Cont: The thread for stupidity from GQP politicians who don't have their own thread Part II

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

... fellow Republicans appear to grow weary of his personal vendetta against House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,

Newsweek reported yesterday:

Funny how they all seemed to be onboard when they were trying to extort McCarthy over the budget deal.

Then when McCarthy calls the Freedom Caucus' bluff they all run away leaving Gaetz standing there all by himself.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... it will still be an embarrassment.) ...

Like anyone in the GOP cares.

 

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

216-210. McCarthy is out.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think it is also Important to look at what the issues she voted against are

True. What issues she didn't vote with the Dems and why.

I think it's more the narcissistic behaviour that gives her away. That stupid thumbs down for the minimum wage did it for me. She did that right after being pals with the Republican senators. She has a serious mental problem that she hides.

I do think she's a very odd duck but I'm not sure it's due to 'a serious mental problem'.

 

[dudalb]

216-210. McCarthy is out.

I can't stand McCarthy, but I hope the Dems knew what they were doing in not throwing him a lifeline. A even more Hard Right Speaker would be a disaster.
And, no , I am not a big fan of the Acclerationist theory; which is "The quikcer we have an extreme right wing government, the quicker we will have the glorious people's revolution" . Did not work so well in the 1930's in Germany.

 

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I can't stand McCarthy, but I hope the Dems knew what they were doing in not throwing him a lifeline. A even more Hard Right Speaker would be a disaster.
And, no , I am not a big fan of the Acclerationist theory; which is "The quikcer we have an extreme right wing government, the quicker we will have the glorious people's revolution" . Did not work so well in the 1930's in Germany.

As McCarthy showed he's perfectly willing to break any promises he makes - specifically the agreed spending level after the debt limit deal - I don't know how the Democrats could trust that he wouldn't do the same if they saved his ass this time.

And, I've been reading that it's entirely possible that McCarthy gets re-elected to Speaker.

I think you go a bit to the extremes when events like this happen.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

McCarthy has announced he will not run for the now-vacant position of speaker.

ETA: The dog has caught the car it was chasing.

 

[rdaneel]

McCarthy has announced he will not run for the now-vacant position of speaker.

Possibly the smartest move he's ever made.

 

[dasmiller]

McCarthy has announced he will not run for the now-vacant position of speaker.

Based on this, I assume that McCarthy will be running to regain his position.


From The Tick (2001 TV series)*:

Captain Liberty: "But you promised!"

Batmanuel: "Yes, but that was before I changed my mind."

*working from memory, so quotes may not be exact.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gaetz: "Don't look at me, it was McCarthy's fault."

 

[Norman Alexander]

I suspect Goetz just sealed his political death too. As did the other 5 GOP members who voted with him. They will be removed from the party somehow fairly soon, and will never be re-elected.

 

[Segnosaur]

I suspect Goetz just sealed his political death too. As did the other 5 GOP members who voted with him. They will be removed from the party somehow fairly soon, and will never be re-elected.

I doubt they would force out all 5 GOP members that voted to remove McCarthy, since the republican majority in the house is so slim. Plus, there may not be a legal basis to remove most of them.

Its possible they might try to remove Gaetz, because 1) he is the chief rabble-rouser of the group, and 2) there is an actual investigation open against him with crimes significant enough to justify his removal. However, I question your suggestion that he will "never be re-elected". He won the election in 2022 quite easily, and since he has been an ass-hat long before the 2022 election, it is clear that his constituents are willing to vote for someone who's only goal is to "burn it all down". I could see him running as an independent in his district (and actually winning) based on his name recognition.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I wonder if Gaetz isn't primarily trying to promote himself to the Republican rank-and-file who seem to value aggressiveness and belligerence above all. I think Gaetz's continuing belligerent behavior is the reason Republican voters -- supporters of the so-called Party of Family Values -- have been willing to ignore allegations that Gaetz, while serving in Congress, had a sexual relationship with a teenage girl and paid for her to travel with him. Republican members of Congress, however, are reportedly fed up with Gaetz and the misconduct allegations may provide an avenue to remove Gaetz from Congress.

Newsweek reported yesterday:

It's less allegations made against Gaetz but admissions made by him but he was protected from the legal consequences of because of the power his family wields.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

This isn't really THE Republicans, though, is it? It's 5 or so right-wing crazies that just want to watch it burn down, and the Democrats have stated they aren't going to save McCarthy.

So that's all it's going to take apparently.

