Shutdown 3: the Shutdownening

[Holman]

Why are the Rs so desperate to cut aid to Ukraine? It seems like the pro-military, pro-security party would be first in line to support anything that weakens Russia, especially when it doesn't involve the US pulling any of the triggers.

They're no longer that party.

R's oppose support for Ukraine because of Trump's Russia ties, longing for Putin's white Christian fascism, and hatred of socialist Europe.

They're currently an anti-military party, not because they hate war but because they think the military has become woke. They feel that they have lost ideological control of the armed forces. (See Tommy Tuberville's holds on Pentagon promotions and all the recent attacks on General Milley.)

There are parallels with 1950s McCarthyism, when Joe McCarthy presided over hearings accusing the US Army and the Eisenhower administration of being full of commies and homosexuals.

[Kraken]

To be fair, that's only the MAGA wing. Most Republicans still support Ukraine, and I believe we'll see another aid package pass with a comfortable majority before the month is out.

[El Guapo]

To be fair, that's only the MAGA wing. Most Republicans still support Ukraine, and I believe we'll see another aid package pass with a comfortable majority before the month is out.

I think that's true, although I also think that differences between Trump's positions and the positions of the GOP can only exist for so long. Will a Ukraine aid package still be able to pass in (say) six months?

[waitingtoconnect]

Why are the Rs so desperate to cut aid to Ukraine? It seems like the pro-military, pro-security party would be first in line to support anything that weakens Russia, especially when it doesn't involve the US pulling any of the triggers.

They're no longer that party.

R's oppose support for Ukraine because of Trump's Russia ties, longing for Putin's white Christian fascism, and hatred of socialist Europe.

They're currently an anti-military party, not because they hate war but because they think the military has become woke. They feel that they have lost ideological control of the armed forces. (See Tommy Tuberville's holds on Pentagon promotions and all the recent attacks on General Milley.)

There are parallels with 1950s McCarthyism, when Joe McCarthy presided over hearings accusing the US Army and the Eisenhower administration of being full of commies and homosexuals.

Let’s not forget their lord and masters behaviour to the military.

My favourite is refusing to appear near the USS John S McCain and forcing her name to be covered up.



For a full list.


Having military family members on much lower pay relative to the rest of us for the work they do and the risks they take - it’s very hard to see how one could vote Republican.

[Apollo]

So, no thoughts on how the Democrats should handle the upcoming vote to oust McCarthy? I definitely think the Dems should back him but then I thought that when he was first elected. It would have saved him from having to make so many damaging promises to the far right. I know that's not how the parties like to do things but unfortunately we live in Interesting Times, so we need to be open to new ways of achieving our goals.

[Unagi]

I don't think if the Dems had backed him back when you say they should have, that it would have made any difference to his attempts to win over the absurd-right, and he would have still been in this position because he would have been trying to buy their love to make up for the way his speakership started.

In today's world, you cannot have a GOP Speaker of the House, who was anointed by the Dems, and hope that it brings some stable path forward for our government. The greater GOP (not just the absurd-right) will have none of that.

[Apollo]

...In today's world, you cannot have a GOP Speaker of the House, who was anointed by the Dems, and hope that it brings some stable path forward for our government. The greater GOP (not just the absurd-right) will have none of that.

Actually, I would argue that the Dems not backing him for speaker in this upcoming vote would guarantee an unstable path forward for our government, which is exactly what I want to avoid.

[Unagi]

...In today's world, you cannot have a GOP Speaker of the House, who was anointed by the Dems, and hope that it brings some stable path forward for our government. The greater GOP (not just the absurd-right) will have none of that.

Actually, I would argue that the Dems not backing him for speaker in this upcoming vote would guarantee an unstable path forward for our government, which is exactly what I want to avoid.

I'm not arguing that they (the Dems) shouldn't do that, just that the GOP will torpedo it - somehow.

I'm not fully educated on what is involved in the nuances of rejecting and re-electing a speaker of the house, and we all saw what a mess it was last time, so I'm just not optimistic.

[GreenGoo]

I definitely think the Dems should back him but then I thought that when he was first elected. It would have saved him from having to make so many damaging promises to the far right.

Wait, so you think having the stink of democrats on him would have reduced the far right roadblocks somehow? I'm sure his goal wasn't to be speaker for a day and then be ousted.

