactly right. Matt Lewis claiming that the Democrats could've positively spun saving McCarthy without ANY concessions is laughable. No voters would not give them credit. Republicans have a huge advantage in this country and the sooner everyone realizes they have lost their damn minds, the better. Even if it requires some short term pain.
Because--you know--McCarthy is TOTALLY a man of his word! It's not like he'd cut a deal with Biden on raising the debt ceiling--and then immediately shine it on.....
A line from movie A New Leaf when accountant tells the rich fool he’s broke & he’s incredulous, accountant says “well sir you are now poor in the only sense the wealthy understand the term and that is that you are no longer rich!” That’s Trump.
We have to ask ourselves how likely a Trump Speakership is requires us to answer just how griftable that position is. Can he make money off it? is it a way to get into the news every day for free as he runs out of money to run a campaign cuz it's all going to legal fees? Does Mary Trump's assessment have merit that he won't want it because it requires work, but couldn't one say that about that other govt job he already held (POTUS)? didn't he go for four years without a lot of actual work in the oval? Didn't he show up at 11am and watch TV alot? Yet, perhaps it is harder to hide in the Capital. My bet is not Speaker Don.
Republicans: The party of a vacant seat along with vacant brains.
Mr. Sykes, I find this to be the most humorous line of the whole piece:
“In the end, though, his lack of a moral core caught up with him.“
Lack of a moral core is pretty much a requirement to be a Republican these days. I don’t know that that really stands out as a particular problem…
What I can't figure out is why McCarthy even wants the speakership, it's a dead end job and his career ends in the house. He'll never be Senator or Governor of California. I can appreciate his trying to bring some Reganism in but those who would rip off his face did not convert.
His words left me at the first F——- word. Why do you bother?
John Fetterman and Michael Fanone have really distilled this situation. Thank you, guys.
I’m wondering how this is going to play to the Republican base and Republican leaning independents. Have you seen this @Charlie Sykes? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/04/wisconsin-republicans-mccarthy/
I hope they do make Donald the Speaker. That will further expose him for the dummy and nihilist he is. Until we get rid of the GOP majority nothing will get done anyhow. That is getting more likely every day.
You do understand that if t***p is speaker that only puts two bullets between him and the WH and he will make not so veiled suggestions to his MAGAs how to put him there
This is true but that holds no matter which Maga scumbag becomes speaker.
"The Young Guns"....
I never liked weaselly liar Eric Cantor--I mean, he was just a lying weasel from the get go. But when he lost the primary to Dave Brat--because Cantor was "soft" on immigration? This is not your father's GOP (as they say where I come from...).
But McCarthy..... If the GOP Speaker were anyone else, other than McCarthy, there might have been a chance the Democrats would have stepped up for him... Or maybe enough of them..... But not My Kevin--Never for My Kevin.
And why?
Two McCarthy stories....
In Adam Schiff's book about Trump's first impeachment, Midnight in Washington, Schiff goes on a digression about when he was first elected to Congress, McCarthy lied to his face & screwed him in the press. Schiff suggests that EVERYONE in Congress has a McCarthy story like that....
Second, in the aftermath of Trump's second impeachment, SOMEBODY'S head had to roll.... so, McCarthy goes after--among a few others--Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-3). Okay, fine ... So, in Washington State's jungle primary, Herrera Beutler comes in third, behind Joe Kent (who is insane) and blue dog Gluesenkamp Perez....which flips a seat from being an easy win to a loss.....
For McCarthy? Reminds me of the old joke:
"Hey... Gimme a dime. I need to call a friend."
"Here's twenty cents. Call all of them....."
I just want to know who is going to protect MTG now.
Now Charlie, you have no idea how low Eric Cantor would have groveled had he not been defeated in that primary . And we have seen the craven nature of Paul Ryan. Young guns indeed ...
The typo was never caught, but it was supposed to be "Young Goons". If only we had known sooner.
Me: [bursts into song] Bang bang.... he shot me down... bang bang... I hit the ground... bang bang, my baby shot me down.......!
(Boomer humour).
So, the House Dems dumped McCarthy. For whom? Trump? Jordan? Best hope is Scalese, which is still a bad bargain.
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.
Lovely.
Piffle on stilts is exactly right. Matt Lewis claiming that the Democrats could've positively spun saving McCarthy without ANY concessions is laughable. No voters would not give them credit. Republicans have a huge advantage in this country and the sooner everyone realizes they have lost their damn minds, the better. Even if it requires some short term pain.
"Concessions."
Because--you know--McCarthy is TOTALLY a man of his word! It's not like he'd cut a deal with Biden on raising the debt ceiling--and then immediately shine it on.....
And there's also that. So yeah, no saving McCarthy.
After reading Newt Gingrich criticizing matt Gaetz in the WaPo, I feel unclean. Too much sleaze in one place.
Pot Calls for Exclusion of Kettle: "He's Just TOO Black"
Great Morning Shots, Charlie and the commentary is really
good.