House Republicans in Disarray

[honorentheos]

Plus, if they end up successful, expect the next Democrat majority to find itself in the same situation. This genie won't go back in the bottle easily.

I know this remark is from a few months back, but I really don't understand it. Were you suggesting the progressives in the House would do to a future Democratic speaker what the Freedom Caucus did to McCarthy? Because that isn't consistent with how the progressives have behaved. They're not perfect, but I think they've struck a reasonably good balance between pullin TF g leftward when possible and voting with the rest of the Democrats when necessary. And they've certainly seen how the Republicans have been humiliated every time the Freedom Caucus pitches a tantrum. They'd be fools to act the same way.

At the time I wrote that the conflict between the progressive wing and Pelosi was fresh enough to sense they might take notes from the right wing extremists and choose to apply leverage themselves given how likely Congress will only have narrow majorities in the foreseeable future. With Pelosi and others vocally supporting Jeffries for speaker if Democrats take the House, it seems unlikely in the near term. But I suspect this will evolve.

[Kishkumen]

Being candid, I'm disappointed in the House Democrats. Participating in punishing the closest thing to bipartisanship we have seen in the House is not good for the health of our government.

It would have made sense for the Democrats to support McCarthy in exchange for some concessions — if McCarthy had proven himself a trustworthy negotiating partner. Instead, he habitually alternated between trying to look reasonable and pandering to the fanatics in his caucus. The latest example is in just the past week. He made the deal with Democrats to keep the government running for another 45 days and then, knowing that his speakership was in jeopardy and he might need Democrats' support, went on TV and blamed the Democrats for the close call with the budget. That indicates that he wanted the support of the far right more than that of the Democrats, and he would have continued to give in to the far right if he had remained speaker.

Plus, if they end up successful, expect the next Democrat majority to find itself in the same situation. This genie won't go back in the bottle easily.

I know this remark is from a few months back, but I really don't understand it. Were you suggesting the progressives in the House would do to a future Democratic speaker what the Freedom Caucus did to McCarthy? Because that isn't consistent with how the progressives have behaved. They're not perfect, but I think they've struck a reasonably good balance between pulling leftward when possible and voting with the rest of the Democrats when necessary. And they've certainly seen how the Republicans have been humiliated every time the Freedom Caucus pitches a tantrum. They'd be fools to act the same way.

Republican dysfunctionality is entirely the fault of Republicans. Those Relief Society whining about the ouster of the Speaker have been complicit in this situation. Only the rare R, like Romney, has shown any integrity. The former Speaker promoted the big lie and opened a sham impeachment inquiry against Biden. No way the Ds were gonna save that coward.

[Kishkumen]

At some point the bandaid has to be pulled off. The GOP is dead. It is a cult of personality stuffed to the gills with con artists, chaos agents, and neo-Confederates. Die already, GOP. Time for drastic action. Don’t remove Gaetz from your conference. Form a new conference and leave the loonies in the dead one that hangs around in its putrid stench.

[Res Ipsa]

I know this remark is from a few months back, but I really don't understand it. Were you suggesting the progressives in the House would do to a future Democratic speaker what the Freedom Caucus did to McCarthy? Because that isn't consistent with how the progressives have behaved. They're not perfect, but I think they've struck a reasonably good balance between pullin TF g leftward when possible and voting with the rest of the Democrats when necessary. And they've certainly seen how the Republicans have been humiliated every time the Freedom Caucus pitches a tantrum. They'd be fools to act the same way.

At the time I wrote that the conflict between the progressive wing and Pelosi was fresh enough to sense they might take notes from the right wing extremists and choose to apply leverage themselves given how likely Congress will only have narrow majorities in the foreseeable future. With Pelosi and others vocally supporting Jeffries for speaker if Democrats take the House, it seems unlikely in the near term. But I suspect this will evolve.

I think there's an important asymmetry between the extreme factions in the two parties. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's squad wants to use government to improve the lives of the American people. They can't get what they want by shutting down the government or making it dysfunctional. The Freedom Caucus is anti-federal government. They don't want to make the federal government work. They want to make it powerless. Dysfunction simply reinforces their argument that the federal government is bad.