[Apollo]

I definitely think the Dems should back him but then I thought that when he was first elected. It would have saved him from having to make so many damaging promises to the far right.

Wait, so you think having the stink of democrats on him would have reduced the far right roadblocks somehow? I'm sure his goal wasn't to be speaker for a day and then be ousted.

The vacate rule wouldn't have happened if Dems had backed him from the start. And he would have obviously been more willing to work with Dems on certain issues if they had helped elect him, making him largely immune from blockades by small numbers of extremists, which has been his number one problem as speaker. I'm also assuming the Dems would protect him from vacate motions if they were provoked by a compromise he made with them (which is another reason Dems should back him in this upcoming vote).

I think McCarthy's much more comfortable coming up with a compromise with Democrats than with the Far Right of his own party, and I think the Debt showdown and this standoff over funding the Government have shown that.

Edited for clarity

[GreenGoo]

The point is, he still needs those far right votes to accomplish anything. Being "known" as a RINO would not have helped him.

[Unagi]

I’ll add that with every Dem supporter he got, I wager he’d lose 1.5 regular old GOP supporters (not just the absurd-right).

Imagine asking just the smallest group of Republicans to support a Democratic Speaker, which I’m guessing would -never- happen….

As soon as McCarthy makes any concessions to bring in any Dems, he will be a pariah to 95% of the party.

[Apollo]

The point is, he still needs those far right votes to accomplish anything. Being "known" as a RINO would not have helped him.

They're not helping him pass anything now either, and are actually making it harder to pass anything by tacking Far Right amendments onto legislation. Their only goal was to be obstructionists in a Democratic controlled government. If Dems had gotten on board from the start and thus kept extremists off the committees (another one of their conditions for making him speaker) he would have more options for getting legislation passed. And if the whole enterprise put a bad taste in the GOP's mouth over him being a RINO, well so much the better.

I think the Democrats strategy of "Don't ever help/agree with Republicans" is not a winning strategy for them the way it is for the GOP. After all, the Dems are seen as controlling the government right now so not getting basic things like a budget passed makes them look bad and when you are the Pro-Government party you don't want these high-stakes standoffs about absolutely essential government tasks occurring on a regular basis. It hurts people's faith in the basic ability of the Government to function, which plays right into the GOP playbook.

[Apollo]

...As soon as McCarthy makes any concessions to bring in any Dems, he will be a pariah to 95% of the party.

Why is that bad? If a few Dems had pushed him over the top on his very first vote to become speaker, what could anyone do? He'd still be speaker, but without all those damaging conditions that the Far Right put on him, and would now be a pariah in his own party who would have to work with Democrats to get almost anything passed. Mission Accomplished!

[milo]

"Why is that bad?"

Because McCarthy is a Republican from a conservative district, not a Democrat.

[El Guapo]

Ultimately I don't think this is all that complicated for Democrats. They should be willing to vote for McCarthy, but they should have a price for their votes in terms of legislation, governance of the House, etc. There's no point in saving his speakership if he's going to govern as a MAGA Speaker. But if he's willing to compromise on stuff important to Democrats, then sure, then they can talk.

[Apollo]

Ultimately I don't think this is all that complicated for Democrats. They should be willing to vote for McCarthy, but they should have a price for their votes in terms of legislation, governance of the House, etc. There's no point in saving his speakership if he's going to govern as a MAGA Speaker. But if he's willing to compromise on stuff important to Democrats, then sure, then they can talk.

Yeah, that's what they should do. It gives them a golden opportunity to get some leverage on the Speaker. However, I just read in the Daily Beast that Gaetz has not introduced the vacate motion, though he still plans on doing so later in the week. And a group of GOP congressmen are attempting to have Gaetz expelled if he is not cleared by an ongoing ethics probe.

I now think McCarthy may already have dodged another bullet and he did it the right way, by putting on his Big-Boy pants and doing the responsible thing. Now, if he could just make that a habit...

[Kraken]

Ultimately I don't think this is all that complicated for Democrats. They should be willing to vote for McCarthy, but they should have a price for their votes in terms of legislation, governance of the House, etc. There's no point in saving his speakership if he's going to govern as a MAGA Speaker. But if he's willing to compromise on stuff important to Democrats, then sure, then they can talk.

That's the responsible school of thought. The other school says that Dems should sit back and let the Republicans tear themselves apart. That might be better for the D Party long term, but not so great for the country.

