Will Kevin McCarthy be the next speaker?

Or will this gaffe cost him that position?

From the article:

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee,” McCarthy told Hannity after being pressed about what House Republicans had accomplished under his and John Boehner’s leadership. “What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”

I think he just gave Hilary Clinton the best gift he could have given her. I don’t think it will cost him though. I still think he’ll be the next speaker.

What do you guys think?

I don’t see how this could hurt him if the contest is a normal party-line vote. May even help. I’m not sure what the chances of it not being party-line are.

I’m not sure today’s GOP has enough savvy to realize why that was a bad thing to say. I’ also not sure today’s GOP constituency has enough savvy to hold either against them.

There hasn’t been nearly the uproar I expected when I heard this yesterday. It’s absolutely blatant. $4.5 million of taxpayer’s money used for a campaign smear. Where is the outrage?

The people who are responsible for McCarthy being made Speaker and the people responsible for him being in the House at all are people who are in favor of partisan committees designed to tear down Clinton. I can’t see where it’d hurt him at all.

He’s not in trouble for meaning it, only for *saying *it in public. He’s simply made it harder for his party to keep up the pretense. But no, it won’t change any minds.

I don’t see how this is going to hurt McCarthy. It’s not like McCarthy said “We just made up some bullshit in order to harass Clinton.”

You have to realize that a lot of people think Clinton is guilty. So McCarthy saying they went after Clinton appears to these people like an FBI director saying he went after the Mafia.

It’s a classic Washington gaffe - inadvertently telling the truth. What he’s done is to admit as bullshit his party’s claim of simply wanting an even-handed exploration of the facts surrounding the deaths of four people. They can’t get away with that line anymore, so this probably means the end of Benghate, and the beginning of the next form of Hillarygate.

Just wait until they start the investigation of Bernie Sander’s hairdresser!

He’s a creep and a weasel, but that’s not a gaffe. One perfectly plausible reading is that he started from the position that she’s untrustable, and that his committee brought that to light and is thereby saving the country. I predict that, if anyone presses him on the question (far from certain that that will happen), he’ll fall back on a variant of this claim.

To me, the term “Speaker” implies an ability to speak, and the use of the term “untrustable” contradicts this.

This “gaffe” isn’t going to change anything. If you think there’s anything to Benghazi, you’re immune to logic. Republicans can keep repeating it all they want, but they aren’t going to convert any souls.

Yeah, a similar claim to his could have accurately been made by the Democrats with the Watergate investigation.

“Nixon won a landslide election and appeared unbeatable. But now he’s about to be impeached. Why? because he’s a crook, but no one would have known that if not for the Watergate investigations we initiated.”

This is one of those statements whose interpretation depends entirely on the political views of whoever is hearing it, and so will have basically no effect in terms of swaying people one way or the other.

If he gets the post, will he run out into traffic yelling “You’re next! You’re next!” ?

(I’m sorry. Every time I see his name that’s what I think of.

And I’m still impressed that he can continue to direct Jeopardy, despite being dead for five years.)

You clearly didn’t noncomprehend him, so it’s misaccurate to suggest he’s disable to speak.

If you hang your political discourse on Webster’s, you’re gonna lose the debate. And I don’t want you to lose the debate, because you and I are pretty much on the same side.

Whether McCarthy should be the speaker or not should depend on factors other than his use of perfectly cromulent neologisms.

How can his Tea Party challenger, Daniel Webster, be losing to him?

Or an alternative would be the Bernie Sanders campaign. If he was saying “Everyone thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable. But I presented a different message. And now her numbers are dropping.” nobody would think it was a plot.

I think there’s a significant difference between the real obstruction of justice in the case of Watergate and the recreational outrage over Benghazi.

Nixon really was a crook and an ass etc., and the evidence of it was real and inarguable.

No equivalence exists.

A social criminal indeed!

And it wouldn’t be, because Sanders was in no way involved with the Benghazi investigation. McCarthy can’t claim that.

Damn it, Cal, I came in to say exactly the same thing!