In The Bulwark, this morning, "Charlie Sykes wrote, "Trump remains the apex predator of the Republican Party." When will we break free from this insanity???
It is too bad Emmer didn't stand firm and insist on a House vote. The house minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, has indicated Democrats would help Republicans elect a speaker, but the conditions include that the speaker candidate cannot be an election denier.
I don’t know much about him but the fundamental problems are still there. Keeping the caucus together is going to be like wrangling cats and Johnson doesn’t seem to have much experience in that area. It’s hard to get a majority to agree on anything, especially if it’s forbidden to reach across the aisle.
So far, the rule that allows a single member to call for a removal vote still seems to be in place. If it stays, I doubt that he will be able to accomplish much or else won’t be able to stay in place.
A lot of hypotheticals that, if they turn out to be fact, will prove you to be a prophet. I was focused on why "worse". Maybe it's covered by your comment on experience. Of course, only two other current House members have experience as speaker. I had no problem with McCarthy. I'm pretty sure the Republicans would not vote for Pelosi.
The Speaker fiasco has ceased to be amusing and is more and more distressing. I thought,when Emmer won the nomination, we were on the way to ending the debacle. It appears P01135809's influence is as destructive as ever.
I agree. It's getting ridiculous but Emmer's position on Trumpism isn't the only problem he has with hard right conservatives. I have found opinions (factual basis unknown) that would have to be addressed before Emmer could get a majority vote. Support for 2SLBQT agenda, green new deal and acting as a spokesperson for George Soros in the National Popular Vote movement. Different people attach varying degrees of importance to these issues but I, for one, could never support anyone favoring NPV.
NPV is rising to the top of democrat socialist issues. In the last few weeks, I have read dozens of articles on this in liberal blogs. The latest was (from Slate or Salon, I think) a comparison of our Constitution with that of Denmark. Our Constitution has 27 amendments. Denmark's has had something like 384. The article is dumb. There is no comparing a small relatively homogenous population such as Denmark with a population of 350 million that has several thousand vocal special interest groups.
I haven’t seen those examples, but I’d have a hard time believing some of them.
I think the core problem is the idea that the Speaker should be advancing a partisan agenda rather than just keeping the House running smoothly. I think that’s a difference between what the Framers intended and where we’ve wound up.
The speaker should advance legislation based only on broad support rather than partisan politics. We both know that will not happen. So, what do we do? Do we see legislators agreeing to rules that put fiscally responsible budgeting and national security ahead of all other politics? No! I can live with nothing if we can't address the primary functions of government.
The House has the constitutional duties of legislation, oversight and impeachment. Oversight and impeachment are mostly useless endeavors that very seldom produce results. Instead, they just give congress critters a platform for demagoguing their politics before a bigger audience. I know of no pressing need for additional legislation beyond funding priorities such as national security. There is already enough funding for programs I disagree with.
"By the time you read this, Emmer’s candidacy may have gone down in flames."
Yup. Emmer's out.
Time for the GOP to start playing the Squid Game to decide who gets the gavel.
I did see that about the time I published. I thought, “I’m not revising this.”
Indeed.
In The Bulwark, this morning, "Charlie Sykes wrote, "Trump remains the apex predator of the Republican Party." When will we break free from this insanity???
It is too bad Emmer didn't stand firm and insist on a House vote. The house minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, has indicated Democrats would help Republicans elect a speaker, but the conditions include that the speaker candidate cannot be an election denier.
Good on Jeffries!
Mike Johnson is the new speaker.
"Moderates are where you find them and if Emmer gets shot down, the odds are good that whoever eventually gets the job will be worse."
Prophecy fullfilled.
Why do you say that? He hasn't yet finished a full session in the House.
I don’t know much about him but the fundamental problems are still there. Keeping the caucus together is going to be like wrangling cats and Johnson doesn’t seem to have much experience in that area. It’s hard to get a majority to agree on anything, especially if it’s forbidden to reach across the aisle.
So far, the rule that allows a single member to call for a removal vote still seems to be in place. If it stays, I doubt that he will be able to accomplish much or else won’t be able to stay in place.
A lot of hypotheticals that, if they turn out to be fact, will prove you to be a prophet. I was focused on why "worse". Maybe it's covered by your comment on experience. Of course, only two other current House members have experience as speaker. I had no problem with McCarthy. I'm pretty sure the Republicans would not vote for Pelosi.
Too bad Emmer didn't get a floor vote: we've no idea what might have been.
The Speaker fiasco has ceased to be amusing and is more and more distressing. I thought,when Emmer won the nomination, we were on the way to ending the debacle. It appears P01135809's influence is as destructive as ever.
I agree. It's getting ridiculous but Emmer's position on Trumpism isn't the only problem he has with hard right conservatives. I have found opinions (factual basis unknown) that would have to be addressed before Emmer could get a majority vote. Support for 2SLBQT agenda, green new deal and acting as a spokesperson for George Soros in the National Popular Vote movement. Different people attach varying degrees of importance to these issues but I, for one, could never support anyone favoring NPV.
NPV is rising to the top of democrat socialist issues. In the last few weeks, I have read dozens of articles on this in liberal blogs. The latest was (from Slate or Salon, I think) a comparison of our Constitution with that of Denmark. Our Constitution has 27 amendments. Denmark's has had something like 384. The article is dumb. There is no comparing a small relatively homogenous population such as Denmark with a population of 350 million that has several thousand vocal special interest groups.
I haven’t seen those examples, but I’d have a hard time believing some of them.
I think the core problem is the idea that the Speaker should be advancing a partisan agenda rather than just keeping the House running smoothly. I think that’s a difference between what the Framers intended and where we’ve wound up.
The speaker should advance legislation based only on broad support rather than partisan politics. We both know that will not happen. So, what do we do? Do we see legislators agreeing to rules that put fiscally responsible budgeting and national security ahead of all other politics? No! I can live with nothing if we can't address the primary functions of government.
I think business needs to get done, even if some it is stuff I disagree with. Hopefully the new Speaker can make the House work, but I have my doubts.
The House has the constitutional duties of legislation, oversight and impeachment. Oversight and impeachment are mostly useless endeavors that very seldom produce results. Instead, they just give congress critters a platform for demagoguing their politics before a bigger audience. I know of no pressing need for additional legislation beyond funding priorities such as national security. There is already enough funding for programs I disagree with.