[El Guapo]

Ultimately I don't think this is all that complicated for Democrats. They should be willing to vote for McCarthy, but they should have a price for their votes in terms of legislation, governance of the House, etc. There's no point in saving his speakership if he's going to govern as a MAGA Speaker. But if he's willing to compromise on stuff important to Democrats, then sure, then they can talk.

That's the responsible school of thought. The other school says that Dems should sit back and let the Republicans tear themselves apart. That might be better for the D Party long term, but not so great for the country.

I don't totally get the benefits of intra-Republican conflict here given the potential impacts on the country. And besides, a deal with McCarthy could still result in a major intra-Republican conflict anyway.

[Unagi]

Ultimately I don't think this is all that complicated for Democrats. They should be willing to vote for McCarthy, but they should have a price for their votes in terms of legislation, governance of the House, etc. There's no point in saving his speakership if he's going to govern as a MAGA Speaker. But if he's willing to compromise on stuff important to Democrats, then sure, then they can talk.

That's the responsible school of thought. The other school says that Dems should sit back and let the Republicans tear themselves apart. That might be better for the D Party long term, but not so great for the country.

What the Republicans have shown us is that what’s better for the D Party -is- better for the country, long term.

[Unagi]

Ultimately I don't think this is all that complicated for Democrats. They should be willing to vote for McCarthy, but they should have a price for their votes in terms of legislation, governance of the House, etc. There's no point in saving his speakership if he's going to govern as a MAGA Speaker. But if he's willing to compromise on stuff important to Democrats, then sure, then they can talk.

That's the responsible school of thought. The other school says that Dems should sit back and let the Republicans tear themselves apart. That might be better for the D Party long term, but not so great for the country.

I don't totally get the benefits of intra-Republican conflict here given the potential impacts on the country. And besides, a deal with McCarthy could still result in a major intra-Republican conflict anyway.

Oh it most certainly would.

[GreenGoo]

They're not helping him pass anything now either, and are actually making it harder to pass anything by tacking Far Right amendments onto legislation.

I don't understand your response. The dems aren't in any position to save him, and are even more likely to sink him by being associated with him.

He's tacking on amendments because he has no choice. Without those amendments he can't pass anything, with or without the dems help.

Honestly I'm not following your position. It seems like you're saying he chose far right instead of dems, and if he had chosen dems things would have been better for him?

How, exactly? He is completely powerless without that far right contingent. Adding Dems to the mix doesn't change anything.

I mean, they can save his job, but then what?

[waitingtoconnect]

We saw the same thing in the UK with Teresa May who held only a wafer thin majority. The rebels just blocked everything until she resigned. They all got a taste of the limelight and got to appear on tv etc etc so they just got worse and worse in their behaviour. They openly copied Trump and Maga.

It was only really sorted at the following election when the conservatives (eg republicans) won a massive majority.

In a similar vein nothing will be sorted here until 2024 and the next general.

In my opinion it’s better for the democrats to not support McCarthy and just do enough to keep the government running until then.

[Apollo]

They're not helping him pass anything now either, and are actually making it harder to pass anything by tacking Far Right amendments onto legislation.

I don't understand your response. The dems aren't in any position to save him, and are even more likely to sink him by being associated with him.

He's tacking on amendments because he has no choice. Without those amendments he can't pass anything, with or without the dems help.

Honestly I'm not following your position. It seems like you're saying he chose far right instead of dems, and if he had chosen dems things would have been better for him?

How, exactly? He is completely powerless without that far right contingent. Adding Dems to the mix doesn't change anything.

I mean, they can save his job, but then what?

I don't understand your point either. By saving him the Dems get some stability in government that we don't have right now because McCarthy won't have to worry about his far right flank any time he tries to pass responsible legislation. They can also get some policy leverage over him, though obviously that's going to be limited. There's a large portion of the GOP that will vote to pass things like Debt limits or Fund Ukraine, but they need Democratic help to get them passed nowadays, thanks to a small group of far right house members. And since there's no consensus whatsoever on who would replace McCarthy anyway, kicking him out would just result in endless chaos (which Gaetz and the other Trumpists clearly want). If he says "No" to Democratic help in staying in office, he's gone anyway so if he really wants to stay speaker I don't see that he would have a choice. Either the Dems help McCarthy stay the speaker or we get total chaos and no one gets anything passed, and I know which one of those I would choose ten times out of ten.

