Kevin McCarthy's Speaker bid threatened by Republican rebels

[Gunny]

The "Curse of the Donald" is like herpes -- the gift that keeps on giving:rolleyes:

While establishment Republicans are hardly in favor with me, they're better than Trump disciples who obviously can't read the writing on the wall.


Those who oppose Mr McCarthy's bid for the speakership are Trump-supporting hardliners, dubbed the "Never Kevins" by some.

full article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64145106

[Kathianne]

The "Curse of the Donald" is like herpes -- the gift that keeps on giving:rolleyes:

While establishment Republicans are hardly in favor with me, they're better than Trump disciples who obviously can't read the writing on the wall.



full article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64145106

It takes the BBC to say it out loud. The far right is no different than the left extreme-two sides of same coin. Think Trump and Obama.

[Kathianne]

Just took about 1/2 hour to see what was going down here. It really seems Biggs and 4 others are just against McCarthy no matter what. So, imo find someone else to get on with it, the only caveat being no Trumpers-no exceptions. Fine if they supported the president's policies, but none of the stolen nonsense or personal attacks on others.

This should be the moment that puts an end to tyranny by extreme right.

[Kathianne]

Several different takes on the nonsense going on and how it is making the politics worse, something hard to believe, if not for 2016. So right now, the Democrat, Jeffries has more votes than McCarthy and the far right and Democrats are so excited:

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/01/03/breaking-mccarthy-loses-first-ballot-crenshaw-declares-dissenters-enemies-n521236


...

Let’s recap. The first ballot for House Speaker failed to elect Kevin McCarthy, who earlier in the day insisted that he wouldn’t step down no matter how many ballots it took. It takes a majority to win the Speaker, and those dissenters means we’ll head to a second ballot soon. Breibart’s Joel Pollak summed up the situation well:




It’s a possibility, but not a very strong one. To get to 218, Jeffries would have to get five Republicans to vote for him, and that would be a nuclear bomb within the GOP. In fact, we may already be approaching nuclear status within the House Republican caucus. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) angrily declared the Freedom Caucus dissenters not as opponents but outright “enemies” in an interview with CNN.


“They’re very clearly looking for notoriety over principle,” Crenshaw said, and that was maybe the nicest thing he said about them:




Crenshaw told Raju the opponents lost the debate over who should lead the party in the House and that “should have been the end of it.”


“But if you’re a narcissist and you believe that your opinion is so much more than everyone else’s, then you’ll keep going. And you’ll threaten to tear down the team for the benefit of the Democrats just because of your own sense of self-importance,” he said.


He said he and other Republicans will only vote for McCarthy and they are more “stubborn” than their opponents.


In other words, we have a game of political chicken, and both sides are accelerating.


So can Jeffries actually win the speakership? Again, it’s possible if the people who think Kevin McCarthy is so insufficiently conservative that they’ll vote to give control of the House to a, um … progressive Democrat in the mold of Nancy Pelosi. That’ll own the Establishment, no? It seems like an impossibility to me, but then again, this all seems pointless already.

...

[hjmick]

And who says the GOP isn't capable of eating their own?

What a fucking embarrassment...

[SassyLady]

Goes I'm the outlier here. I'm loving it.

20 votes for Jordan. Hopefully he'll pick up more tomorrow and McCarthy will drop out.

[Gunny]

Goes I'm the outlier here. I'm loving it.

20 votes for Jordan. Hopefully he'll pick up more tomorrow and McCarthy will drop out.:rolleyes:

There's something wrong with that kind of thinking.

[Gunny]

And who says the GOP isn't capable of eating their own?

What a fucking embarrassment...Ditto.

Trump and his followers may as well be on the DNC payroll.

[Gunny]

Pathetic.

Once upon a time I was supportive of Trump's Presidency. Never was really supportive of his or his cronies' personal behavior.

Since 2020, they have done more to turn me against them than anyone on the left or in the MSM has. They don't have enough support to do anything but lose to Dems.

This BS is not representing the people of the respective States nor the Republican Party. This is representing self-interest.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3797324-chaos-reigns-in-house-as-gop-fails-to-pick-a-speaker/

[Gunny]

Just more wasted time and money by asshole RINOs doing the Dems' dirty work:rolleyes:

https://thehill.com/homenews/3796825-how-long-could-speaker-battle-drag-on-1856-offers-a-stark-example/

[Gunny]

And in case you are wondering where "old paper mache balls" stands on supporting someone who has steadfastly supported his policies. Had a coach like him one time. One mistake and he'd bench your ass. Zero loyalty.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3797359-trump-wont-say-if-hes-sticking-by-mccarthy-after-failed-speakership-votes/

[BoogyMan]

If those buttholes hand the speakership to Hakeem Jeffries there needs to be a serious house cleaning.

[Kathianne]

Pathetic.

Once upon a time I was supportive of Trump's Presidency. Never was really supportive of his or his cronies' personal behavior.

Since 2020, they have done more to turn me against them than anyone on the left or in the MSM has. They don't have enough support to do anything but lose to Dems.

This BS is not representing the people of the respective States nor the Republican Party. This is representing self-interest.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3797324-chaos-reigns-in-house-as-gop-fails-to-pick-a-speaker/

Acknowledging that I voted Trump in 2020, Nancy's ripping up SOTU speech being strongest impetus. The policies were mostly good, but unnecessary drama nearly negated any accomplishments.

With that confession, nearly everything that is now occurring is straight from what I was saying in 2016, especially the rifts that would happen.

What I think I missed was how the coarseness of Trump would infect nearly all. That's some legacy.

[fj1200]

Goes I'm the outlier here. I'm loving it.

20 votes for Jordan. Hopefully he'll pick up more tomorrow and McCarthy will drop out.

I'm not sure I understand the endgame of that.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure I understand the endgame of that.

I'm guessing that since the end game is to break the swamp, this is the epitome of success?

[Kathianne]

It seems that my concept of swamp differs from the far right's.

[fj1200]

I'm guessing that since the end game is to break the swamp, this is the epitome of success?


It seems that my concept of swamp differs from the far right's.

I don't think the swamp is the problem right now.

[Kathianne]

I don't think the swamp is the problem right now.

I'm not going to be surprised to see a third party arise of moderates from both parties. Let the extremists keep the parties most of us no longer recognize.

The far left want to control the electorate, particularly owning the children, bodies and all. Principles seem to be unimportant.

The far right just want to destroy any person or organizations that won't March in lockstep. Like the left, there's more than a hint of fascism, with necessary precursor of chaos.

