(10-13-2023 01:58 PM)Eagleyed Wrote: 1) McCarthy gets elected promises to split bills into smaller portions to get elected after republicans can barely hold it together to get anyone. Does so. 4 of the many appropriations bills do pass. Those 4 cut spending significantly. None of them pass the dem held Senate. The other bills get bogged down with republicans not being able to agree on them. They are either too centrist or cut too much. So republicans can't fund the government. If there was then no bill funding the government it would be blamed on republicans with very little in the way of republicans being able to point to how it isn't their fault. Because saying they didn't fund the government at that point is 100% true.
And also a quick note. Jim Jordan being speaker wouldn't solve any of that. Republicans still would not have been able to get the smaller appropriations bills passed and the government shutdown assuming he did not negotiate with dems to get it passed would be blamed 100% on republicans, and rightfully so.
2) Then in order to get a bill funding the government and republicans not get rightfully blamed for shutting the government down because they have no bill McCarthy makes a general funding bill against the promise he made. The general bill also cannot get a majority of republican support. In negotiations it is once again either too centrist or too far right. So once again republicans face the reality if they don't pass a bill they will rightfully be blamed for not funding the government and shutting the government down. So McCarthy and a few republicans go to the dems to negotiate since republicans can't agree.
3) The dems and the republicans involved negotiate a spending bill to fund the government for just 45 days so republicans can come up with a longer term bill that funds it longer. Dems get everything in that bill with no cuts save one thing. Ukraine funding is cut. Which forces dems in the Senate to either fund Ukraine or fund the United States. It's a smart ploy as it pins the failure of the bill entirely on dems after several have promised to not vote on any bill that doesn't fund Ukraine. It's also for only 45 days where republicans can hopefully come back and actually get bills funding the government done after they come back. The bill passes with almost total dem support and about 2/3 republican support.
4) Then Gaetz says McCarthy broke his promise. Which yes he did, and sides with the democrats to remove McCarthy as speaker. Now with republicans not able to get bills together funding the government, they also cannot get support for a speaker. And the only time republicans have gotten anything done, both funding bill wise and removing the speaker have been with dem support. But, I'm told it totally won't happen for electing the new speaker even though the history of this congressional session has shown otherwise.
Gaetz isn't wrong. But, he is very likely to end up giving the house to someone republicans in general will not like. And the only losers will be the American people.
So---the short version is---having McCarthy as Speaker resulted in the Democrats getting everything they wanted---except for Ukraine spending----which is silly---because roughly half of the Republicans actually favor aid to Ukraine. And some wonder why I dont see losing McCarthy as any big loss.
I just dont see this as a "sky as falling" issue given McCarthy's lame tenure.
Worst case is we end up with a Democrat Speaker who gives the Democrats everything they want slightly more efficiently than McCarthy did. I suspect the more likely case is we get a Republican Speaker who does no worse than McCarthy----and if we are lucky---perhaps he does a bit better than McCarthy. After McCarthy's bumbling---my bar for "success" for the current Republican majority is set pretty low.
Here is what I dont understand. Why are RINO's so intransigent? Pass the conservative spending bills---even if its a little too conservative for your blood. Its not going to pass the Senate anyway. Then---when it comes time to negotiate with the Senate---you have chips to give away and the final bill will end up where the RINO's wanted to be in the first place. If you pass the watered down RINO bill to start with----you START negotiations from a spending point that was already way more than most Republicans wanted and we end up with a compromise bill that looks much closer to what the Democrats wanted all along. Its like RINO's have never had to negotiate anything before in their entire lives.
Democrats got what they wanted for 45 days. Minus Ukraine. A narrative the republicans could have forced on media. But, instead we got the clown show we have now.
The moderates did vote on many spending bills that cut spending. 4 of them that cut a lot were passed. Many moderates voted on the one's that didn't pass. You have to remember though, it only takes just a few votes to not pass. This is the consequence of not getting a big enough majority. Have more republicans, have more chances to pass legislation. Just as how Obamacare was able to pass with about 30 democrats voting against it. You have to have a bigger majority if you want more republican bills. But, a nearly 50/50 house with a dem Senate and a dem president is not going to give you the opportunity to pass strong conservative bills.
You say a democrat would be the same. Despite the fact that a dem speaker or Liz Cheney would end investigations into the FBI, Covid, Fauci, Joe Biden. Ya you insist nothing would actually happen, and sure maybe, but one thing it does is keep the news on dems. Now it shifts to investigating republicans primarily Trump. News media gets that plus republicans not being able to govern until next election. Ya great strategy to keep the news focused on republican ineptitude instead of dems.