I'm not claiming that we would be in a full-blown coalition government and that everything McCarthy introduced from that point on would be compromise legislation, just that he would be able to pass those Must Pass bills without Far Right shenanigans because he would know the Dems had his back. As long as the Dems support him when the Right tries to kick him out, he'll be fine unless almost every single GOP member votes against him. He's not going to pass anything but symbolic bills without help from the Democrat controlled Senate and a Democratic President anyway. And he can pass all those he wants to keep some of his base happy, as far as I am concerned.

You say he is completely powerless without that Far Right contingent. But did they vote for the Debt Limit increase? Did they vote to keep funding the Gov't? No, and yet he managed to override them. You say he needs those Far Right amendments, but none of those were on the final bill that passed and without them he'd likely be able to get more things passed. Not sure what your point is here other than he wouldn't do it because the GOP would no longer support him. But if he limits his work with Dems to absolutely Must Pass legislation, I don't think the majority of the GOP reps will turn on him, as they know the score in the House right now and they didn't turn on him after the Debt limit deal. There's a lot of animosity in the GOP caucus towards these hardliners already. Not to mention McCarthy puts his name in the history books as a politician who, under immense pressure, Did The Right Thing, which some folks still care about.

I know you have a point, I'm probably just not grasping exactly what you're trying to say. If my rambling response doesn't convince you, let me know in very specific terms what problem you have with the Dems supporting McCarthy in keeping his seat and I'll try to respond to that. Is it more of "this won't happen" or "this shouldn't happen"?

[GreenGoo]

By saving him the Dems get some stability in government that we don't have right now because McCarthy won't have to worry about his far right flank any time he tries to pass responsible legislation.

Nothing is stopping him from trying to pass responsible legislation now. Except he doesn't have the votes without the rest of the GOP on board and that potentially includes the far right group.

So I agree that he can keep his job if he gets the dems to support him. I don't agree that that will change anything at all in terms of passing legislation.

Yeah, we'll have to move on I think.

[Zarathud]

The Far Right is a Republican problem, and one the Republicans created with their willingness to bed down with their extremist base. That’s not a responsibility or fault of the Democrats.

McCarthy could have passed a rule allowing him to bring House legislation to vote with bipartisan support. But he’s tried (and failed) to negotiate anything within the Republican Party’s ability to pass — even extreme legislation doesn’t have the Republican votes, so he won’t bring a bill to a floor vote. That’s the failure of McCarthy to lead his ungovernable, unprincipled party — and refusal to cooperate with Democrats until there is no other option.

It is not the Democrat’s responsibility to chase down compromise with a party that has no proposals, no principles, and a tendency to eat their own.

[LordMortis]

The Far Right is a Republican problem, and one the Republicans created with their willingness to bed down with their extremist base. That’s not a responsibility or fault of the Democrats.

1000xs this with the caveat that it is responsibility of the nation as a whole not bed down extremists only we put a system in place to give their elected leaders outsized power and hostage taking as a valid tactic.

It is not the Democrat’s responsibility to chase down compromise with a party that has no proposals, no principles, and a tendency to eat their own.

Even more so it is their responsibility to not compromise the principles and rule of law they were elected to uphold. Compromise? Sure. On things like impeaching Biden, because reasons? Pound salt.

[Victoria Raverna]

"Why is that bad?"

Because McCarthy is a Republican from a conservative district, not a Democrat.

Why is that bad for Democrats?

[Unagi]

The main problem with Dems support of a Rep speaker , is (to me) that I don’t think the GOP can be trusted at all. So, supporting him would need to have concessions locked into the spending bill , and those concessions will start to peal off more and more republicans.

And yeah, I don’t care if that happens - it’s not a reason for Dems not to do it, I just present it as a reason it’s not going to happen.

[Unagi]

Well, we will find out soon enough what the Dems plan to do.

Apparently they are cooking up their plans right now and from what I understand, their main ‘issue’ with McC is that he can’t be trusted - but now that the vote is up - I wonder if McC will finally reject that side of his party.

Doubtful. Frankly.

[malchior]

The usual analysis would indicate the Republicans are eating their own and it'll hurt them. In reality, it's chaos and it's hard to know if it'll hurt them or instead increase the ranks of hard-right white nationalist members. We're into the unknown here.

[El Guapo]

The main problem with Dems support of a Rep speaker , is (to me) that I don’t think the GOP can be trusted at all. So, supporting him would need to have concessions locked into the spending bill , and those concessions will start to peal off more and more republicans.