[fj1200]

I'm not going to be surprised to see a third party arise of moderates from both parties. Let the extremists keep the parties most of us no longer recognize.

The far left want to control the electorate, particularly owning the children, bodies and all. Principles seem to be unimportant.

The far right just want to destroy any person or organizations that won't March in lockstep. Like the left, there's more than a hint of fascism, with necessary precursor of chaos.

I would be suprised to see one that gets any kind of traction. I just don't see enough people willing to dilute their voice (vote) in an election. The system just doesn't reward multiple parties.

[Kathianne]

I would be suprised to see one that gets any kind of traction. I just don't see enough people willing to dilute their voice (vote) in an election. The system just doesn't reward multiple parties.

That's been true, but I don't think that the electorate has been as disgusted since the Civil War. I don't think and certainly hope that violence will be avoided. Those willing to reach consensus through compromise-which contrary to the extremists' beliefs, is possible-hopefully prevail.

[SassyLady]

I'm guessing that since the end game is to break the swamp, this is the epitome of success?
Yep.

[Gunny]

I'm not going to be surprised to see a third party arise of moderates from both parties. Let the extremists keep the parties most of us no longer recognize.

The far left want to control the electorate, particularly owning the children, bodies and all. Principles seem to be unimportant.

The far right just want to destroy any person or organizations that won't March in lockstep. Like the left, there's more than a hint of fascism, with necessary precursor of chaos.

Possibly, but the good ol' boys club stands in the way of that. You mentioned Swamp. It'll drown any threats to its status quo, just like its been doubling down on since the 2020 election.

[Gunny]

Yep.Explain how complete failure = "success"?

[Kathianne]

Possibly, but the good ol' boys club stands in the way of that. You mentioned Swamp. It'll drown any threats to its status quo, just like its been doubling down on since the 2020 election.

Please give me your definition of 'swamp.' From Trump's initial talk regarding such, I'd assumed he was referring to the bureaucrats, those who were unelected and almost never fired. Indeed if memory serves, (it does), one of his first attempts was to cut the size of many agencies, he failed; as have nearly any that tried. Reagan had a bit of luck, for a nanosecond, then explosion.

Now the 'supporters' are redefining 'swamp' into any part of system they have issues with-which are all-except their favorite players.

[SassyLady]

Explain how complete failure = "success"?
IDK ... maybe the failure of electing McCarthy as speaker exposes the rot in the system. Works for me. Things are pretty bad in congress already. Something needs to disrupt the status quo. Maybe this is one of the steps needed.

[Kathianne]

IDK ... maybe the failure of electing McCarthy as speaker exposes the rot in the system. Works for me. Things are pretty bad in congress already. Something needs to disrupt the status quo. Maybe this is one of the steps needed.

This is where we parted company. You can't destroy without ending what was there. Fine, get rid of the Constitution and federated republic. Propose what you all want. It certainly seems like a desire for totalitarian leader. If the majority go with that or the minority becomes ultra violent, the wish may come true.

[SassyLady]

This is where we parted company. You can't destroy without ending what was there. Fine, get rid of the Constitution and federated republic. Propose what you all want. It certainly seems like a desire for totalitarian leader. If the majority go with that or the minority becomes ultra violent, the wish may come true.
So, you want the status quo? Same old corrupt leaders? How is this process getting rid of the Constitution? This is the way it was designed to happen. Good healthy debate over leadership.

Starting a very public debate in the House is better than violence. Refusing to vote for McCarthy is not an act of violence. And, I don't believe the holdouts want an America First member. That is not their objective. They just don't want McCarthy because he's corrupt. He won't even agree to getting rid of earmarks. He wants amnesty.

[SassyLady]

14266

[SassyLady]

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/house-freedom-caucus-chair-says-mccarthy-declined-his-members-offer-ahead

House Freedom Caucus chair says McCarthy declined his members' demands ahead of speaker vote
In exchange for their support, the House Freedom Caucus members asked McCarthy to hold votes on a balanced budget, the Fair Tax Act, the Texas Border Plan and term limits for members of Congress but "he refused," Perry said in a statement.
Perry also said: "We requested transparent, accountable votes on individual earmarks that would require two-thirds support to pass, and to ensure that all amendments to cut spending would be allowed floor consideration. He dismissed it."

[Kathianne]

Finally, hope they get to work.

[fj1200]

Well that was all worth it. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Well that was all worth it. :rolleyes:

I feel about these folks the same as I do the Dems that go out on the extremes-they do not care about anyone or any principles other than how they can use the situation to their own advantage. Jeffers used the 'win' to slam McCarthy in particular and conservatives in general. Meanwhile the 'heroes' of the right, Gaetz and co., had used the entire situation they created to further their own personal places on committees and such personal power, then voted to install McCarthy. Just like all that capitulated to the Trump, McCarthy imo, is now damaged enough to make him ineffective down the road, helping extremists on both ends.

While the items that the 'far right' are not bad in and of themselves, they actually are nothing more than weapons in their hands. No discussions or debates between 'allies' or 'foes,' just clubs to use.

[revelarts]

I haven't read the whole thread here but , so if I'm off base sorry,
But, Did someone die and Leave McCathy the seat by default?

On principal what the "rebels", "extremist" "far-right" duly election republican congressional representatives, did was EXACTLY the type of thing they are supposed to do.
They were elected to try & get certain things done.
And the congressional rules & processes gives ELECTED CONGRESSMEN leverage at certain points.
This is one of them.
Were they elected to play nice? "keep the party unified"? "get in line"? "be pragmatic"? play ball? follow orders?
or make the sure the party has a good unified "face"?

UNFIED TO DO WHAT?
Raise more debt without restraint?
Leave the boarders open?
Compromise HARDER with the democrats so that "congress can get things done"?
Continue to Allow more HUGE bills rushed through at midnight without any public review?
Wait their "turn" for committee post?
Send more billions to Ukraine without question?
Be ready for vote lock step on war with Russia or other BS?

Heck even if it does cynically turn out that it was JUST to get a few committee seat out of the hands of RINOs, do-littles or Yes Men... just for their own personal power.
I say FINE.

NEW Crooks might be better than old loud talking Do-Littles & Crooks that are in there now.

Honestly I don't understand the Idea that this incident 'makes the Republicans 'LOOK BAD'.
We're the previous crop of Republicans in congress really looking GOOD to some of you before?
We say we want people in there to FIGHT, well they were fighting.
The congressional status quo is over the cliff, I hope a few can stay independent enough to shake the trees even MORE.