[Res Ipsa]

Digby has some inside baseball on the Continuing Resolution vote: https://digbysblog.net/2023/10/04/shoul ... -mccarthy/

Some on the D side of the aisle interpreted McCarthy's calling a last-minute vote on a brand new CR that omitted funding for Ukraine without giving them any time to read it as a cynical attempt to have D's balk and vote no so he could blame them for the shutdown. McCarthy's own transparency rules require 72 hours notice. D's asked for 90 minutes to read the 71-page bill; McCarthy refused.

I find this a plausible interpretation of McCarthy's actions and may give additional insight as to why they voted to remove him as speaker.

[Kishkumen]

Digby has some inside baseball on the Continuing Resolution vote: https://digbysblog.net/2023/10/04/shoul ... -mccarthy/

Some on the D side of the aisle interpreted McCarthy's calling a last-minute vote on a brand new CR that omitted funding for Ukraine without giving them any time to read it as a cynical attempt to have D's balk and vote no so he could blame them for the shutdown. McCarthy's own transparency rules require 72 hours notice. D's asked for 90 minutes to read the 71-page bill; McCarthy refused.

I find this a plausible interpretation of McCarthy's actions and may give additional insight as to why they voted to remove him as speaker.

Entirely plausible.

[honorentheos]

Stepping back to the bigger picture, I can't help but reflect on the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" when observing the House where the Democrats voted with Gaezt against McCarthy. McCarthy didn't make for a good friend by any stretch. But the Democrats weren't passive observers of Republican turmoil. 208 of them sided with Gaetz when the fight between Gaetz and McCarthy came to a vote. And that's troubling.

[Res Ipsa]

Stepping back to the bigger picture, I can't help but reflect on the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" when observing the House where the Democrats voted with Gaezt against McCarthy. McCarthy didn't make for a good friend by any stretch. But the Democrats weren't passive observers of Republican turmoil. 208 of them sided with Gaetz when the fight between Gaetz and McCarthy came to a vote. And that's troubling.

Yes, it's a saying. But it's not a universally true saying. I'd suggest that the more applicable saying is "politics makes strange bedfellows." Sometimes even bitter political opponents vote the same on a specific issue for wildly different reasons. The position that Matt Gaetz takes on any action should not determine what is in the Democratic Party's or the country's best interests. That's the kind of reactive political view that has led the Republican party to be largely an "own the libs" party.

[honorentheos]

Stepping back to the bigger picture, I can't help but reflect on the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" when observing the House where the Democrats voted with Gaezt against McCarthy. McCarthy didn't make for a good friend by any stretch. But the Democrats weren't passive observers of Republican turmoil. 208 of them sided with Gaetz when the fight between Gaetz and McCarthy came to a vote. And that's troubling.

Yes, it's a saying. But it's not a universally true saying. I'd suggest that the more applicable saying is "politics makes strange bedfellows." Sometimes even bitter political opponents vote the same on a specific issue for wildly different reasons. The position that Matt Gaetz takes on any action should not determine what is in the Democratic Party's or the country's best interests. That's the kind of reactive political view that has led the Republican party to be largely an "own the libs" party.

I agree...in that everything about the above says Gaetz and what he represents are clearly a threat to the entire democratic system. The issue is if bipartisan government and compromise is worth supporting. Apparently not.

[Moksha]

At some point the bandaid has to be pulled off. The GOP is dead. It is a cult of personality stuffed to the gills with con artists, chaos agents, and neo-Confederates. Die already, GOP. Time for drastic action. Don’t remove Gaetz from your conference. Form a new conference and leave the loonies in the dead one that hangs around in its putrid stench.

What if Republicans all have been infected with MAGA lunacy and the rational Republicans have already been driven off?
Seems the country's best hope is for voters to come to their senses and vote against the Cult of Trump. Taking a sledgehammer to America is not the answer.