Jump to content

U.S. Speaker of the House Election


17thfabn

Recommended Posts

It does not hurt my feelings since nothing is getting done, which means my money is not being spent on welfare queens, illegal aliens, kleptocracies like Ukraine, and other worthless causes.  Stay unable to do anything for the next two years!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On 1/5/2023 at 10:06 AM, Skywalkre said:

This is exactly the problem with so many Rs.  You're openly admitting here you don't want leadership who will do the hard work to pass legislation that will address the plethora of issues plaguing this country... you just want someone who will 'get back at those damn Ds!'

It's not like we haven't had this from the R leadership over the last decade.  Remember the policy by both houses under Obama of tanking everything he tried?  We had all those Benghazi hearings (last I heard longer and more expensive than the Jan 6 hearings).  Then when the Rs controlled the government under the first two years of Trump we got... just how many meaningful bills passed (here's a hint - at best you can argue for 1... though I'd argue it's more like 0)?

This is exactly what I was writing about when asked what does old school Conservatism mean - policy and principle over identity politics.  What you're wanting is just petty.

Exactly wrong assumption (see the proverb).  My sentiment is not R-centered, it's US-centered.  I am not tied to any party.  I am no happier w/R leadership than I am w/D leadership.  You see, I think the problem is the gov't passing too d@nm legislation.  Too many laws and regs, too much money, and too much burden.  I don't believe that more of the same is the answer.  I believe that MUCH less of the same is the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2023 at 5:13 PM, Josh said:

So you don't want government, you just want to own the libs and RINOs. And its the leftists who are extremists...

It was, lo, only a few months ago the last time I saw someone commenting that Democrats are only interested in compromise and cooperation "for the greater good" when they're expecting Republicans to shift ground.

And here we are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DB said:

It was, lo, only a few months ago the last time I saw someone commenting that Democrats are only interested in compromise and cooperation "for the greater good" when they're expecting Republicans to shift ground.

Many people think "compromise" means  do it my way! I think that is the issue with the Republicans now . A relatively small slice of the Republican party wants every thing its way.

Edited by 17thfabn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an observation.  I wonder if McCarthy giving in more to the 'conservatives' will actually loose him votes from the non-conservatives, leading to no net gain his way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like McCarthy finally was elected speaker of the House of Representatives. 

"Kevin McCarthy elected Republican U.S. House speaker, but at a cost"

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-speaker-fight-enters-fourth-day-amid-antebellum-era-dysfunction-2023-01-06/

The old saying is "The Devil is in the Details" comes to mind. What EXACTLY did he give up power wise to be speaker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

The old saying is "The Devil is in the Details" comes to mind. What EXACTLY did he give up power wise to be speaker?

And why didn't he do that a week or so ago? Did he think the internal opposite was just blowing off hot air and would fall in line? 

Seems so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Steven P Allen said:

Exactly wrong assumption (see the proverb).  My sentiment is not R-centered, it's US-centered.  I am not tied to any party.  I am no happier w/R leadership than I am w/D leadership.  You see, I think the problem is the gov't passing too d@nm legislation.  Too many laws and regs, too much money, and too much burden.  I don't believe that more of the same is the answer.  I believe that MUCH less of the same is the answer.

Exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

And why didn't he do that a week or so ago? Did he think the internal opposite was just blowing off hot air and would fall in line? 

Seems so. 

It seems he underestimated the willingness of the social media wing of the party to play to their audience.  He figured he could peel off enough votes to get the job done and still keep a fair amount of control.   This may ultimately be the easiest fight of the term for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Looks like McCarthy finally was elected speaker of the House of Representatives. 

"Kevin McCarthy elected Republican U.S. House speaker, but at a cost"

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-speaker-fight-enters-fourth-day-amid-antebellum-era-dysfunction-2023-01-06/

The old saying is "The Devil is in the Details" comes to mind. What EXACTLY did he give up power wise to be speaker?

Early reports are encouraging and depressing at the same time.  Encouraging because after all the pearl clutching this week at the end of it the sky didn't fall and the most conservative members got a lot of concessions around investigating the intelligence agencies (and seriously, can anyone say with a straight face that they don't richly deserve it? Left and right should agree that legislators living in fear of their intel agencies is a bad thing), 72 hours to read bills, breaking up the omnibus bills into smaller focussed ones, etc.  The depressing thing is that our new speaker was willing to fight for a week to avoid comitting to these things which should be very low hanging fruit for the Republican party.  Which frankly makes me think that the firebrands were right to dig in their heels as I have to imaging that if it took the threat of not getting the job for him to agree to these then he wasn't going to support them without the pressure and the threat of a new vote hanging over his head.  That is depressing as hell. . . 

 

 

Fl1QZ2AWQAAS_r1.jpg

Edited by nitflegal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nitflegal said:

 The depressing thing is that our new speaker was willing to fight for a week to avoid comitting to these things which should be very low hanging fruit for the Republican party.  Which frankly makes me think that the firebrands were right to dig in their heels as I have to imaging that if it took the threat of not getting the job for him to agree to these then he wasn't going to support them without the pressure and the threat of a new vote hanging over his head.  That is depressing as hell. . . 

 

In the short run, this Real Housewives of DC drama has the party-involved upset. In the long run, I hope there will be beneficial changes. We definitely have had some swampers expose themselves, for example Dan Crenshaw*. What's the point of winning the House if the eGOP is going to continue furthering the DNC agenda and porkbarreling? 

I also found it hilarious that the McCarthy wing of the party have been saying "win at all costs! party uber alles!" despite their lousy record of supporting the previous R-POTUS. What goes around comes around, beeyotch.

 

* Who, as it turns out, is one of those WEF Junior Achievers and TMK has yet to denounce/repudiate the WEF agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

And why didn't he do that a week or so ago? Did he think the internal opposite was just blowing off hot air and would fall in line? 

Seems so. 

I see it as a negotiation.  If you give everything up early they will demand more.

It will be interesting to see how things are run in the U.S. House compared to Speaker Pelosi.

Reports are that under Pelosi the House was ran from the top down. The speaker's office would decide what legislation should be and ram it through the committees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nitflegal said:

 

Fl1QZ2AWQAAS_r1.jpg

Two things on the list I see as possibly objectionable is more freedom caucus representation on committees and one member calling for a vote to oust the speaker.  

If they are bumping other members off of committees that are more suited it could cause some conflict in the Republican Party.

The one member calling for a vote  to oust the speaker could cause constant turmoil.  Would have to see how exactly that is worded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

Reports are that under Pelosi the House was ran from the top down. The speaker's office would decide what legislation should be and ram it through the committees. 

I can see why the Freedom Caucus didn't like that but I'm surprised the rest of the GOP wasn't on the same page. 

Here's to more interesting times in the Capital and Capitol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

 

The one member calling for a vote  to oust the speaker could cause constant turmoil.  Would have to see how exactly that is worded. 

The one member proposing a move to vacate the chair was the case until Pelosi changed the rule the last time she took over as Speaker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

I hope there will be beneficial changes. We definitely have had some swampers expose themselves, for example Dan Crenshaw*.

* Who, as it turns out, is one of those WEF Junior Achievers and TMK has yet to denounce/repudiate the WEF agenda.

Ivanhoe, you cool kids go over board some times with the abbreviations. WEF I get, World Economic Forum. What is TMK?

I thought Crenshaw was the future of the Republicans. Hip beard, he was a SEAL, and the cool eye patch reminiscent of  Moshe Diane, although Crenshaw has the patch on the wrong eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Harold Jones said:

The one member proposing a move to vacate the chair was the case until Pelosi changed the rule the last time she took over as Speaker. 

From there what was the procedure? If once a week the same person proposed removing the Speaker what happened next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

From there what was the procedure? If once a week the same person proposed removing the Speaker what happened next?

If there had been lots of recalled speakers or other horrible disruptions of the parliamentary process, we'd have learned about this by now, wouldn’t we? Excellent information @Harold Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

From there what was the procedure? If once a week the same person proposed removing the Speaker what happened next?

Until aroun Speaker Boehner there was an immediate vote on the motion. It wasn't especially common, as far as I can tell it was only done twice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Ivanhoe, you cool kids go over board some times with the abbreviations. WEF I get, World Economic Forum. What is TMK?

I thought Crenshaw was the future of the Republicans. Hip beard, he was a SEAL, and the cool eye patch reminiscent of  Moshe Diane, although Crenshaw has the patch on the wrong eye.

TMK = To My Knowledge

At my previous teaching job, I learned the value of having Urban Dictionary bookmarked.

At this point, Crenshaw is like a Big Mac; looks better in ads than in reality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...