Sheesh,
A few days about who's going to lead, makes them "look bad"? What am i missing here?
"But it's cost money!"
THEY JUST SENT 100 BILLION to UKRAINE! They approved another BLOATED Military (MIComplex) budget when the DOD AGAIN can't even account for over 1 TRILLION DOLLAR! the FBI and other intel groups are costing us Money & elections by meddling in social media!
But a few days of perfectly legal votes dealing with who's going to lead is a problem... for republicans here?

Sorry, to me some of the complaints come across like a bunch of women at a wedding complaining that everything is taking to long because of the brides "unreasonable" last minute changes.


BTW Notice how any rule that allows the shake up of the status quo is bought into question?
speakership vote is fine as long as it all back room deals and pressure from the party powers.
Challenge the Vote in PUBLIC over a day or 2 AHHH!! can't have that. you REBEL!
FILLIBUSTER?! One duly elected representative of the American people holding up the sacred "process"??!!
blasphemy. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

IDK ... maybe the failure of electing McCarthy as speaker exposes the rot in the system. Works for me. Things are pretty bad in congress already. Something needs to disrupt the status quo. Maybe this is one of the steps needed.

It exposes an infection the party, that's for sure. Lost here is an perspective or objectivity. The point to a political party is to represent the majority of a certain group. NOBODY gets everything they want; yet, that's what it seems a minority group, just enough to be a wrench in the works, within the party want. Tyranny of the minority. Learn that from the Dems? They certainly have learned their personal and professional behavior from them.

Yes, there are issues in the GOP. I can't think of anyone on this board, as a matter of fact, who has been deeper in their asses at every turn than I. I want all kinds of crap fixed. I'd love to see a change in the party's direction and lack of leadership.

I do not see a step backward and downward toward an abyss as fixing any damned thing and I certainly do not see throwing out one of the few with any leadership abilities at all in favor of an extremist representing a minority extremist view as accomplishing anything.

I've said this forever: you don't get to change the rules about jack unless you win first. Win, take control, THEN tweak the machine. In that order. The fruitloop rabble you're supporting think for some reason they can do that out of sequence.

Next up: THese clowns tie up the House for two years accomplishing nothing and get voted right the f- back out by people tired of this drama sh*t.

[SassyLady]

I haven't read the whole thread here but , so if I'm off base sorry,
But, Did someone die and Leave McCathy the seat by default?

On principal what the "rebels", "extremist" "far-right" duly election republican congressional representatives, did was EXACTLY the type of thing they are supposed to do.
They were elected to try & get certain things done.
And the congressional rules & processes gives ELECTED CONGRESSMEN leverage at certain points.
This is one of them.
Were they elected to play nice? "keep the party unified"? "get in line"? "be pragmatic"? play ball? follow orders?
or make the sure the party has a good unified "face"?

UNFIED TO DO WHAT?
Raise more debt without restraint?
Leave the boarders open?
Compromise HARDER with the democrats so that "congress can get things done"?
Continue to Allow more HUGE bills rushed through at midnight without any public review?
Wait their "turn" for committee post?
Send more billions to Ukraine without question?
Be ready for vote lock step on war with Russia or other BS?

Heck even if it does cynically turn out that it was JUST to get a few committee seat out of the hands of RINOs, do-littles or Yes Men... just for their own personal power.
I say FINE.

NEW Crooks might be better than old loud talking Do-Littles & Crooks that are in there now.

Honestly I don't understand the Idea that this incident 'makes the Republicans 'LOOK BAD'.
We're the previous crop of Republicans in congress really looking GOOD to some of you before?
We say we want people in there to FIGHT, well they were fighting.
The congressional status quo is over the cliff, I hope a few can stay independent enough to shake the trees even MORE.

Sheesh,
A few days about who's going to lead, makes them "look bad"? What am i missing here?
"But it's cost money!"
THEY JUST SENT 100 BILLION to UKRAINE! They approved another BLOATED Military (MIComplex) budget when the DOD AGAIN can't even account for over 1 TRILLION DOLLAR! the FBI and other intel groups are costing us Money & elections by meddling in social media!
But a few days of perfectly legal votes dealing with who's going to lead is a problem... for republicans here?

Sorry, to me some of the complaints come across like a bunch of women at a wedding complaining that everything is taking to long because of the brides "unreasonable" last minute changes.


BTW Notice how any rule that allows the shake up of the status quo is bought into question?
speakership vote is fine as long as it all back room deals and pressure from the party powers.
Challenge the Vote in PUBLIC over a day or 2 AHHH!! can't have that. you REBEL!
FILLIBUSTER?! One duly elected representative of the American people holding up the sacred "process"??!!
blasphemy. :rolleyes:
I'm with you on this Rev.
Shake up the status quo.

I watch the process in real time from day 1 until the last vote late last night on the Public Affairs Channel. No pundits telling me what I just saw and how to interpret it. It was fascinating watching the pressure put on people, temper tantrums, put downs from both parties to each other and blatant bullshit lying about accomplishments on both sides.

People need to look at what the holdouts were asking for before making judgements about the time it took. It was not about getting committee placements. That was promised to those those actually voted for him in the first round. It was about shutting down backroom deals and debating legislation on the floor and other things that should be part of the legislative process but isn't.

McCarthy won because 6 people voted present on the last vote. The holdouts got what they wanted. Public scrutiny.

[Gunny]

I'm with you on this Rev.
Shake up the status quo.

I watch the process in real time from day 1 until the last vote late last night on the Public Affairs Channel. No pundits telling me what I just saw and how to interpret it. It was fascinating watching the pressure put on people, temper tantrums, put downs from both parties to each other and blatant bullshit lying about accomplishments on both sides.

People need to look at what the holdouts were asking for before making judgements about the time it took. It was not about getting committee placements. That was promised to those those actually voted for him in the first round. It was about shutting down backroom deals and debating legislation on the floor and other things that should be part of the legislative process but isn't.

McCarthy won because 6 people voted present on the last vote. The holdouts got what they wanted. Public scrutiny.

Mostly on themselves which is what they wanted :rolleyes:

[BoogyMan]

Time will tell. I hope you are wrong, but with the filth that tends to wind up in DC there doesn't seem to be much hope for any kind of renewal of principled governance.

My first blush at what we have seen this week is that we witnessed what is supposed to happen. Debate, open discussion. Disagreements being argued in the well of the House and votes taken until a majority is achieved. This is the way it is supposed to be, isn't it?

We have watched the Democrats march in jackbooted lockstep for so long that we seem to think that anything outside of that kind of order is not normal. I would submit that the Democrats single-minded Borg-like demand that no differentiation of spoken word or thought be allowed is what is not normal. The sooner we wise up and start calling that out the better.