And yeah, I don’t care if that happens - it’s not a reason for Dems not to do it, I just present it as a reason it’s not going to happen.

Yeah, one of the big problems is that McCarthy has shown himself to be completely untrustworthy. He made the spending deal with Biden then almost immediately backed off of it. While we don't know exactly what McCarthy promised to the MAGA wing to get the speakership, there are a lot of indications that he's breached several promises made to them. So even if McCarthy is willing to make significant promises to Democrats in exchange for saving his speakership, will Democrats trust him to follow through?

[Unagi]

The usual analysis would indicate the Republicans are eating their own and it'll hurt them. In reality, it's chaos...

[Kurth]

The Far Right is a Republican problem, and one the Republicans created with their willingness to bed down with their extremist base. That’s not a responsibility or fault of the Democrats.

I’m struggling to express how much I vehemently disagree with this take. The Far Right is certainly a problem of the GOP’s making, but it’s insane to call it a “Republican problem.” That’s like saying, “Hey, that fire you set over there that has grown into a raging inferno that’s about to burn down my house? Yeah. Your problem, not mine.”

This is partisanship taken to grotesque lengths. Right wing extremism and anti-democracy authoritarianism are a clear and present danger to our country as we know it. These movements are the country’s problem, and we should all be doing whatever we can to fix it.

It’s all fun and games to laugh at the GOP-made monster eating the GOPs face until that monster eats your face, too.

[Skinypupy]

Dems are going to let McCarthy burn, which is probably the correct decision.



The bigger question is what happens next. Is the next one up someone who can provide some semblance of sanity? Or does one of the MAGA loons now now take the reins in earnest?

[El Guapo]

Sounds like McCarthy is doomed?

The guy's definitely an ass, and I have little sympathy for him given what he's done to get here. I wish I had more confidence in what happens next, though, and also wish I had more confidence that Democrats know what they're doing.

[Zarathud]

The Far Right is certainly a problem of the GOP’s making, but it’s insane to call it a “Republican problem.” That’s like saying, “Hey, that fire you set over there that has grown into a raging inferno that’s about to burn down my house? Yeah. Your problem, not mine.”

The solution is to stop electing arsonists, rather than negotiating with how much kerosene you’re willing to let them use.

Yes, put out the fire and save the country. But be under no illusion that the arsonists will not burn it all down if given a chance. Or eat as many faces as they can get away with.

Gaetz and MTG exist because Republican leadership let the cancer spread, without cutting it out of the party. Risking cancer everywhere is not the solution. You nuke it from orbit, trying hard not to damage too much tissue that can recover.

[Carpet_pissr]

Gaetz and MTG exist because they were elected.

FTFY!

[malchior]

Dems are going to let McCarthy burn, which is probably the correct decision.

I'm reading that McCarthy's interesting decision to go on national tv on Sunday and blame the near miss on Democrats as part of the deciding factor.

The guy's definitely an ass, and I have little sympathy for him given what he's done to get here. I wish I had more confidence in what happens next, though, and also wish I had more confidence that Democrats know what they're doing.

The out for Democrats here that there is no winning this game. They just need to hopefully take the least dumb course through this mess.

As to letting McCarthy burn? He did everything to hang himself here and they should only bail them out if he gives them enough of a win to make it worth it. That's probably not going to happen but guess all we can do is watch the chaos wheel turn.

[El Guapo]

Dems are going to let McCarthy burn, which is probably the correct decision.

I'm reading that McCarthy's interesting decision to go on national tv on Sunday and blame the near miss on Democrats as part of the deciding factor.

The guy's definitely an ass, and I have little sympathy for him given what he's done to get here. I wish I had more confidence in what happens next, though, and also wish I had more confidence that Democrats know what they're doing.

The out for Democrats here that there is no winning this game. They just need to hopefully take the least dumb course through this mess.

As to letting McCarthy burn? He did everything to hang himself here and they should only bail them out if he gives them enough of a win to make it worth it. That's probably not going to happen but guess all we can do is watch the chaos wheel turn.

Yeah, I know. And like I said even if Democrats were interested in a deal, McCarthy's burned his credibility and his relationships so badly by this point that it's not easy to imagine a deal that's both good enough and where Democrats would have faith in its execution.

We'll just hope for the best, I guess.