The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[beantownbubba]

Color me confused. First, I have to acknowledge that as someone who gets my info only from a portion of the usual media sources, I, and all of us, are getting only a fraction of the real story and the parts we don't know are undoubtedly the juiciest and most likely the most instructive. That said,

For convenience, let's use "Gaetz" as a stand in for the "Freedom Caucus," the "radicals," the "nuts," what have you. Gaetz clearly lost. He got nothing except delaying financial support for Ukraine and w/ having McCarthy defy him (and just consider what a strange notion THAT is), he has lost his hold over McCarthy, or at least a good part of it. Gaetz has also lost credibility w/ his own people and the larger group of people who support his people. I don't see how he has any choice but to challenge McC on the Speakership and I see no path to the election of anyone acceptable to Gaetz.

McC won to the extent that he seems to have at least somewhat broken the spell that Gaetz had over him. But now he is beholden to the Democrats for his continuing hold on the office and to be able to get anything done, which does not bode well for him and will probably result in him alienating a much larger group of Republicans than the true believers. It's still virtually impossible to see how he maintains the speakership and totally impossible to see how he does it w/out Democratic support. The neon that flashes through the fog is that McC has no strategy, no plans, no ideas and just careens from moment to moment guided only by his desire to be speaker.

If the dominoes fall just right, the biggest loser here, even bigger than Gaetz (individually this time) will be Trump. He's already one of the biggest losers for 2 reasons: His "orders" were "to get everything you want or shut the government down" and that didn't happen, which is not a good look for an authoritarian. And since his most likely path to avoiding prison and the complete collapse of his business "empire" is some combination of government shutdown, weakening of the Democrats and winning the presidency, he has suffered a huge setback. But the truly telling domino will be if his failure to prevail here or even to come close to prevailing (on the votes, clearly he came close on the timing) results in a loss of some or a lot of his hold on the party. This truly could be the beginning of the end of his presidential ambitions. The scramble for "second place" just got very, very real, which makes Nicki Haley and perhaps one or two other contenders the potential big winners here. Still a lot of permutations to play out here, of course and I am only speculating here not making the mistake of wrongly predicting Trump's demise yet again.

The Democrats clearly won the battle: The government did not shut down, the legislation that ultimately passed did not unduly constrain or impinge on the Democratic agenda. They have also clearly gained some power relative to McCarthy. The question is whether it turns out to be an unspecified favor to be returned at an uncertain time or more significant lasting influence, which in turn depends a lot on whether McC remains Speaker. If he does, and does so w/ Democratic votes which is almost a given at this point, we will have a very interesting and perhaps unprecedented situation in American history/politics, which is to say a virtual one party government in the form of 2 party government. Bizarre. How THAT plays out in the day to day is impossible for me to predict and, really, even to envision, but it seems to be a real possibility.

So the next step appears to be Gaetz's but it's hard to see how that ends well for anyone except maybe the Democrats and then only if things break in a very narrow range of ways. The next 45 days will be ... interesting.

[Zip City]

Gaetz says he's going to call for removal of McCarthy. Guess he's taking his ball and going home since he can't actually win

[beantownbubba]

Charlie Sykes quoting Brian Klaas:

"The press has an obligation to convey magnitude, not just novelty. Newspapers and TV channels have limited time and space to discuss political events. In a political world in which an authoritarian contender for the presidency is floating the idea of shoplifting executions and killing generals, maybe, just maybe it’s not worth the space or time to discuss a brief stumble or a dog bite?"

Charlie Sykes quoting himself:

"Bombarded by a constant stream of deranged authoritarian extremism from a man who might soon return to the presidency, we’ve lost all sense of scale and perspective. But neither the American press nor the public can afford to be lulled. The man who, as president, incited a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in order to overturn an election is again openly fomenting political violence while explicitly endorsing authoritarian strategies should he return to power. That is the story of the 2024 election. Everything else is just window dressing."