Mostly on themselves which is what they wanted :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

I'm with you on this Rev.
Shake up the status quo.

I watch the process in real time from day 1 until the last vote late last night on the Public Affairs Channel. No pundits telling me what I just saw and how to interpret it. It was fascinating watching the pressure put on people, temper tantrums, put downs from both parties to each other and blatant bullshit lying about accomplishments on both sides.

People need to look at what the holdouts were asking for before making judgements about the time it took. It was not about getting committee placements. That was promised to those those actually voted for him in the first round. It was about shutting down backroom deals and debating legislation on the floor and other things that should be part of the legislative process but isn't.

McCarthy won because 6 people voted present on the last vote. The holdouts got what they wanted. Public scrutiny.

Apparently what they got for their "rebellion"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/here-are-concessions-mccarthy-had-make-speakership


He shared with me a list of some of what has been roughly negotiated to date. The devil, as always, is in the details.

1. As has been reported, it will only take a single congressperson, acting in what is known as a Jeffersonian Motion, to move to remove the Speaker if he or she goes back on their word or policy agenda.

2. A “Church” style committee will be convened to look into the weaponization of the FBI and other government organizations (presumably the CIA, the subject of the original Church Committee) against the American people.

3. Term limits will be put up for a vote.

4. Bills presented to Congress will be single subject, not omnibus with all the attendant earmarks, and there will be a 72-hour minimum period to read them.

5. The Texas Border Plan will be put before Congress. From The Hill: “The four-pronged plan aims to ‘Complete Physical Border Infrastructure,’ ‘Fix Border Enforcement Policies,’ ‘Enforce our Laws in the Interior’ and ‘Target Cartels & Criminal Organizations.'”

6. COVID mandates will be ended as will all funding for them, including so-called “emergency funding.”

7. Budget bills would stop the endless increases in the debt ceiling and hold the Senate accountable for the same.





https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fl5Dou2XwAA7e4G?format=jpg&name=medium



Why should the Republican "LEADERSHIP" be "threatened" to do any of that?
Because they FAILED TO DO IT BEFORE... some for decades.

[Gunny]

Apparently what they got for their "rebellion"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/here-are-concessions-mccarthy-had-make-speakership




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fl5Dou2XwAA7e4G?format=jpg&name=medium



Why should the Republican "LEADERSHIP" be "threatened" to do any of that?
Because they FAILED TO DO IT BEFORE... some for decades.

They "got for their rebellion" things that were already planned? Brilliant. Don't know why no one else thought of it :rolleyes:

Then too there's the "what's a promise from Congress critters worth" to begin with.

Awesome bargaining:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Irony: Any of these concessions that affect law have to get passed the full House. Promises coerced by the few do not have to be honored by the majority.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3803315-mccarthy-concessions-to-win-speakership-raise-eyebrows/

[BoogyMan]

I like the idea of no more omnibus bills. Don't you?


Irony: Any of these concessions that affect law have to get passed the full House. Promises coerced by the few do not have to be honored by the majority.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3803315-mccarthy-concessions-to-win-speakership-raise-eyebrows/

[Gunny]

I like the idea of no more omnibus bills. Don't you?I have no problem with that. I've been against the crap as far back as I can remember.

Point is, what is being demanded as concession that hasn't already been part of GOP talk, if not already a plan? Only thing I see is making it easier to remove the Speaker which is a petty, bullshit concession. This isn't the UK government, by design as a matter of fact.

[fj1200]

If only they saved this discussion for when they might actually have some power and influence to make some meaningful changes. I fear that this will only force a move to the left when they've got to get something passed because some single issue Republicans will feel slighted and seek to undermine leadership at a hint of backsliding.

[BoogyMan]

Not fond of that part myself, I am concerned with everyone calling the week of debate and voting an embarrassment, however. That is how our system should work. We should be able to disagree and build concensus over time, and in the end, as in this case, elect a Speaker.


I have no problem with that. I've been against the crap as far back as I can remember.

Point is, what is being demanded as concession that hasn't already been part of GOP talk, if not already a plan? Only thing I see is making it easier to remove the Speaker which is a petty, bullshit concession. This isn't the UK government, by design as a matter of fact.

[Gunny]

If only they saved this discussion for when they might actually have some power and influence to make some meaningful changes. I fear that this will only force a move to the left when they've got to get something passed because some single issue Republicans will feel slighted and seek to undermine leadership at a hint of backsliding.Beat me too it. Damn those smoke breaks :)

Who exactly is this "rule" binding on? The House, only so long as the Republicans control it. They're certainly not going to get it past a Dem Senate, much less signed into law by the Bobblehead. Once the Dems regain control of the House (which doesn't look that far off at this point), back to business as usual for them.

So the actual effect of such a rule will apply only to Republicans trying to advance legislation for at leas the next two years.

On the other hand, if the divided Republican House can stick to its guns, it can seriously hamstring the leftist agenda for the next 2 years if it allows only stand-along Bills to pass, to include any trash from the Senate.

Sounds a lot easier said than done. The Dems just have to hold out until budget time rolls around and the Republicans cave.

[Gunny]

Not fond of that part myself, I am concerned with everyone calling the week of debate and voting an embarrassment, however. That is how our system should work. We should be able to disagree and build concensus over time, and in the end, as in this case, elect a Speaker.

IMO, it should have been decided behind closed doors beforehand. This was not healthy debate, also IMO. It was obstructive attention-whoring that accomplished nothing but putting on a show for the left and media.

[Kathianne]

If only they saved this discussion for when they might actually have some power and influence to make some meaningful changes. I fear that this will only force a move to the left when they've got to get something passed because some single issue Republicans will feel slighted and seek to undermine leadership at a hint of backsliding.

Totally agree. I think most of them, certainly the loudest voices, were using this as weapon to gain power earned through coercion. Again, making the left's portrayal of conservatives as power hungry, against the poor so many people's reality.

[Kathianne]

IMO, it should have been decided behind closed doors beforehand. This was not healthy debate, also IMO. It was obstructive attention-whoring that accomplished nothing but putting on a show for the left and media.
and likely giving the radicals powers on committees they shouldn't have, at the expense of others that actually have experience. Oh well, it's what the radicals want.

I just want another alternative.

[BoogyMan]

You could be right, I hope not, but you certainly could be. I don't see Chip Roy as being that kind of attention seeker. I have met him and had conversations with him, he is a good man.


IMO, it should have been decided behind closed doors beforehand. This was not healthy debate, also IMO. It was obstructive attention-whoring that accomplished nothing but putting on a show for the left and media.