No speaker no matter who they are is going to overcome the issue of republicans having a paper thin majority and both sides not willing to compromise enough.
Getting what you can vs getting nothing. Some people like nothing.
Problem republicans have getting spending bills passed is that they just want to do the same things as the democrats, only spend less doing it, which makes them look greedy.
Come up with some truly different approaches, explain them to the American people, and build public opinion for the changes. Be republicans, not democrats light.
(10-13-2023 11:56 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: Tom Emmer bails out, too. Jordan is the last man standing...if he can't get 217 this isn't getting resolved for a long time.
Still a lot of work to do---but I think a deal eventually gets done---hopefully by Monday.
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2023 12:03 AM by Attackcoog.)
So the democrat moderates are now offering specific limited expansion of the powers of McHenry's temporary speaker position controlled by 15 day renewals.
Lol. Of course they are. The golden parachute for the cucks they hope will side with all the democrats on the Jordan vote.
(10-14-2023 10:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: So the democrat moderates are now offering specific limited expansion of the powers of McHenry's temporary speaker position controlled by 15 day renewals.
Lol. Of course they are. The golden parachute for the cucks they hope will side with all the democrats on the Jordan vote.
Sorry, I had to stop to make sure you weren't yanking our chain.
(10-15-2023 05:16 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: Now other demtard groups are in talks with republitards about a deal to avoid Jordan.
My shocked face...
Last I heard, he was up over 200. Mike Rogers is starting to catch intense backlash---not only from fellow congressional members---but more importantly----from his own voters----so I suspect this is nearing an end. I forgot this is the idiot that nearly got in a fist fight on the floor during the January McCarthy voting. I only know of 4 who are still saying they wont vote for Jordan. Just pure conjecture on my part---but I think everyone on the Republican side of the aisle is realizing they need to end the Speaker search ASAP---so I think they will find a way to get it done by Monday.
If this happens---I think it will be a big deal. Saw a GOP strategist this weekend on the Fox "On the Hill" indicate that 67% of the time McCarthy voted with the Democrat agenda---compared to Nancy Pelosi voting with the conservative agenda just 7% of the time. Now---I dont know exactly how that was measured---but the raw number is really not important. Whatever the criteria----it would be the same for both leaders----thus whats important is the comparison---and its emblematic of how its really impossible for the GOP to accomplish anything as long its own leader doesnt even believe in GOP goals enough to support them in votes. I think its a basic imperative that the GOP leader rabidly believe and support the GOP legislative agenda---just as Nancy rabidly supported the left's agenda while leading the Democrats.
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2023 06:29 PM by Attackcoog.)
(10-15-2023 05:16 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: Now other demtard groups are in talks with republitards about a deal to avoid Jordan.
My shocked face...
Last I heard, he was up over 200. Mike Rogers is starting to catch intense backlash---not only from fellow congressional members---but more importantly----from his own voters----so I suspect this is nearing an end. I forgot this is the idiot that nearly got in a fist fight on the floor during the January McCarthy voting. I only know of 4 who are still saying they wont vote for Jordan. Just pure conjecture on my part---but I think everyone on the Republican side of the aisle is realizing they need to end the Speaker search ASAP---so I think they will find a way to get it done by Monday.
If this happens---I think it will be a big deal. Saw a GOP strategist this weekend on the Fox "On the Hill" indicate that 67% of the time McCarthy voted with the Democrat agenda---compared to Nancy Pelosi voting with the conservative agenda just 7% of the time. Now---I dont know exactly how that was measured---but the raw number is really not important. Whatever the criteria----it would be the same for both leaders----thus whats important is the comparison---and its emblematic of how its really impossible for the GOP to accomplish anything as long its own leader doesnt even believe in GOP goals enough to support them in votes.
I am not sure the republicans know what the republican agenda is.
(10-15-2023 05:16 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: Now other demtard groups are in talks with republitards about a deal to avoid Jordan.
My shocked face...
Last I heard, he was up over 200. Mike Rogers is starting to catch intense backlash---not only from fellow congressional members---but more importantly----from his own voters----so I suspect this is nearing an end. I forgot this is the idiot that nearly got in a fist fight on the floor during the January McCarthy voting. I only know of 4 who are still saying they wont vote for Jordan. Just pure conjecture on my part---but I think everyone on the Republican side of the aisle is realizing they need to end the Speaker search ASAP---so I think they will find a way to get it done by Monday.
