Because the bar that tolerates “political” craziness has surely lowered just in these last four/six years, alone - with the quite accelerated advent of Gates, MTG, Boebert, Gosar, and those likes - I’m convinced that that same electorate who voted in those attention-starved toddlers have become substantially more normalized, with this lowered bar, to whatever face-meets-leopard-fest that will surely ensue with all the wrench-in-the-machine fuck-up-ery the GOP, as a whole, will unleash in the coming two years.
The GOP know, full well, that they will be the source of the upcoming chaos, making it incumbent upon them to spin, to gin up, harder than ever (in concert with the you-know-who “news source”), to hammer home to said electorate that it is, somehow (don’t ask me to get into GOP/Fox minds what they’ll come up with) the Demon-crats being at fault, and I fear the GQP will be successful in not losing any of those votes in '24 due to the electorate becoming more normalized to this lower bar of political “representation”.
G-D I hope to end up to be so completely wrong on this speculation.
This one person to force a vote thing has me confused. Why the sticking point? If they really wanted to kick him out they would surely have more than one person demanding a vote. Why even bother unless you’re confident that you have enough votes to actually oust him? Are there that many who would vote to oust but not sign on to the initial demand for a vote? Is it a fear of signing on to the call for a vote, losing the vote and then having the Speaker as an enemy?
I have a (possibly dumb) idea-would everyone have had the same issues as McCarthy? If Lou Ffnorb had been trying to become Speaker, would he have had to appease the HMC as well? Or was this whole thing unique to McCarthy?
I’ll say it. Hakeem Jeffries himself said clearly that they would not approach Republicans but would wait for Republicans to approach Democrats, if they wanted their assistance.
Obviously the Dems did not make any official approaches, but over a drink and a cigar , confidentially,“man to man” (or man to woman or whatever), who can tell.
Practically speaking, how much of the House’s time would be wasted taking these votes? Would there need to be time for debate before the vote? Is there anything to prevent Rep. Assclown (R-Mordor) from just calling another vote immediately after the first one fails?
After initially balking at a package of changes to House rules that would enshrine concessions the speaker made to ultraconservative members, Republicans united to push them through.
In the end, a handful of holdouts dropped their opposition and supported the measure, putting aside reservations about Mr. McCarthy’s concessions, including some that they worried could lead to deep cuts in military spending.
The package passed on Monday evening in a mostly party-line vote of 220-213, with just one Republican voting “no.” It included the so-called Holman rule, which allows lawmakers to use spending bills to defund specific programs and fire federal officials or reduce their pay; would make it harder for lawmakers to raise the debt limit; and would pave the way for the creation of a new select subcommittee under the Judiciary Committee focused on the “weaponization” of the federal government.
Welp, what a surprise. No GOP rank and file revolt, no deal with Democrats to sideline the extremists, just falling in line as always. Who could have predicted? Those who expected any kind of moderation and compromise are disappointed once more.
Get ready for impeachment votes every Tuesday and Hunter Biden’s laptop hearings every other Thursday!
I need some help with this Holman Rule business. Does this mean they can defund the Justice Department or US Attorneys offices if they investigate Trump or other Republicans? Reduce Garland or special counsel Jack Smith’s pay to $1 per year? Cut their investigatory budgets to zero?
Yep, the “moderate Republican” revolt was never going to happen. Because there are no moderate House Republicans – the Republican groups and individuals that sometimes get referred to as “moderate” are deeply conservative in their rhetoric and policy positions. The split here is more between radicals and institutionalists, and the institutionalists aren’t going to publicly break with party leadership. They’ll try to work behind the scenes to advance their agendas, but they’ll always be at a disadvantage to those members who are happy to set the house on fire.
They can include in their version of the appropriations bills provisions that would eliminate funding for specific programs, or even salaries for specific individuals. Any appropriation bill still needs to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President, though.
They’ll have their Tax Cuts and tough-on-crime(in my neighborhood by people who don’t beling there) votes, and that’s what will satisfy the “Republican centrist” voter.