[Gunny]

and likely giving the radicals powers on committees they shouldn't have, at the expense of others that actually have experience. Oh well, it's what the radicals want.

I just want another alternative.

I'm all for that.

[revelarts]

I have no problem with that. I've been against the crap as far back as I can remember.

Point is, what is being demanded as concession that hasn't already been part of GOP talk, if not already a plan?...

Yes and the relying on Congressional promises bit you mentioned.
yes exactly
all stuff Rs have TALKED ABOUT for years if not decades.

But Personally I don't understand folks on the right that have been crying for Rs to 'get a backbone and make stuff happen,' being upset with this.

I'm not sure why folk seem to think everything can be done with some kind of poise & decorum that doesn't get any juice on the carpet.
Even when its done completely within the rules, some people seemed to be in the corner fanning themselves tut tutting..." Exposing it all in public .. How uncouth!"

But 2 weeks from now the when the d's impose the next crazy thing some of the same folks will be talking about "revolution", and keeping powder dry.

For my money Congress can and should get a whole LOT MESSYER and out of order to fix the craptastrophe the country's living in.
Let it get wild in Congress so no blood is spilled on the streets.

People have told me for years "we don't want saints" or "people too moral/good" as representatives.
Ok fine.
But then they also complain when someone talks out of turn in Congress!?!
What the Heck?

Do people really want to get things changed or do they want to THEIR VERSIONS OF perfect persons to make the changes in ways that aren't so ...distasteful to their political sensibilities.

Personally I simply want the changes in legal peaceful ways, I'm not concerned about how it "looks" getting done.

[fj1200]

Yes and the relying on Congressional promises bit you mentioned.

20 out of 222 out of 435 making up 1/2 of 1/3 of the Federal government isn't going to get it done.

[revelarts]

20 out of 222 out of 435 making up 1/2 of 1/3 of the Federal government isn't going to get it done.

I'd rather have 22 than ZERO out of the bunch, sincerely trying and stirring the pot hard EVERYDAY.


By the way do you think McCarthy & the R's really have plans to "drain the swamp"... time time?

[fj1200]

I'd rather have 22 than ZERO out of the bunch, sincerely trying and stirring the pot hard EVERYDAY.


By the way do you think McCarthy & the R's really have plans to "drain the swamp"... time time?

I think the 20 are misguided in their tactics. The Rs have no ability to "drain the swamp" (whatever that means) especially with the tactics of the 20... IMO.

[revelarts]

I think the 20 are misguided in their tactics.....

What tactics would have been better?& worked?

What tactics do you recommend that have even, on just a few issues, moved the ball this far this quickly?

[fj1200]

What tactics would have been better?& worked?

What tactics do you recommend that have even, on just a few issues, moved the ball this far this quickly?

Quiet discussions, win elections. Why do you think the ball has moved?

[SassyLady]

Quiet discussions, win elections. Why do you think the ball has moved?
Why quiet discussions? Things should be debated out loud in the House Chambers (not in back rooms) so the public knows who is saying what and how people are voting.

One ball that has moved is the agreement to put term limits to a vote. It probably won't pass but prior to the holdouts asking it wasn't even considered to be put forth. Now we get to see who votes for term limits and who votes against. Just a little more exposure in my opinion.

[fj1200]

Why quiet discussions? Things should be debated out loud in the House Chambers (not in back rooms) so the public knows who is saying what and how people are voting.

One ball that has moved is the agreement to put term limits to a vote. It probably won't pass but prior to the holdouts asking it wasn't even considered to be put forth. Now we get to see who votes for term limits and who votes against. Just a little more exposure in my opinion.

No cause was functionally advanced over the last week. It was unnecessary.

Term limits? Twaddle. They are unconstitutional out of the gate. Do you also think the debt ceiling will never go up again?

[SassyLady]

No cause was functionally advanced over the last week. It was unnecessary.

Term limits? Twaddle. They are unconstitutional out of the gate. Do you also think the debt ceiling will never go up again?

Well, I guess that depends on what cause you're rooting for.

I don't think term limits is unconstitutional. States cannot impose term limits on federal reps. But an amendment, such as the 22nd could be adopted. Will it? Probably not.



Congress does have the power to propose the amendment to the people and the States. The vote on term limits is simply that: a vote to allow the people, through their representatives, to decide on term limits.

[fj1200]

Well, I guess that depends on what cause you're rooting for.

I don't think term limits is unconstitutional. States cannot impose term limits on federal reps. But an amendment, such as the 22nd could be adopted. Will it? Probably not.

Nothing on that list was functionally advanced for long term change whether you think them a good idea or not.

And it was unconstitutional in 1995. Of course an amendment to the Constitution makes something constitutional. Even bad ideas.

[Kathianne]

Why it doesn't mean what the zealots think it means:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/disorganized-republican-gop-great-inversion-party-loyalty-purity-test-maga-house-speaker-fight-free-speech-spending-11673266223?st=qfzq2c8xh2hhkwl&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


...

Today, the Democratic Party may be the most ruthlessly organized and efficient political entity in the world—and I include the Chinese Communist Party. Xi Jinping probably looks across the Pacific with envy at the iron party solidarity over which House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries presides.


READ MORE FREE EXPRESSION
New Year’s Can Be Humbling. Resolve to Keep It That WayJanuary 2, 2023
Lessons From 2022 for Elitists and AuthoritariansDecember 19, 2022
Elon Musk’s Twitter Files Revelations Are Instructive but Not SurprisingDecember 12, 2022
See more...
The Democrats took a 50-50 nation in 2020, after a contentious election won by the narrowest of margins primarily because just enough voters saw them as the lesser evil, and seized the opportunity to advance one of the most ambitious agendas of any government in recent history: trillions of additional dollars in federal spending, expanded regulation, the steady erosion of the national border, accelerated conversion of the nation’s energy production to costly green sources, and a relentless, intensifying war on traditional culture and values.


We can denounce the activism and deplore the outcome, but we can only marvel at the political efficiency with which it has been achieved.


Democrats have been demonstrating this impressive willingness to band together for some time. They have taken Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment and turned it into Nancy Pelosi’s First Law.


In 2009 and 2010 many of them voted for ObamaCare well aware that it could cost them their political futures. Like kamikaze pilots cheerfully climbing up into their Zero fighters at dawn, they knew they had an obligation larger than their own survival, a duty that superseded their doubts.


Joe Biden will shortly announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Despite his age, his evident cognitive decline and the risk of an accident that results in President Kamala Harris, and even if by this time next year the U.S. economy is mired in recession, he will be re-nominated by acclamation. This will be no 1968 or 1976 for the incumbent.