[beantownbubba]

I have posted just recently about "the banality of crazy" and our increasing inability to be shocked by what used to be and ought to be shocking, but this is just ridiculous: According to Gaetz, at least in terms of what he's been saying the past couple of days, McCarthy's big sin is working with Democrats. I sort of get the concept if one truly believes that there is one "Uniparty" in Washington. But first of all, Gaetz is IN that party so wtf is he talking about? And second, WTAF? Working w/ the other party is not just uncommon or rare or unusual but flat out verboten? That literally takes as a given (or as a preferred reality, depending on how one looks at it) that this country's government is irretrievably broken and cannot be fixed through well understood and traditional electoral processes. This is flat out nuts. This is quite literally not how the Founders drew it up and not how this country has managed to function for 230+ years. And yet I haven't heard or seen a peep about this in any MSM; apparently this is just par for the course now.

[beantownbubba]

Funniest thing I've heard in years, maybe decades: Newt Gingrich declaring that Matt Gaetz should be expelled from the Republican Party. Newt, you ol' institutionalist, you. Number of times he's asked himself "what have I wrought?"? Zero, for sure.

Most inexplicable thing to me and not covered in the early reporting I've seen: How is that w/ the Freedom Caucus consisting of about 50 members and the real radicals generally counted at 20 to 30, how did Gaetz manage only 8 votes against McCarthy? Something doesn't compute here. I'm tempted to say that Gaetz won the battle but is now losing the war big time but wtf do I know about internal Republican politics? Why isn't his pathetic 8 vote showing not a major story here? Why aren't the anti-Gaetz Republicans circling like piranhas? Well, maybe they are. See, e.g. the Gingrich paraphrase above. Strange, strange times. Speaker McCarthy anyone? Which raises the very serious question, who the fuck would want that job anyway?

[tinnitus photography]

can't wait for Speaker Boebert.

[beantownbubba]

can't wait for Speaker Boebert.

Ha. I'd pay good money to see that.


Ummmmm.


No.

Cancel that.

No. Just no.

[beantownbubba]

OTOH, Jim Jordan has thrown his hat into the ring for real. There was never a serious chance that a replacement for McCarthy was going to be an improvement but Jim Jordan??!!! The mind boggles. The heart weeps.

I have no idea what the likelihood of his election is but that is small comfort.

[cortez the killer]

can't wait for Speaker Boebert.

[Zip City]

Jim Jordan is the perfect mix of establishment Republican an intransigent troll

[Mundane Mayhem]

I have posted just recently about "the banality of crazy" and our increasing inability to be shocked by what used to be and ought to be shocking, but this is just ridiculous: According to Gaetz, at least in terms of what he's been saying the past couple of days, McCarthy's big sin is working with Democrats. I sort of get the concept if one truly believes that there is one "Uniparty" in Washington. But first of all, Gaetz is IN that party so wtf is he talking about? And second, WTAF? Working w/ the other party is not just uncommon or rare or unusual but flat out verboten? That literally takes as a given (or as a preferred reality, depending on how one looks at it) that this country's government is irretrievably broken and cannot be fixed through well understood and traditional electoral processes. This is flat out nuts. This is quite literally not how the Founders drew it up and not how this country has managed to function for 230+ years. And yet I haven't heard or seen a peep about this in any MSM; apparently this is just par for the course now.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, had the shutdown happened, Gaetz was going to proceed with the motion to vacate using the shutdown as a pretense. I think it was a conclusion in search of a premise that he was going to find one way or the other.

[beantownbubba]

I have posted just recently about "the banality of crazy" and our increasing inability to be shocked by what used to be and ought to be shocking, but this is just ridiculous: According to Gaetz, at least in terms of what he's been saying the past couple of days, McCarthy's big sin is working with Democrats. I sort of get the concept if one truly believes that there is one "Uniparty" in Washington. But first of all, Gaetz is IN that party so wtf is he talking about? And second, WTAF? Working w/ the other party is not just uncommon or rare or unusual but flat out verboten? That literally takes as a given (or as a preferred reality, depending on how one looks at it) that this country's government is irretrievably broken and cannot be fixed through well understood and traditional electoral processes. This is flat out nuts. This is quite literally not how the Founders drew it up and not how this country has managed to function for 230+ years. And yet I haven't heard or seen a peep about this in any MSM; apparently this is just par for the course now.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, had the shutdown happened, Gaetz was going to proceed with the motion to vacate using the shutdown as a pretense. I think it was a conclusion in search of a premise that he was going to find one way or the other.

That is surely correct. My concern is that "working with the other side" can even be considered as potential, much less actual, grounds for the motion.