If this happens---I think it will be a big deal. Saw a GOP strategist this weekend on the Fox "On the Hill" indicate that 67% of the time McCarthy voted with the Democrat agenda---compared to Nancy Pelosi voting with the conservative agenda just 7% of the time. Now---I dont know exactly how that was measured---but the raw number is really not important. Whatever the criteria----it would be the same for both leaders----thus whats important is the comparison---and its emblematic of how its really impossible for the GOP to accomplish anything as long its own leader doesnt even believe in GOP goals enough to support them in votes.
I am not sure the republicans know what the republican agenda is.
I suppose there is room for debate there----but I think Im pretty safe in saying its not what the Democrats are serving up 67% of time.
(10-15-2023 06:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I am not sure the republicans know what the republican agenda is.
I suppose there is room for debate there----but I think Im pretty safe in saying its not what the Democrats are serving up 67% of time.
Clearly. I would say close to 0%. But if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
I think republicans are scared that if they come out and say what they stand for, the MSM will say mean things about them. The MSM are going to say mean things about them, no matter what. So might as well start pushing some common sense ideas.
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2023 06:41 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(10-15-2023 05:16 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: Now other demtard groups are in talks with republitards about a deal to avoid Jordan.
My shocked face...
Last I heard, he was up over 200. Mike Rogers is starting to catch intense backlash---not only from fellow congressional members---but more importantly----from his own voters----so I suspect this is nearing an end. I forgot this is the idiot that nearly got in a fist fight on the floor during the January McCarthy voting. I only know of 4 who are still saying they wont vote for Jordan. Just pure conjecture on my part---but I think everyone on the Republican side of the aisle is realizing they need to end the Speaker search ASAP---so I think they will find a way to get it done by Monday.
If this happens---I think it will be a big deal. Saw a GOP strategist this weekend on the Fox "On the Hill" indicate that 67% of the time McCarthy voted with the Democrat agenda---compared to Nancy Pelosi voting with the conservative agenda just 7% of the time. Now---I dont know exactly how that was measured---but the raw number is really not important. Whatever the criteria----it would be the same for both leaders----thus whats important is the comparison---and its emblematic of how its really impossible for the GOP to accomplish anything as long its own leader doesnt even believe in GOP goals enough to support them in votes. I think its a basic imperative that the GOP leader rabidly believe and support the GOP legislative agenda---just as Nancy rabidly supported the left's agenda while leading the Democrats.
Mike Rogers is very establishment, very military and Ukraine funding, because he gets almost all of his donations from those lobbyists. So he wants someone to keep that money flowing to him, which is why he was trying to work with the democrats. He'd rather have Nancy Pelosi as speaker if she agrees to keep allowing ukraine funding bills.
Looks like most of the remaining holdouts are now "maybe" on Jordan, and not hard no's. MIke Rogers took a lot of incoming from everyone this weekend; voters, MTG, everyone. I think some of the others are getting a bit spooked about what a no vote may cost them.
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2023 10:35 PM by UofMstateU.)
Jordan would be great from a national messaging perspective. Not sure he will get much more actually accomplished. I'd miss him chairing the Judiciary Committee, though.
Lord, the liberals are going to sky scream if he gets to 217.
(10-16-2023 05:11 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: Jordan would be great from a national messaging perspective. Not sure he will get much more actually accomplished. I'd miss him chairing the Judiciary Committee, though.
Lord, the liberals are going to sky scream if he gets to 217.
They sky scream anytime a conservative Republican gets elected.
rath v2.0 Wrote:
I think the replacement is probably doomed to abject failure before the first day on the job. Whomever takes the gig knows this is likely a suicide mission.
-------------------
stinky fingers wrote:
which is why I favor looking outside the box at someone other than a sitting rep … I view this as an unparalleled opportunity … are the pubs savvy enough to figgle out that option??? #doubtful
and нет! … selecting DJT would be ridiculously tard…
if I had to guess, Jim Jordan is most likely the next speaker … I could live with that…
My FIL was invited to an event and MR heard about his service and why he was invited, and he came and spoke to him asking about what was his thoughts on the country.. When my FIL finished, MR told him how dare he talk to him like that.. My FIL said how dare you think you're better than anyone.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2023 06:54 AM by gdunn.)
(10-16-2023 06:02 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: Herd is already being mentioned as the next guy to give it a try if Jordan doesn't get it tomorrow. There will be at least 4 idiots.
you're most likely correct ... however, IMO, the party 'needs' Jordan in this slot (if for nothing more than to see how his cods really hang) ... it's obvious they're too stupid to figgle out the 'outside the box' scenario...
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2023 06:57 AM by stinkfist.)