The Republicans meanwhile, are about to embark on yet another orgy of self-mutilation, one that may make last week’s Grand Guignol in the House look positively amicable.


Republicans need to get a grip—and fast—or they, and we, are going to lose the ability to halt this country’s march to the left for a decade or more. The lessons of history couldn’t be clearer. Divided parties lose elections. Parties that indulge their most unrepresentative dogmatists alienate the rest. Parties that put ideological purity over governing become neither ideologically pure nor any longer in government.


This isn’t to deny that a fight over principle is in many ways admirable, or that the fissiparous tendencies demonstrated by conservatives in the last few years have been driven by big, important changes in wider political and social conditions.


But don’t think the spectacle—the reality—of a political party that places a higher priority on its own internal purification doesn’t have real world consequences.


In another example of our modern political inversion, some on the right defending their performance last week sounded uncannily like some Democrats who ripped each other limb from limb at their 1968 presidential nominating convention. Open debate is democracy at work! Principle is passion! Leadership demands accountability!.


All true. But as I watched the spectacle unfold on C-Span’s briefly liberated cameras, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the observation of the French general who watched the British immolate themselves in the charge of the light brigade at the Battle of Balaclava in 1854.


It’s magnificent, he said, but it isn’t war.

[Kathianne]

Yep. Several here have addressed some of the good things forced upon McCarthy, would be very difficult to dispute that-though fj gives it a shot. :laugh:

My concerns have circled on the 'unintended consequences' of those now full fledged far right folks. The future, what they didn't see coming with Trump-as is also true of those who opposed him, that some of his policies and blustering could be positive. Nevertheless, here we now are with the Democrats in better than deserved position because of power seeking in the GOP. If they continue as likely, it will get worse. Now, if they took the advice and 'just took the win,' they'd do a lot better in elections, in their standing long term in the party:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mccarthy-house-speaker-vote-trump-freedom-caucus-budget-spending-committee-republican-majority-11672956869?mod=hp_opin_pos_6#cxrecs_s


GOP Rebels Need to Take the WinNew rule changes will restore the House. Further demands are a recipe for chaos.
Kimberley A. Strassel By Kimberley A. StrasselFollow
Jan. 5, 2023 5:50 pm ET

...

These changes will produce the first functioning House in years, even as they tie the hands of spenders. Take the win! Instead, the rebels continue to hold out for provisions that have the potential to negate this victory by plunging the House back into chaos. At the top of the list is the continued demand to allow any Republican member to call for a motion to “vacate the chair”—essentially a snap vote to oust the speaker.


Talk about inviting the dysfunction the holdouts claim to want to end. Conservatives used such a motion in 2015 to force John Boehner out, and while his successor, Paul Ryan, avoided the same fate, today’s raucous environment and the GOP’s narrow margins make it a destabilizing weapon. It’s designed to continue to make Mr. McCarthy a hostage to the rebels’ every whim. If you think the House is a mess now, imagine a scenario in which Mr. Gaetz or Lauren Boebert or Andy Biggs can bring the place to a standstill every time their noses are out of joint. Assuming their noses are ever in joint.


Between this and other provisions, the rebel message is that they won’t accept Mr. McCarthy as speaker unless he is stripped of all his power. Brilliant. Returning the business of the House to members is one thing. Neutering a leader of any ability to set a direction or maintain order is suicide. Just what the country needs: 222 headless Republican chickens running around, all claiming to be in charge.


At this point, the rebels can no longer plausibly claim they are fighting for “the people.” This is their own power play. Just take the win.

[Gunny]

Yes and the relying on Congressional promises bit you mentioned.
yes exactly
all stuff Rs have TALKED ABOUT for years if not decades.

But Personally I don't understand folks on the right that have been crying for Rs to 'get a backbone and make stuff happen,' being upset with this.

I'm not sure why folk seem to think everything can be done with some kind of poise & decorum that doesn't get any juice on the carpet.
Even when its done completely within the rules, some people seemed to be in the corner fanning themselves tut tutting..." Exposing it all in public .. How uncouth!"

But 2 weeks from now the when the d's impose the next crazy thing some of the same folks will be talking about "revolution", and keeping powder dry.

For my money Congress can and should get a whole LOT MESSYER and out of order to fix the craptastrophe the country's living in.
Let it get wild in Congress so no blood is spilled on the streets.

People have told me for years "we don't want saints" or "people too moral/good" as representatives.
Ok fine.
But then they also complain when someone talks out of turn in Congress!?!
What the Heck?

Do people really want to get things changed or do they want to THEIR VERSIONS OF perfect persons to make the changes in ways that aren't so ...distasteful to their political sensibilities.

Personally I simply want the changes in legal peaceful ways, I'm not concerned about how it "looks" getting done.

I am for doing things correctly, in proper sequence, that lead to victory.

I am not impressed with Republicans when the only people they can stand up to/go after reside within their own party when they'll cave in a minute to a label by the MSM/left.

The voters change the representatives. Representatives work with each other to represent the voters. THAT is how it is supposed to work. Nobody I know of voted for anyone to go to DC and represent themselves individually. There's no "I" in "team".

I think the party itself is on the verge of implosion but it's all we got between us and the Dems dominating the entire government. If the Republicans don't get it together, I suspect the latter to be inevitable.

They can start by working with each other to stop the current administration and its unconstitutional practices and policies.

[Gunny]

Why it doesn't mean what the zealots think it means:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/disorganized-republican-gop-great-inversion-party-loyalty-purity-test-maga-house-speaker-fight-free-speech-spending-11673266223?st=qfzq2c8xh2hhkwl&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I shouldn't but I will :): I just said all that before getting to this post. I completely agree. The Republicans need to pull their heads out of their rear ends and get it together as damned team before it's too late to do anything. They could start by not allowing the Dems/MSM/social media control them with words they fear.

[revelarts]

All due respect to everyone here that beleive everything should be done "decently and in Order" and working with/as the "team".

But i really don't think you folk realize how late the hour is.
Playing nice, and waiting for or working with the establishment republicans & RINOs has not gotten us much of anything for the past 20+ year.
Many of the things people called me crazy for then are now COMMON Knowledge and open gov't practice. The past 3 years has shown just how far the feds have gotten out of hand to most people.

I'm not sure why folks think a bit of cordial backroom comprise and kumbaya 'RaRaUrah' team R is going to move the needle from the super corrupt unconstitutional "new normal" that we are living in.
the nation has been the frog in the boiling pot for decades now, some people think it's over.
If I read some of you folks right you really don't have a problem with the current status quo,
you just want the Rs to run it in a sweet and orderly fashion and maybe slow things on the boarder to a reasonable bleed.
Am i wrong?