45 according to the Freedom from Thought caucus membership rolls. Though most pf them were sensible enough to vote against kicking McCarthy out last night.

 

[Doubt]

Gym Shorts Jordan wants to be speaker? Those skeletons in his closet will start rattling much louder if that happens.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I doubt they would force out all 5 GOP members that voted to remove McCarthy, since the republican majority in the house is so slim. Plus, there may not be a legal basis to remove most of them.

Its possible they might try to remove Gaetz, because 1) he is the chief rabble-rouser of the group, and 2) there is an actual investigation open against him with crimes significant enough to justify his removal. However, I question your suggestion that he will "never be re-elected". He won the election in 2022 quite easily, and since he has been an ass-hat long before the 2022 election, it is clear that his constituents are willing to vote for someone who's only goal is to "burn it all down". I could see him running as an independent in his district (and actually winning) based on his name recognition.

I know. They will all be primaried in 2024, at a minimum. Their replacements will be conservatives but not MAGA asshats.

 

[kookbreaker]

Running for office?

Did something really gross and illegal in your past?

No problem. Just blame Obama!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joseph-viso-jr-poop-day-care-obama_n_651df2dde4b0a513f1cb0308

 

[tyr_13]

Sadly I can't find any public reporting on this, but the GOP candidate for mayor of the nearest city to me, Kim Ecklund, at the debate said that writing laws was the job of the executive.

Did she misspeak? No. The question was what legislation she had written and passed as part of her twenty years on the council (the legislative branch of the city).

This woman has opposed and obstructed the city doing basically anything for two decades, to the point she doesn't remember that the job was actually supposed to be legislation?

The current mayor is also the first gay man to hold the office, and is a Democrat who has been cleaning up decades of a corrupt Republican before him. He's done way better than expected.

So of course she's going to win.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Sadly I can't find any public reporting on this, but the GOP candidate for mayor of the nearest city to me, Kim Ecklund, at the debate said that writing laws was the job of the executive.

Did she misspeak? No. The question was what legislation she had written and passed as part of her twenty years on the council (the legislative branch of the city).

That is not true. Her response was:

"Well, first of all there’s a difference between an executive role and a legislative role. Council serves as a legislative body, not an executive body. While I have not personally written any on the State level, mayor, I have worked side-by-side with Mayor Teresi and you to try to do what’s best in the legislation presented to us to protect the residents and the community of the city. So, me personally writing legislation? No. Mayor, I don’t feel that’s my role as a council member, but to help sponsor those legislations, that we worked on a unified body or with the administration through the years. Absolutely glad to be a partner in."

She clearly took "legislation" to mean State legislation, which is where that term is commonly used, rather than to mean ordinances, resolution, budgets, etc. that are passed by the city council. She didn't say anything about writing laws being the job of the executive.

 

[tyr_13]

That is not true. Her response was:

"Well, first of all there’s a difference between an executive role and a legislative role. Council serves as a legislative body, not an executive body. While I have not personally written any on the State level, mayor, I have worked side-by-side with Mayor Teresi and you to try to do what’s best in the legislation presented to us to protect the residents and the community of the city. So, me personally writing legislation? No. Mayor, I don’t feel that’s my role as a council member, but to help sponsor those legislations, that we worked on a unified body or with the administration through the years. Absolutely glad to be a partner in."

She clearly took "legislation" to mean State legislation, which is where that term is commonly used, rather than to mean ordinances, resolution, budgets, etc. that are passed by the city council. She didn't say anything about writing laws being the job of the executive.

What? Yes she did.

I can kind of see the validity of using 'this isn't really legislation we in the legislature are doing' argument as a deflection, in context that doesn't really work. They're talking about the legislation that the executive kept presenting to the council and why she, as a consistent 'no' vote to both Democratic and Republican administrations, didn't write better legislation if she hated all those presented by the executive. That's been the most resonate criticism of her. To respond with 'there's a difference between the legislature and the executive' when the executive has been presenting legislation and she, in the legislature, has not appears to be saying that it's the job of the executive (and others) to present legislation to the legislature but not the job of the legislature to write legislation. She's talking about the mayor presenting legislation to the legislature as if it was the job of the mayor to do so, and not just something that can happen. Because the legislature has been run by rank obstruction for so long she's come to view it as the norm.

'I worked with others to advance legislation I thought was important even if I personally didn't write any' is different than 'the jobs are different and just because the executive has written laws doesn't mean the legislature should'.