Yes, all 3 of them are definitely in trouble in 2024.
/s
Pretty much all of that, I think. We should make up bingo cards for who will be targeted. Fauci for sure. Basically every publicly known member of the Civil Service who ever did their job in a way the Republicans didn’t like.
After all, they’ve got that new committee on “Weaponization of Government”, so we can expect a whole lot of that. 
I read somewhere that Smith’s budget and funding is safe under Garland’s control. The rest of it? Probably.
After all, it’s not like there’s any actual governmentin’ to be done, amirite?
Well, there’s lots to be done, but no, none of it will get done. It’s depressing as hell, but even just the last two days have shown us what their priorities are, and none of it has anything to do with actually running the country.
Get ready for it, America. Your government is going to be entirely useless for the next two years. Anything positive you were hoping they might do for you simply is not going to be done.
Too many have been brainwashed to believe that the government being rendered entirely useless is the absolute positive they want and need.
And get ready for that being Biden’s fault, come the next election.
I keep hoping the latest travesty will be the one that finally gets through to them, and I keep being disappointed. If letting COVID kill grandma didn’t do it, what about the GOP sending grandma to the poor house?
You are describing features, not bugs.
The Public Camel’s back, with the right training, can be made to carry an amazing amount of straw without breaking.
Using “Karen” like that is sexist, bigoted and hurtful to the many nice women really name Karen. I’d go along with Keven except there are also plenty of nice Kevins out there also,
Is “Karen” as a pejorative used against men? If so, then I can see that it could be viewed as sexist. Otherwise, no. I have two very good friends named Karen; they just laugh it off when the subject arises. On the other hand, I’ve never met anyone named Kevin that I had any use for. Law of averages, I guess.
Whereas, I know several Karens (who are not “Karens”) quite well, and they are, if not offended, at least rather annoyed that their given name has become a pejorative.
Yeah, I can imagine. I remember when “Bruce” was a euphemism for being gay (because of a popular parody song at the time), and not in a good way. It was quite annoying to men with that moniker. Anyway, this is all off topic, and I’ll leave it alone.
I’m probably of the minority opinion, in that you’re half right: sure, the GOP’ll do the “Biden’s fault” thing, but such a tedious shenanigan - along with two years of other “hunts” and non-governing obstruction - will infuriate/galvanize voters in the same way that the Supremes’ overturning of Roe vs Wade last June prompted better-than-expected mid-term results last Nov.
I’d like to think I’m not being pollyanish on that.
Well, one of the best midterm results for the President’s party in recent memory came in 1998, when the voters rendered their verdict on the bullshit Clinton impeachment. So I think there’s legitimate reason for optimism.
For me, the question going forward is how the House is going to settle differences with the Senate. The House can adopt whatever rules they want to that guarantee floor votes on whack-a-doodle legislation or budget riders that require Alejandro Mayorkas’ salary to be paid in the giant stone currency of the Yap Islands. But when the Senate refuses to go along, how will that get resolved?
The traditional way to resolve such differences is a conference committee between the two chambers. The Speaker appoints the House conferees, and the final agreement of the conference committee is non-amendable. This could create a scenario where McCarthy lets his Freedom Caucus members go nuts in passing insane conditions on the debt ceiling or budget bills, but then appoints more reasonable members to the conference committee who agree to drop them from the final product. It would be difficult for the FC to stop the bill at that point, as they only get an up-or-down vote and any reasonable budget or debt ceiling increase would draw Democratic votes as well.
But I may be projecting more strategic thinking onto McCarthy than he is actually capable of.
I think that’s a reasonable analysis and it will be interesting to see it play out. I think that McCarthy’s strategic thinking is that he just wants to get through the next five minutes and he’ll figure out the rest later.
FWIW I think there are a few of us in this minority. It won’t hurt the craziest: their deep red districts will eat it up. But they will I suspect lose more of the either way districts as a result.
I disagree. There are a few but they saw what happened to Liz Cheney so they keep their heads down.