Are there ANY other MAJOR changes you would like to see?
Anything worth fighting for that you think and could actually happen over the next 25 years based on your "quiet chitchat", "team player" "don't rock the boat" models.
Is there anything worth making a stink about RIGHT NOW in this congress?
Should people sometimes fight in legislators not just for an ASSUMED "pragmatic" inch toward the goal line. But sometimes just because it's the right thing to do even if NO ONE else does it?


I'm just curious, my hair is all gray at this point and the ONLY thing in my conservative libertarian life that I can actually say has been change for the better are Roe V Wade and few pro-life laws. And the establishment "wait -a minute" republicans have had to be pulled to those draggin and screaming about "VOTES".

FJ, Gunny Kath, seriously, 3 questions for you.
Before we all die, what real changes would you like to see Rs make?
Based on your cautions and finger wagging on how ALL the Rs should proceed, how many changes do you think you'll live to see? think your kids will live to see?
Are there ANY you think are worth fighting for even if they are nearly Guaranteed Failures simply because they are the RIGHT thing to do?

[SassyLady]

Am I the only one here who has ever publicy protested? Am I the only one who's actually worked on election day? Has anyone here attended any political event? Speech? Rallies?

If you've ever done anything to work toward changing the political landscape other than vote please share.

[revelarts]

Am I the only one here who has ever publicy protested? Am I the only one who's actually worked on election day? Has anyone here attended any political event? Speech? Rallies?

If you've ever done anything to work toward changing the political landscape other than vote please share.
Sassy You must be some kind of zealot.

To your question
Speeches/event/rally✓
Protest✓
Work on election day ×
Talked directly to a candidate & rep or 2✓( for all the good that's done. Like taking to a mannequin)
Letters & phone calls on specific votes✓
officially Work on a campaign for a candidate×
None very much


Of those I've done I think the protest , letters & phone calls probably had the most impact.
Enough people making angry noises seems to get at lest some attention and movement.
Often they try do diffuse or redirect or compromise or toss some verbal bones of "support" but do nothing. Then finally flee and hope to survive the exposure for what they've done/failed to do.

[Kathianne]

Am I the only one here who has ever publicy protested? Am I the only one who's actually worked on election day? Has anyone here attended any political event? Speech? Rallies?

If you've ever done anything to work toward changing the political landscape other than vote please share.

I've done protests, written and in person. I've volunteered and been paid for working political campaigns. I've worked as election judge several times. I've attended many political speeches/rallies, first being for JFK-my parents took 4 year old me. ;)

[fj1200]

FJ, Gunny Kath, seriously, 3 questions for you.

It doesn't matter what questions you ask if no one is in a position of power to carry through. THAT is where we are right now. You can't govern like a red wave just happened when a red wave clearly didn't happen. Figure out why it didn't happen first; I've got my theory.

[SassyLady]

Hey Rev and Kath ... :dance:

[revelarts]

It doesn't matter what questions you ask if no one is in a position of power to carry through. THAT is where we are right now. You can't govern like a red wave just happened when a red wave clearly didn't happen. Figure out why it didn't happen first; I've got my theory.

So you don't want to answer the questions.
OK.
So I'll just guess that you're not expecting to see any real change in your lifetime and you're fine with the status quo.
And there's nothing you think is worth fighting for because it's the right thing to do no matter the "expected" outcome.

You say "You can't govern like a red wave just happened".
ok.
Can they govern like their lives depended on it?
Can they govern like our country's life depended on it?

Rather than pretending the ship of state is generally healthy?

[fj1200]

So you don't want to answer the questions.
OK.
So I'll just guess that you're not expecting to see any real change in your lifetime and you're fine with the status quo.
And there's nothing you think is worth fighting for because it's the right thing to do no matter the "expected" outcome.

You say "You can't govern like a red wave just happened".
ok.
Can they govern like their lives depended on it?
Can they govern like our country's life depended on it?

Rather than pretending the ship of state is generally healthy?

It's not that I don't want to answer your questions, they just aren't relavent at the present time. You could ask me how I'm going to spend my prize money for winning on the PGA tour; it doesn't matter, I'm not going to win. They haven't governed anything yet, they squabbled over petty procedures and as I keep repeating it's a fools errand at this point. I'm happy to be wrong but IMO their tactics will end up hurting more than they help especially in regards to weakening the speaker role.

[revelarts]

It's not that I don't want to answer your questions, they just aren't relavent at the present time. You could ask me how I'm going to spend my prize money for winning on the PGA tour; it doesn't matter, I'm not going to win. They haven't governed anything yet, they squabbled over petty procedures and as I keep repeating it's a fools errand at this point. I'm happy to be wrong but IMO their tactics will end up hurting more than they help especially in regards to weakening the speaker role.

hurting what exactly was part of the question FJ.
What has been hurt "MORE" by their tactics that you're so concerned about?
Other than the oh so precious the "speaker role".

[fj1200]

hurting what exactly was part of the question FJ.
What has been hurt "MORE" by their tactics that you're so concerned about?
Other than the oh so precious the "speaker role".

See below.


If only they saved this discussion for when they might actually have some power and influence to make some meaningful changes. I fear that this will only force a move to the left when they've got to get something passed because some single issue Republicans will feel slighted and seek to undermine leadership at a hint of backsliding.

I'm not concerned about the speaker role until it harms moving an agenda forward.

But overall it seems you think they accomplished something; I do not. We'll see who's right.

[revelarts]

See below.



I'm not concerned about the speaker role until it harms moving an agenda forward.

But overall it seems you think they accomplished something; I do not. We'll see who's right.
This excuse has been used for the past 40+ years by moderates & RINOs while we've lost most of the constitutional amendments, U.S. Intel agencies Spying on everyone and FBI directing "private" Social Media swinging elections, health care, LGBTXYZ "rights" over nearly everything, DOD missing trillion+, Wall st Bailouts, 100billion+ to foreign wars, to mention a few things that come to the top of my head.

I'm sorry what "single issue" are you worrying about that might slow the big FORWARD moving agenda the republicans are making this so called progress on?

Again can you please tell me SPECIFICALLY what are some of the points of this "agenda" that is in such danger?

or maybe you can tell me EXACTLY which single conservative issues you are willing to sacrifice this year for the greater good of the agenda?