[beantownbubba]

So. Yeah. Israel.

I learned a long time ago that there's nothing I can say that will help the situation or anybody's understanding of it so I'll just say I'm dismayed, distressed and pretty much freaked out.

In the "the problems of 2 little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but still..." department, we were supposed to leave for Israel in less than a month. It would have been the first visit for both of us and it was to celebrate our fortieth anniversary. Bummer.

Am Yisroel Chai.

[tinnitus photography]

this entire situation makes me sick.

[John A Arkansawyer]

this entire situation makes me sick.

Pretty much all one can say.

[beantownbubba]

this entire situation makes me sick.

Pretty much all one can say.

That being true, approximately two trillion superfluous words have been written and maybe even more spoken, since Saturday.

[beantownbubba]

Charlie Sykes quoting Tom Nichols:

"The fact that you and I are living in a world where it is at least notionally possible that Jim Jordan would become the speaker of the people’s house and in line to the presidency of the United States is so utterly fantastic, not because Jim Jordan is some, transdimensional warlock. But because he’s an idiot…. These Frankensteins were never supposed to get off the table."

The way one conceptualizes a question or problem has a lot to do w/ how one thinks about the answer. E.g. "Jim Jordan might be speaker of the house" sounds bad but at least to me not so all that much worse than politics as usual in 2023. But "Jim Jordan might be second in line to the presidency of the United States" is so far beyond the pale that I can't even see the pale from there.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Charlie Sykes quoting Tom Nichols:

"The fact that you and I are living in a world where it is at least notionally possible that Jim Jordan would become the speaker of the people’s house and in line to the presidency of the United States is so utterly fantastic, not because Jim Jordan is some, transdimensional warlock. But because he’s an idiot…. These Frankensteins were never supposed to get off the table."

The way one conceptualizes a question or problem has a lot to do w/ how one thinks about the answer. E.g. "Jim Jordan might be speaker of the house" sounds bad but at least to me not so all that much worse than politics as usual in 2023. But "Jim Jordan might be second in line to the presidency of the United States" is so far beyond the pale that I can't even see the pale from there.

I don't think it's going to happen. I think his attempt to steamroller his way in will harden the opposition to him.

[jr29]

It seems Speaker Jim Jordan is becoming more likely. Put me in the camp that thinks Democrats don't look good going through this either. They could have easily kept McCarthy in the position, but they played politics and now we're looking at Speaker Jordan. McCarthy stinks, Jordan stinks worse. I hope it works out for Dems politically, but I think they put party before country and it's embarrassing.

[Zip City]

It seems Speaker Jim Jordan is becoming more likely. Put me in the camp that thinks Democrats don't look good going through this either. They could have easily kept McCarthy in the position, but they played politics and now we're looking at Speaker Jordan. McCarthy stinks, Jordan stinks worse. I hope it works out for Dems politically, but I think they put party before country and it's embarrassing.

Nope, not pinning this on the Dems. They never would have voted had Gaetz not called the vote this is 100% on him.

[jr29]

It seems Speaker Jim Jordan is becoming more likely. Put me in the camp that thinks Democrats don't look good going through this either. They could have easily kept McCarthy in the position, but they played politics and now we're looking at Speaker Jordan. McCarthy stinks, Jordan stinks worse. I hope it works out for Dems politically, but I think they put party before country and it's embarrassing.

Nope, not pinning this on the Dems. They never would have voted had Gaetz not called the vote this is 100% on him.

I'm not pinning it on them. But, they played their little political game and now Gaetz is probably going to get his way. He called the vote, but each member can vote any which way. Every single Dem scurried to their corner and voted the party line and now they want to act like "the people's business" can't get done because the Republican party is a shit show. The whole thing is a shit show and they didn't do anything to help. All of that "when they go low, we go high" bullshit rings pretty hollow to me at a time like this.

[Zip City]

It seems Speaker Jim Jordan is becoming more likely. Put me in the camp that thinks Democrats don't look good going through this either. They could have easily kept McCarthy in the position, but they played politics and now we're looking at Speaker Jordan. McCarthy stinks, Jordan stinks worse. I hope it works out for Dems politically, but I think they put party before country and it's embarrassing.

Nope, not pinning this on the Dems. They never would have voted had Gaetz not called the vote this is 100% on him.

