He just gave me the George McFly vibe the first time I saw him, newly crowned, in the hallway evading microphones. Mostly the McFly at the end of Part 1.
“Hey, you, get your damned hands off my speakership!”
The more common one IME is: “well if you’re going to claim that 2020 wasn’t stolen, then I’m done talking to you”.
I think enough of them have realized that the 2020 election “debate” is not a fun one to get into.
And on a very petty note, he did name his son “Jack Johnson”, which is kinda thoughtless.
Why is that thoughtless?
Because often people (like myself) have juvenile senses of humor. The last name is tough enough, but “Jack?” Go with Simon, or Henry.
Johnson could not get his “laddered” CR through the Rules Commitee last night due to opposition from the hard-core Freedom Caucus members that Kevin McCarthy (remember him?) was forced to appoint to the committee as part of the bargaining that let him be Speaker for nine months. Johnson will need to suspend the rules to take up the measure, which requires a 2/3 vote of the House – which obviously means he’ll need lots of Democrats.
He’ll probably get it. His approach is dumb, but not actively regressive. There’s no budget cuts or conservative policy riders. It doesn’t include aid for Israel, Ukraine or border funds, but that’s probably going to move as its own package. While initially opposed, Jeffries and Schumer’s rhetoric has been more neutral on this approach recently.
It’s also going to piss of the FC, and it’s an open question whether him passing this with Democratic votes will trigger a motion to vacate. Probably not – even they don’t want to have to go through the same shitshow they just went through so soon. But expect lots of acting out – voting against rules on unrelated bills, generally making asses of themselves, etc.
I’m gonna sit here and watch him go right on down.
If it weren’t my current government doing this, it would be uproariously funny. Representative gains grudging approval of R’s (including FCers) to become Speaker; Speaker attempts strictly R-friendly ways to get shit done, only to have every attempt shot down by Republican own-goal opposition; Speaker turns to Democrats to get shit done; Republicans dump him for their equivalent of high treason (reaching across the aisle).
Lather, rinse, repeat.
How many votes are needed for a motion to vacate? I understand that with McCarthy only one member was needed for this motion. I also believe that the GOP was considering changing this rule, but I’m not sure if they actually did nor not. I think even as of Nov 6, this was still under discussion.
It’s still the rule that any one member may introduce a motion to vacate and it must be dealt with within two legislative days. It requires a majority vote to pass.
So… One member can introduce the motion.
218 members need to oppose this motion, or Johnson is tossed.
221 Republicans in the House. If all R’s and all D’s are present, that means that only 4 idiot “burn the whole house down, look at me, I’m on TV” Republicans need to support the motion along with all the D’s and … Look, I’ve Done It Again.
Johnson’s bill passes, 336-95.
Note that- of course-
But Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a McCarthy ally who opposed his ouster, said Johnson should be held to the same standard. “What’s the point in throwing out one speaker if nothing changes? The only way to make sure that real changes happen is make the red line stay the same for every speaker.”
Fundamentals arguably favored a deal: far right House Republicans were asking for the impossible, and they had learned that the rest of the GOP caucus wasn’t going to simple cave. They had their man in place. Nothing wrong with postponing the drama and messaging for another day.
That said, I perceive evidence that Johnson has stronger interpersonal skills than McCarthy. Johnson spent days making the rounds and simply listening to his caucus, leading Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) to blurted out, “What do you want?” Those with greater social intelligence than I will understand that there are higher level methods than simply listening: for example you can suss out counterpart and frame the consensus view in a way favorable to their thinking. But frankly being a good listener gets most of us pretty far.
Contrast simple diplomacy with the methods of Kevin McCarthy, who had a reputation as a weasel. Today the former speaker elbowed Tim Burchett, one of the crazy eight, prompting Gaetz to file for an ethics investigation. Burchett at first tried to laugh it off, but when McCarthy gave him the cold soldier, Burchett blew his top: “Hey Kevin, you got any guts!?”
This isn’t the first time McCarthy has gotten physical. Former GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger wrote about 2 incidents in his book. “What a child”, he concluded.
Look, I’m not averse to a little physical interaction, short of hospitalization, as far as other people are concerned (for myself, I would consider such behavior to show a humiliating lack of self control). The problem here is McCarthy’s stunts don’t work: they don’t impress anyone. The general response seems to be WTF.
So yeah, it looks like the GOP House secured an upgrade. That won’t get them the impossible though.
Johnson’s feelings toward the separation of church and state are certainly interesting, if not new to the base. “The Bible is and should be an appropriate course of study in our public schools,” he wrote in another op-ed in 2007. “Because it is the most widely read, widely published, most influential book in all of history, censoring it from the classroom is as unwise as it is unnecessary.”
He’s truly MAGA Mike, and the more I read about his views the more I wonder about his long-term prospects in balancing his ideas and the realities of the hornet’s nest he’s “leading.”
As part of a Comparative religion class- certainly. Or “The Bible as Literature”.
Incest, sodomy, adultery, drunkenness, murder, genocide, slavery… is the Speaker sure he wants people reading it?
God-mandated abortion, too.
Mike Johnson would probably agree with you. In 2005 (or it might have been a bit earlier) he said:
A lot of the bible consists of pieced together inconsistent stories with changes in vocabulary signaling a change in authorship right in the middle of a chapter. But saying this is critical historical study of the Bible, not the Bible as literature. Johnson would claim it to be teaching that the Bible is objectively false, and I almost guarantee a public school Bible as literature class will not get into it.
That’s why Johnson wants those classes.