[fj1200]

This excuse has been used for the past 40+ years by moderates & RINOs while we've lost most of the constitutional amendments, U.S. Intel agencies Spying on everyone and FBI directing "private" Social Media swinging elections, health care, LGBTXYZ "rights" over nearly everything, DOD missing trillion+, Wall st Bailouts, 100billion+ to foreign wars, to mention a few things that come to the top of my head.

I'm sorry what "single issue" are you worrying about that might slow the big FORWARD moving agenda the republicans are making this so called progress on?

Again can you please tell me SPECIFICALLY what are some of the points of this "agenda" that is in such danger?

or maybe you can tell me EXACTLY which single conservative issues you are willing to sacrifice this year for the greater good of the agenda?

Apparently I'm not making myself clear enough and for that I apologize. My position is that this is all just theatre and that the theatre is distracting and what could be accomplished is in jeopardy because there is no party cohesion. Your questions are silly.

To your whole first paragraph the only thing I can say is we can blame the Republican party in throwing away advantages that they have had at any given time. The peak of what was accomplished happened after 1994 midterm elections and won the day up until the BJC impeachment but did also succeed in getting Bush II elected. The bright point is that Republicans continued to gain at the state level even if slipping at the Federal level. Why? I'd say that they lost their way in governing from a conservative standpoint. Who is to blame for that? Who knows but voters did not like what was happening and did not reward them with electoral sucess. So my question to you is who would you like to blame for all of that and why do you think 20 Republicans pushing the envelope for three days in January 2023 is somehow going to turn that whole tide around right after a red wave did not happen?

[revelarts]

Apparently I'm not making myself clear enough and for that I apologize. My position is that this is all just theatre and that the theatre is distracting and what could be accomplished is in jeopardy because there is no party cohesion. Your questions are silly.

To your whole first paragraph the only thing I can say is we can blame the Republican party in throwing away advantages that they have had at any given time. The peak of what was accomplished happened after 1994 midterm elections and won the day up until the BJC impeachment but did also succeed in getting Bush II elected. The bright point is that Republicans continued to gain at the state level even if slipping at the Federal level. Why? I'd say that they lost their way in governing from a conservative standpoint. Who is to blame for that? Who knows but voters did not like what was happening and did not reward them with electoral sucess. So my question to you is who would you like to blame for all of that and why do you think 20 Republicans pushing the envelope for three days in January 2023 is somehow going to turn that whole tide around right after a red wave did not happen?

FJ sure.. no problem.

Here's a change up for you.
How about the rest of the republicains get on the side of the 20?
If team work is what we all really need... for the agenda (only vague described as MORE REPUBLICANS:rolleyes:)?
the rest of the republicans can move toward the 20.
As long as they move as a team right?

[Gunny]

FJ sure.. no problem.

Here's a change up for you.
How about the rest of the republicains get on the side of the 20?
If team work is what we all really need... for the agenda (only vague described as MORE REPUBLICANS:rolleyes:)?
the rest of the republicans can move toward the 20.
As long as they move as a team right?

Not how it works. The House is supposed to represent the majority, the representatives providing input from the People. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say grandstanders have anything more than an opinion. If the People wanted the voice of those 20 heard, there would be more than 20.

Those 20 do not represent anything I'm about. Starting with their lack of understanding what they are there for and how government functions. If they want their own mannerless, heathen party they can go start one.

[revelarts]

Not how it works. The House is supposed to represent the majority, the representatives providing input from the People. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say grandstanders have anything more than an opinion. If the People wanted the voice of those 20 heard, there would be more than 20.

Those 20 do not represent anything I'm about. Starting with their lack of understanding what they are there for and how government functions. If they want their own mannerless, heathen party they can go start one.

Look you folks are saying UNITY and TEAM are THE MOST important thing.
Not representing anything. Constitutes, or principals or issues or conservatism, FJ says that stuff is SILLY, no need to think about or talk about it.,

YOU said there's no I in TEAM.
if the majority is so great they'd take hit for team and bow to these crazy ZELOT REBELS, for the greater good of the party right? IF you're in the feild and you've got a Team members that "lack of understanding" do you leave them or go slow WITH THEM... FOR the TEAM toward the goal of the Unnamed "agenda".
I mean The few things they asked for are things you said you agree with right. There are probably a few more.
They are so-called FAR right so they are for the constitution, so I suspect you do have some points of agreement with them, But IT DOESN"T MATTER
Because the MAIN thing is UNITY . Unity a unified face Speaker POWER all to move the R AGENDA without details or SINGLE issues to slow it down.


Personally I've never understood the idea of being a team player when the team is going over a cliff.
But you folks know better.

[fj1200]

FJ sure.. no problem.

Here's a change up for you.
How about the rest of the republicains get on the side of the 20?
If team work is what we all really need... for the agenda (only vague described as MORE REPUBLICANS:rolleyes:)?
the rest of the republicans can move toward the 20.
As long as they move as a team right?

Reality check for you. If people wanted to be on the side of the 20 then we wouldn't be talking about the 20. And even if they did then you're still dealing with a Senate which also did not have a red wave.

[fj1200]

Personally I've never understood the idea of being a team player when the team is going over a cliff.
But you folks know better.

I really don't think you've analyzed the recent elections results quite accurately enough.

Term limits for example? Not exactly a cliff to die on.

[revelarts]

I really don't think you've analyzed the recent elections results quite accurately enough.
Term limits for example? Not exactly a cliff to die on.

Republicans have been promising terms limits for how long? like 30+ years? and only 20 want a vote on it?
Was it part of the "agenda" you mentioned earlier that Rs have been "moving forward" here lately?
30+ years man, Seem to me some congressmen have already literally died on this one.

But again I ask my "silly" question. ARE THERE ANY ISSUES you think are worth dying on the cliff for?
Please indulge my silly non-pragmatic rebel zealot loner nature.

[fj1200]

Republicans have been promising terms limits for how long? like 30+ years? and only 20 want a vote on it?
Was it part of the "agenda" you mentioned earlier that Rs have been "moving forward" here lately?
30+ years man, Seem to me some congressmen have already literally died on this one.

But again I ask my "silly" question. ARE THERE ANY ISSUES you think are worth dying on the cliff for?
Please indulge my silly non-pragmatic rebel zealot loner nature.

Not all Republicans have been promising term limits. Just like not all Republican ideas are conservative in nature. I can think of plenty of conservative ideas that have moved forward since the mid-90s that are good and effective; tax cuts, deregulation, SCOTUS appointments, etc. They didn't all happen in one year because they can't all happen in one year, things take time.

And I wouldn't die on any cliff here if it means that Republicans lose their tenuous hold on any lever of government.