I'm not pinning it on them. But, they played their little political game and now Gaetz is probably going to get his way. He called the vote, but each member can vote any which way. Every single Dem scurried to their corner and voted the party line and now they want to act like "the people's business" can't get done because the Republican party is a shit show. The whole thing is a shit show and they didn't do anything to help. All of that "when they go low, we go high" bullshit rings pretty hollow to me at a time like this.

Counterpoint: McCarthy was actively shitty to the Dems at every opportunity, so why wouldn’t they seize the chance to oust him?

[jr29]

Nope, not pinning this on the Dems. They never would have voted had Gaetz not called the vote this is 100% on him.

I'm not pinning it on them. But, they played their little political game and now Gaetz is probably going to get his way. He called the vote, but each member can vote any which way. Every single Dem scurried to their corner and voted the party line and now they want to act like "the people's business" can't get done because the Republican party is a shit show. The whole thing is a shit show and they didn't do anything to help. All of that "when they go low, we go high" bullshit rings pretty hollow to me at a time like this.

Counterpoint: McCarthy was actively shitty to the Dems at every opportunity, so why wouldn’t they seize the chance to oust him?

Because it's petty. Because it exacerbates the partisanship problem. Because at a time like this, considering the alternatives, he's about as good as we were going to get.
Dems could literally say, "McCarthy is a terrible speaker, but we prefer him over a far-right, Freedom Caucus lunatic." Republicans would still look like a mess and Dems would look like adults willing to compromise.

[beantownbubba]

It seems Speaker Jim Jordan is becoming more likely. Put me in the camp that thinks Democrats don't look good going through this either. They could have easily kept McCarthy in the position, but they played politics and now we're looking at Speaker Jordan. McCarthy stinks, Jordan stinks worse. I hope it works out for Dems politically, but I think they put party before country and it's embarrassing.

Nope, not pinning this on the Dems. They never would have voted had Gaetz not called the vote this is 100% on him.

I'm not pinning it on them. But, they played their little political game and now Gaetz is probably going to get his way. He called the vote, but each member can vote any which way. Every single Dem scurried to their corner and voted the party line and now they want to act like "the people's business" can't get done because the Republican party is a shit show. The whole thing is a shit show and they didn't do anything to help. All of that "when they go low, we go high" bullshit rings pretty hollow to me at a time like this.

I get that it is inherently "political" when one party votes in lockstep. And I get that there is some inherent political judgment in deciding to vote in lockstep in a way that is likely to result in a particular outcome. But I don't understand what political calculation you're objecting to here.

Why was it in the country's or the Democrats' interest to vote to keep McCarthy in place? He was an unreliable "partner" at best, a flat out liar at worst, a "leader" unable to control his presumptive "followers," unable to deliver results and the cause of constant friction and distraction that was already preventing the House from working in any kind of positive much less efficient way. So what was the benefit to the country of keeping McCarthy in place even more wounded and incapable than before? If the result was an undesirable to the Democrats outcome of a Scalise becoming Speaker, they would have deserved that for sure (but the same questions as to what they should have done differently stay the same). But why should anybody have predicted that Jordan might become Speaker? How likely was that a week or 2 ago? And who could predict (if it turns out to be true) that not even a measly FIVE Republicans would vote against Jordan?

In short, what should the Dems have done differently, and how is what they did responsible for where we are?

[beantownbubba]

I see that you sort of answered my question while I was writing it, but I don't understand why voting against McCarthy was "petty;" at this point in the political lifecycle of this country, what advantage is there to potentially being seen as "the adults in the room;" and, ultimately, what would have been "adult" about voting for McCarthy? You say that even as he was, he was the "best available" but if the goal is to actually accomplish something rather than flounder around from crisis to crisis without resolution at the whim and mercy of a small band of nuts, how/why was McCarthy the best available?

[jr29]

I see that you sort of answered my question while I was writing it, but I don't understand why voting against McCarthy was "petty;" at this point in the political lifecycle of this country, what advantage is there to potentially being seen as "the adults in the room;" and, ultimately, what would have been "adult" about voting for McCarthy? You say that even as he was, he was the "best available" but if the goal is to actually accomplish something rather than flounder around from crisis to crisis without resolution at the whim and mercy of a small band of nuts, how/why was McCarthy the best available?

Well, he did work with Dems some. There were reasons the far-right wanted him out.
I'd have been all ears if the Dems had floated a reasonable alternative. There are some fairly moderate Republicans, but as far as I know the Dems were only interested in Jeffries as speaker. Instead of striking a deal with a few moderates they nominated Jeffries which was never going to happen and they knew it.
There is no way, zero chance, that 200+ Democrats voted their conscience in this case. They voted for the sake of a political win. They may get the win, but I don't think it is good for the country.

I really hope that in a year or two I can look back and say the Dems were playing chess while my stupid ass was playing checkers. Even if that happens I don't think I'll agree with the way they handled it.

[beantownbubba]

I see that you sort of answered my question while I was writing it, but I don't understand why voting against McCarthy was "petty;" at this point in the political lifecycle of this country, what advantage is there to potentially being seen as "the adults in the room;" and, ultimately, what would have been "adult" about voting for McCarthy? You say that even as he was, he was the "best available" but if the goal is to actually accomplish something rather than flounder around from crisis to crisis without resolution at the whim and mercy of a small band of nuts, how/why was McCarthy the best available?

Well, he did work with Dems some. There were reasons the far-right wanted him out.
I'd have been all ears if the Dems had floated a reasonable alternative. There are some fairly moderate Republicans, but as far as I know the Dems were only interested in Jeffries as speaker. Instead of striking a deal with a few moderates they nominated Jeffries which was never going to happen and they knew it.
There is no way, zero chance, that 200+ Democrats voted their conscience in this case. They voted for the sake of a political win. They may get the win, but I don't think it is good for the country.

I really hope that in a year or two I can look back and say the Dems were playing chess while my stupid ass was playing checkers. Even if that happens I don't think I'll agree with the way they handled it.

I agree with you, but not, lol. Yes, I agree the Dems were making a political calculation and that nominating Jeffries was not a serious attempt to have him elected. But again, I'm not sure about what's wrong w/ the calculation they made or what other calculation was sensible and realistic.

I agree that the Dems could have backed a moderate Republican, but who? I don't recall any moderate names even being floated publicly much less throwing their hat(s) into the ring. I agree, if the Dems did not even have those kinds of discussions w/ possible candidates, shame on them. But I find it hard to believe that they did not at least put out feelers/have preliminary discussions. Admittedly I don't know for a fact that they did, but if they didn't, yeah, I'd have a problem with that.

Jeffries did send that letter offering and urging bipartisan cooperation and a path forward, which I thought at the moment might have been cover or an opening for some more moderate Republican alternative emerging, but that didn't happen. I can't say how seriously that letter was intended, though it seemed to me to be a legit offer/olive branch. Bottom line, though, I'm not sure how else things could have played out given the hands all relevant parties were dealt.

Also consider the calculation of any Republican moderate who thought s/he had a chance to win the Speakership w/ Democratic votes: That seems like it would have been the most Pyrrhic victory ever, winning the title and being the powerless butt of endless power plays, subject to endless public and private humiliations a la McCarthy but worse. Could a moderate Republican bringing along, say, 20 other Republicans, have formed an actual governing coalition w/ the Dems? That's literally possible but I can't see anyone making those calculations and thinking that it could possibly work in real time in real life.

McCarthy had indeed worked with the Dems on the resolution of the latest "debt ceiling crisis" and the most recent continuing resolution. But it was the immediate follow up to the CR that led to his demise, not only because of Republican criticism of him working with the Dems but also because McC reneged on the budget deal he made w/ Biden at the time of the debt ceiling deal and made clear that working with Dems going forward was off the table.

All that said, if Jordan as Speaker was the foreseeable outcome of McC being voted out, then the Dems did miscalculate no matter how weak or distasteful continuing w/ McCarthy might have been. But in real time I do not think that could have realistically been anticipated.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Couple dozen votes against Jordan. He's lost round one. Let's see how it shakes out.

[tinnitus photography]

what is the vegas line for if he beats McCarthy's 15 rounds?

[beantownbubba]

what is the vegas line for if he beats McCarthy's 15 rounds?

I'm assuming the guy has a little more pride than McCarthy and will fish or cut bait well before 15 but I guess the lure of power just out of reach has distorted more than one person's thought process and humiliation factor.