McCarthy now has competition.
Naturally, McCarthy came in for withering criticism — but not just from Clinton defenders; Republicans like Jeb Bush and Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz blasted his remarks, with Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, calling on McCarthy to apologize for his “absolute [sic] inaccurate statement.”
Chaffetz’s criticism took on new meaning Friday afternoon, as Politico reported that he’s slated to mount a challenge to McCarthy’s bid for speaker ahead of the October 8 leadership elections. Chaffetz joins Florida Rep. Daniel Webster in opposing McCarthy:
The last-minute move by the fourth-term lawmaker underscores frustration among some members of the Republican Conference with the current choices to lead the conference after Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) leaves at the end of the month. Boehner announced last week he is resigning effective Oct. 30 amid growing discontentment among conservatives with his decisions on major policy questions, including government funding, the Ex-Im Bank and boosting the debt ceiling. All of those issues confront Republicans this fall.
Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) is the only challenger who has announced that he will run against McCarthy.
Chaffetz earlier this week made headlines when he backed his close friend, Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), for majority leader during an interview on Fox News. Gowdy, a McCarthy friend and ally, has ruled out seeking any leadership job.
adaher
October 3, 2015, 2:26am
42
Minor correction: the Ex-Im bank is not an issue that “confronts” Republicans. The Ex-Im Bank is dead. I love how the media treats Ex-Im as an issue that MUST be dealt with, like the debt ceiling. It’s already been dealt with, and nearly all economists approve of the Ex-Im Bank’s death.
That’s like saying a witch hunt has been blown into a witch hunt. It was never anything else to begin with.
adaher
October 3, 2015, 3:28am
44
Well, back in the days of Congress actually providing oversight, an incident like Benghazi always would have resulted in hearings. But those were the days when Congress was Democratic seemingly forever, so Democrats had no particular reason to protect the President and Republicans had no particular reason to go after the President.
. . . been quickly and quietly forgotten.
adaher
October 3, 2015, 4:00am
46
No, generally any incident that didn’t go down the way it should would see Congressional hearings. THe Iran hostage rescue attempt spawned Congressional hearings, as it should have. If such a thing happened today, Democrats would fiercely oppose hearings and Republicans would want to drag them out for years.
Suppose Iran-Contra might have deserved some Congressional consequences, if we are measuring by the screwed pooch scale. But sweet ol’ Ronnie just sadly noted that the facts were all pretty clear, but gosh darn it! he just didn’t remember it that way. Man had all the warmth and sincerity of an animatronic Christ at Chuck E. Jesus.
I myself completely agree with you in regards to this (for better or for worse).
adaher:
Well, back in the days of Congress actually providing oversight, an incident like Benghazi always would have resulted in hearings. But those were the days when Congress was Democratic seemingly forever, so Democrats had no particular reason to protect the President and Republicans had no particular reason to go after the President.
And they might issue a report concluding that the Secretary didn’t orchastrate the attack or “cover up” any damn thing. Just like this Congrss did
adaher
October 4, 2015, 3:27am
50
No coverup, but they did rush to spin the incident with an eye on the campaign, something the State Department should never do.
Left_Hand_of_Dorkness:
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.
Okay, since I wrote this, I’ve heard the remark in context:
What you’re going to see is a conservative Speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?
But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. 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.
That context–his using it as an example of a strategy to “fight and win”–makes it clear that he really was talking about a political hatchet job.
He’s an idiot.
adaher
October 5, 2015, 6:11am
52
I would just like to note that I am rooting hard for Chaffetz.
Chaffetz, isn’t he the one who used a fake graph at the Planned Parenthood hearing?
Yeah, that gaffe probably won’t hurt his chances either. Well, gaffe is probably not the correct term.
adaher
October 5, 2015, 10:27am
54
On the good side, Chaffetz has actually gotten good reviews from Democrats on how he’s handled the Oversight Committee since succeeding Darrell Issa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/13/chaffetz_brings_bipartisanship_back_to_oversight_panel__127337.html
I’ve got a wonderful relationship with him,” Chaffetz said. “We certainly do not agree on all issues, but we understand each other and respect each other, so there are initiatives he wants to pursue and we’re doing those. We don’t always agree on things, but we get along.”
Cummings agreed, saying in a statement that he appreciated Chaffetz’s efforts and hoped the renewed bipartisanship on the committee would continue:
“I appreciate Chairman Chaffetz’s leadership and, in particular, his sincere and personal interest in working with the Democrats to conduct oversight and address the core issues that affect our constituents. He has honored my requests for hearings on several issues and, despite any disagreements we may have, the committee for the most part has conducted itself in a bipartisan manner.”
The improvement hasn’t just been with Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee since 2011. Other Democrats on the panel agreed that Chaffetz has been, as Rep. Stephen Lynch put it, “a breath of fresh air.”
Lynch, the ranking Democrat on the national security subcommittee, said Chaffetz has led a number of CODELs (taxpayer-funded congressional trips) to foreign countries to inspect security at foreign embassies, and said it’s a positive sign that Chaffetz reached out to him for those trips. Overall, he said he’d give him a B+ for the work he’s done and an “A for effort” and said Democrats would likely unanimously label his leadership an improvement.
Chaffetz “actually pulled in support from Democrats when possible, where Mr. Issa intentionally drove Democratic support away,” Lynch said. “[Issa] just had a totally different approach; he was a very polarizing figure when he was the chairman. He did some embarrassing things when he was the chairman. There’s no comparison really in terms of how these two gentlemen have handled their jobs.”
Buck_Godot:
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.”
by Nixon’s own FBI , to a White House aide . :smack:
Hey bartender, bring me one of whatever Buck’s drinking!
Did Republicans ever try to use the pun “Ms. Speaker” while Pelosi served?
Preferred to refer to her as a “Madame”.
I heard “Bela Pelosi” more often. :rolleyes:
A question for the board… does Chaffetz send anyone else’s gay-dar flashing full-blown Red Alert? I wouldn’t ordinarily care except that Chaffetz is of course one of the most reprehensible, unashamed gay-baiters in public office and I think it would be pretty funny if he turned out to be a repressed homosexual. There doesn’t seem to be much speculation online of the sort that has followed Lindsey Graham, but I’m curious if anyone else has wondered this.
Given that a diarrhetic orangutan would be an improvement on the the Eternal Poo-Flinger, that’s not such a fantastic endorsement. Just Saying.
He’s a movement conservative. I would have thought you’d prefer someone more fiscally driven.
The criminal Watergate burglary was linked almost immediately, by Nixon’s own FBI, to a White House aide. :smack: