Thursday, October 8, 2015

McCarthy Says Take This Job And Stuff It

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy dropped out of the race for U.S. House speaker on the day his party was poised to nominate him to replace John Boehner, as an internal Republican feud erupted into open warfare on Capitol Hill.

McCarthy told members at a closed-door meeting Thursday that he wasn’t the right person to unite the caucus, Representative Peter King of New York told reporters. The announcement left everyone “absolutely stunned,” King said.

Republicans are in "complete disarray,” said Representative Tim Huelskamp of Kansas.

46 comments:

  1. Because of cynicism, the word "Uniter" has become a joke. To me, a non Republican party member, I see two groups who do not remotely want to be united. There are the very far right groups, and then the rest of the Republican congressional majority, and both seem to openly hate the other. Hence, there will not be any uniting. I'm not sure I believe the party is in as great of disarray as is claimed. Or, better yet, I'm not so sure that the entirety of those who vote Republican are so adamant in their views that they will not agree to compromise when they actually do agree with Democrats on something.

    McCarthy looks relieved he won't have to put up with bullshit and petulant uprisings. Still, it seems ridiculous for these people to say they are looking for a uniter. They want nothing of the sort.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In a phone call, McCarthy tells National Review he wants Ways and Means Committee chairman Paul Ryan to run, but Ryan issued a statement Thursday ruling out a bid. So right now, McCarthy says, the conference may be ungovernable. “I don’t know,” he says. “Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425255/report-mccarthy-out-leadership-race-eliana-johnson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems petulant and childish to me that the Republican party clings to "The Hastert rule". For those who may not know despite me bitching about it the way TS complains about the constitution no being followed, the Hastert rule stipulates that the speaker, during Republican control of the House of Congress, may not bring up a bill for a vote unless it can pass with a majority of the majority. In short, if a bill can't pass without Democrat support, it should not be brought up for a vote. By clinging to this stupid, extra constitutional rule, the Republicans who are moderate or even conservative but not stupid, have allowed their entire majority under Boehner to become a complete waste of opportunity.

      They've gotten to have umpteen "Fuck You Obama" votes over the ACA, and nothing has changed. They've shut down the government, but nothing has really changed. They've had their legislative tantrums, made a couple of cuts to social programs they hate, but ultimately have gotten really nothing accomplished. Democrats have caved aplenty on things their base has not been happy about, and Republicans have still rejected compromises in all but 12th hour situations when Boehner allowed bills to pass with Democrat support.

      Just as the Republicans lost many seats in Bush midterms, and Democrats lost many seats in Obama mid terms, the Republican majority in one or both houses is likely to come to end in the not very distant future. Instead of getting meaningful cuts in spending, reduced size of government, revamping of SS or Medicare, or success in slaughtering social programs, they will just have this historical period where they had power and squandered it for nothing. Paul Ryan, who clearly has bigger intentions, would be a complete fool to take this job.

      Delete
    2. What was that line? "Wait until we have power and see what happens". Ha ha

      Delete
  3. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Boehner is stuck in the job until he can be replaced. The Republican Representatives who would like to show us that they can govern effectively are at battle with those who are mainly interested in disrupting government, regardless of the consequences. This can only reflect badly on the party, regardless of the ultimate outcome. Stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete

  4. “It is total confusion — a banana republic,” said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a Boehner ally, as he recounted seeing a handful of House Republicans weeping Thursday over the downfall of McCarthy and the broader discord. “Any plan, anything you anticipate, who knows what’ll happen. People are crying. They don’t have any idea how this will unfold at all.”

    Boo hoo

    ReplyDelete
  5. MaCarthy, in an interview with National Review on Thursday, said whoever follows will have to grapple with a right flank of about 40 members that wants to direct the leadership, rather than being led. “I wouldn’t have enjoyed being speaker this way,” he said.Mac

    Boo hoo

    ReplyDelete
  6. We may be watching the Pubs being ripped apart by a Frankenstein's monster of their own creation.

    Who's gonna run Congress?

    Who's third in line for the Presidency?

    Who's gonna be the most powerful person in D.C. after the Prez?

    Wow ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I don’t mind the fight so much... It can be a good thing to actually figure out what the Republican Party really is. I am waiting for the Democratic Party to have a bit of a soul search and try to find a little integrity in their party. I wish both ‘parties’ would blow up and people would be elected on ‘the content of their character’ rather than the letter by their name. Having said that, I am afraid that the issues that we should be focusing on will get neglected or worse subverted in the name of partisanship.

      For the longest time I have supported the original Tea Party goals.

      Fiscal Responsibility
      Constitutionally Limited Government
      Free Markets

      The Tea Party dedicated themselves to these issues and determined that to get the country back on solid fiscal and constitutional principles they would not involve themselves in the contentious issues of God, Guns and Gays. Having been co-oped they are no longer any more focused than the Republican Party ever was. The unfortunate thing is that they ‘received’ support from libertarians because those three principles minus social engineering is the main focus of their existence.

      It would appear however that the pushers of social control(both left and right) is overshadowing fiscal responsibility and the rule of law. When was the last time anyone has seriously discussed the fiscal nature of all of our policies... Just because they sound good doesn’t mean that they are and it certainly doesn’t mean we are getting our money’s worth... and just because they might even sound good and be fiscally sound doesn't mean that they a function of the federal government.

      Delete
  7. Frankenstein's monster promotes limited govrrnment, and fiscal reresponsibility.

    One after one the sons of Frankenstein will continue to arrive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Idk, William. Folks like TS have way more credibility when they advocate for constitutionally limited government.

      While Frankenstein's monster gleefully grunts platitudes like "limited government", it's actions demonstrate more of a motivation for the total destruction of government. That, defunding PP, and spending millions of taxpayers' dollars to concoct phony scandals to tank Clinton seems to be what's driving the monster.

      The irony, William, is that TEA Party whipping-boy Boehner is gonna stay on as Speaker until the Pubs can find a successor. A task which they may not be able to complete while they still have a majority in the House. Boehner might just say, "Fuck the Hastert Rule" and start working with the Dems (gasp!) and the non-TEA Pubs to pass all kinds of legislation that you really fucking hate. I mean, why not? He's got absolutely nothing to lose politically, after all, he tried to run away. It was Frankenstein's monster that dragged him back into the the dungeon from which he was trying to flee. Why would he bother to placate the drooling monster that forced him back into shackles?

      Delete
    2. After I saw McCarthy drop out, I started thinking about Michael Corleone yelling, "They keep sucking me back in". I'd like to see Democrats keep mentioning the Hastert name in debate to make it clear just what kind of man it is that still has this "power" over congress to make them operate under extra constitutional rules.

      Delete
    3. The whole situation is crazy, Mike. Did you see the presser when Boehner announced he was stepping down? The man practically skipped to the podium he was so happy. I think the mic acutally caught him humming "Zippity Doo Dah" to himself. I'm surprised he wasn't already holding a glass of scotch! He had a foot out the door and was freakin' READY to work on his tan & his golf game.

      Fast forward a week, and it's Oops ... Waa, waa, waa, waaaaaaa ... (game show music when you get a wrong answer)

      Delete
    4. LOL, yep, you know Johnny is hearing that sad trombone in his head.

      Delete
    5. Please... can we dispense with this redherring... Polosi held everything she didn't like in committee and changed the filibuster rules to his advantage. Filibuster has been used since the roman senate as a tool for the minority to obstruct a majority. The Hastert Rule has been used selectively for decades. Newt Gingrich, said that while not formalized he had relied on the same principle, which he’d learned from his predecessors, all Democrats: Tom Foley, Jim Wright, and Tip O’Neill. “If you can’t get a majority of your members to vote yes, then a pretty prudent speaker doesn’t bring it up.”

      PS.... Article I, Sec. 5, Clause 2 states clearly: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

      While you may not like this tactic of the yahoos in power at the present time... they weren’t always the yahoos in power and while I would like to see up or down votes on bills without riders and favors attached... they aren't unconstitutional ... and anyway... why are you even talking 'extra constitutional'? That worthless old rag.

      Delete
    6. Pardon the spelling Pelosi...

      Delete
    7. Oh relax, TS. I mentioned the Hastert Rule not for the purposes of debating its merits/flaws, but to describe a possible course of action a very jaded, very disgruntled Speaker Boehner may take.

      Delete
    8. Wasn't pointed at you... Mike has been rattling on about the Hastert Rule for a while now.

      Delete
    9. In the mean time both sides just keep spending money out their asses.

      Who gives two shits who's spending our fucking money. Who really gives a shit.

      Close the whole fucking thing down for a month and watch the fucking piggies at the trough squeal. Both sides are fucking whores.

      Delete
    10. By the way. These genious ' s have all these earth shaking problems but they still will take all next week off for Columbus ' s birthday. They take all summer off, back everyone into a corner, pass another fucking continuing resolution, and just keep spending the fucking money.

      Delete
    11. Yep William you are right. 4.5 million and counting to politicize the lives of 4 brave Americans. Spent no less by a tea party advocate.

      Delete
    12. Do you have any idea how many million it takes to make 18 trillion ric? These spenders piss out millions before breakfast.

      Delete
  8. "Please... can we dispense with this redherring"

    Nope. The use of the filibuster, as it is used today, is a de facto change to the constitution. Rather then being used to stop an egregious power grab, it is being used as a way to stick a middle finger in the face of the POTUS and the people. I am consistent. I denounced it when Reid did it, and I denounce it now. Let the votes happen.

    As for your red herring response to a majority of the majority, the Republicans now hold I think 246 seats. Half that number plus one is a majority of the majority. What we are seeing is legislation that agrees only with a minority of the majority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless my friend, you can point me to the Article and section describing what you think is a breach we will just have to assume that it is yet another part of the constitution that you do not like and therefore choose to ignore or arbitrarily add new shit to because it is old, antiquated and useless.

      Delete
    2. The Committee

      The Committee on Rules is amongst the oldest standing committees in the House, having been first formally constituted on April 2, 1789. The Committee is commonly known as “The Speaker’s Committee” because it is the mechanism that the Speaker uses to maintain control of the House Floor, and was chaired by the Speaker until 1910. Because of the vast power wielded by the Rules Committee, its ratio has traditionally been weighted in favor of the majority party, and has been in its “2 to 1 1” (9 majority and 4 minority members) configuration since the late 1970s.

      https://rules.house.gov/about

      Delete
    3. Yeah, for folks like you, it's a favorite tactic to smarmily say that nothing is wrong because the constitution is being followed. Never mind that for a couple hundred years, there has been compromise and the filibuster has not been used as a concrete rule that requires 60 votes for everything.

      But thanks for schooling me. I bow to your vast and superior knowledge.

      Delete
    4. Hey, I never said that nothing was wrong... I find plenty wrong in the functioning not only of congress but the entire government... This just isn’t a constitutional issue. I don’t know why you have such a problem with allowing congress the latitude to behave badly, you don’t seem to mind when they do something jerky that you support even if it does go against the constitution.

      The founders were none too partial to the idea of political parties... they called them factions. Said that factions would do nothing more than divide the population. I guess they did. I am sure if you and I looked at each issue we talk about here we could come to some reasonable conclusions but we are painted in shades of red and blue. Perhaps parties and differences of opinion is just something else hardwired into our psyche. Sad isn’t it?

      Delete
    5. Two points on the filibuster and the cloture vote. You are right... It gums up government but there is a trend that bothers me about the way congress is increasingly doing business. And could very well be the exact reason for the type of rancor that occurs in Washington.

      http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2013/07/vital-statistics-congress-mann-ornstein/Vital-Statistics-Chapter-6--Legislative-Productivity-in-Congress-and-Workload_UPDATE.pdf?la=en

      Above is a link to a PDF that shows voting history, amounts added to the congressional record, number of vetoes and cloture votes. One thing that sticks out to me is the number of bills generated. They have been going down steadily but the number of pages per bill is going up. In order to get passing votes on some of this legislation, people are doing side deals, adding pork and amendments which have nothing to do with the original bill. The bills become more contentious as they contain more and more odorous provisions resulting in the inability to agree on anything and plenty of room to for objection. It seems to me that this trend as have so many other things, started to accelerate around the time congress no longer had to worry about the value of the dollar and again when Reagan came to office. Single issue votes for an up or down vote with limited debate... I am all for it.


      Woodrow Willson asked congress to create a rule (the Cloture) because congress was endlessly debate something he wanted done... He wanted to arm merchant ships. That subject is hotly contested in international law today. It was used next to end the debate on the Treaty of Versailles. Now depending on your train of thought, the Treaty of Versailles was THE proximate cause of WWII. Was the debate in order?.... should there have been more? Did we get into a second war because we didn’t give enough thought on how to end the first one?

      The next major time the filibuster was used and the cloture used to stop debate was for the 1964 Civil Rights act. Of course democrats just want to portray those who didn’t stand up an shout yea as a racist but there was and still is a major point of contention about that regulation... property rights and the freedom of association. If you ask anyone (other than overt racists) who find objection with that Act, it will be that provision and that provision only. For me, today, I see it as the single most harmful thing Washington has done to the continuity of the America people since ‘Separate but Equal’. I know you don’t agree but like the treaty of Versailles, perhaps it needed just a bit more consideration... and a whole lot more rule of law.

      Delete
    6. It's not really about blue or red TS, constitutionalists and libertarians are always in a position of apples or oranges. Your prism is the constitution, it seems, for everything. The country, and the government today, do not live by what you feel are non negotiable rules and values. Therefore, anyone who is willing to work within a view that is oriented to today is already wrong in your view. I believe in elections, and I believe in legislation. You quite sanctimoniously told me once that basically, people today DO NOT have the right to decide how they want to be governed because that was decided by the founding fathers.

      Like Libertarians, you have the exalted spot, you can claim everything is wrong because you have the constitution as your arbiter and since no one else is in agreement with the constitution, we are all therefore wrong. You tell me here you aren't really saying that nothing is wrong, but I disagree. If everything passed today is in violation of the constitution , how can you be opposed to anything that simply grinds the whole process to a halt. You aren't looking for a government that runs on compromise. You are looking for a government that runs in accordance of your view of the constitution with not a single bit of deviation. That said, I don't think you are really even looking to exchange ideas here, you're just here to quote historical figures and tell us why all of us are wrong when it comes to the constitution. Lofty as that position may feel, you aren't really much different than anyone else here expect perhaps you are better read.

      Delete
    7. your other post popped up after I had written this other one. I've said this before, I work with the world in front of my eyes, not the one I wish existed. Since long before I was born, compromise has happened and, IMO, we had legislators who had a party allegiance, but still believed that ultimately the stability of the entire country was more important than their party allegiance. There are plenty of things I do agree with conservatives on, and plenty that I don't. If the process were allowed to work like it predominately has for decades, we would not have a Republican majority in the house that is completely wasted because 40-50, not 200 mind you, but 40-50 gerrymandered tea baggers want to shut to the whole process down. I think that's bullshit.

      Delete
    8. Max, you're winning. The debt keeps growing and growing. Isn't that what you want? The Statist ' s in both parties have no interest in fiscal responsibility.

      Delete
    9. The last time we had sanity on this issue, William, was when Clinton was POTUS. Your tea baggers have delivered nothing on this issue. FAIL

      Delete
    10. Yeah slick Willie was busy dipping his Willie into jenifer, and.monica, and well, you know,,,he was busy. So he left the fiscal responsibility to newt and the pubs.

      Delete
    11. Maybe he did, but that was at a time when the Pubs actually had some sanity.

      Delete
  9. Mike... One question... Do you believe in the rule of law? This question has no shades of grey. You can be lenient on how you enforce a law but the answer to the question can only be Yes or No.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And my answer is yes. But why does that matter when you can then answer, with more paragraphs then Herman Melville describing Nantucket, why I can't possibly give this answer while I sit at home instead of going out, buying fifty guns and forming a posse to arrest Obama for his lawlessness.

      Delete
    2. No Mike... I won’t waste any more time boring you... Actually I won’t spend anymore time being bored by your “I vote against it before I voted for it”, “I believe in the law but” answers.... I was working on my response to the health care question but you are so steeped in your liberal wisdom it is a total waste of time...

      Delete
    3. yeah, that Kerry quote is a favorite because it says........nothing. It's got that giggle factor though that seems to sell in certain circles, like Ted Cruz saying the name "Joe Biden" and waiting for the knowing laughter to erupt. You asked a question, and answered it. I do believe in law, and I'm willing to live by laws passed by fairly elected representatives.

      You won't answer the health care question because like many things in life, there are no simple black and white answers to fix everything.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You never address my second point when you proclaimed you believe in elections and in compromise.

    I too believe in up or down votes on bills that are only obstructed in committee because they are bad proposals for the federal government to consider but like I said bills today are getting larger and more convoluted because to get support for them they contain additional riders.

    So let me ask you this question. If a bill came before congress that would strike the second amendment thus allowing any laws or restrictions on guns up to and including confiscation, how would you vote? (I would suspect ... to the affirmative)

    If to get the required votes for the above to pass, a small group of influential congressmen insisted on a rider which removed all social programs including social security from the federal government and allowed only state action on these social issues... Now how would you vote?

    Clean bills... not just once in a while, but every single bill, would solve most of the deadlock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why in the hell would I voted for a complete repeal of the second amendment? If you read my posts on this issue, you will not find where I have advocated for a repeal of the second amendment. I don't dispute the point of clean bills, and again, if we lived in the perfect world wherein government was small enough that Grover Norquist could slap it to death with his tiny penis, then we would have maybe one bill a month come up for a vote and we could indeed demand that it be clean with no riders. But we don't live in that world.

      Your point here is a little specious, we aren't talking about clean bills, we are talking about using the filibuster to arbitrarily say Fuck You and shut down the entire process. If the tea baggers and purists were using the filibuster to force clean bills, I might feel differently. Instead, as you pointed out to William quite masterfully a while back, the tea bags in congress are using their power to try and force their social agenda, while in the Senate, McConnell used the filibuster to try and make President Blackenstein a one term president. But of course, with the confines of a perfect world, you make a point I cannot argue.

      Delete
    2. I'll be brief... most of the contention is over major bills... because most major bills now days are 'Omni' bills... Take a look at some of the riders in the budgets from at least 2007 forward... Telling me what kind of light bulbs I can buy and declaring pizza a vegetable for health purposes...

      Their too busy ... really?... the average hours per day in 2012 was 5.3. From 1993-2010 (Bar 1 year) was over 7.

      Delete
    3. I don't like it either. Omni bills produce gobs of pork and yes, it would be better if every single bill addressed one single thing and was voted up or down. The downside to that, IMO, is that at an extreme, you would still have the same issues we have today. I'm genuinely not trying to be a wishy washy asshole here, but here is what I envision under that. Basically, what will happen then is that most bills will be purely partisan affairs. If we stack all three houses one way or the other, then we get legislation that is perpetually inflammatory to half to two thirds of the country. This hasn't worked for us lately.

      While I don't like the middle of the night earmarks that get rammed through, the omni bills allow a way for representatives to combine pieces of legislation that if they don't agree with completely, can give them a way to get some things they like in return for voting for something they don't really like but won't feel enslaved by. It's not perfect and it can and has been abused.

      RE the average hours in 2012: well, that was under Boehner with the tea party probably at it's peak membership wasn't it? I would argue that many who consider themselves conservative were quite happy with the lack of work being done.

      Delete
  12. "The downside to that, IMO, is that at an extreme, you would still have the same issues we have today. "

    I don't agree... people love tagging an important ... energy bill for instance that most people could agree on, with some very contentious rider for ... funding planned parenthood. Without the rider, the energy bill gets passed, work gets done and a bill funding planned parenthood gets an up or down vote on its own merits.... if it fails... work just got done.

    "While I don't like the middle of the night earmarks that get rammed through, the omni bills allow a way for representatives to combine pieces of legislation that if they don't agree with completely, can give them a way to get some things they like in return for voting for something they don't really like but won't feel enslaved by."

    This isn't governance... This isn't looking at issues on their merits... its vote trading... its carbon credits legislative style... it is the kind of back room dealing that would wind two companies up in court for collusion. It allows potentially harmful legislation to get through because a few people held out for vote getting goodies...

    ReplyDelete