Did we know that Newt Gingrich had an OpEd in the WaPo today?
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is an anti-Republican who has become actively destructive to the conservative movement.
Drama has filled the halls of Congress for 234 years. Bringing together a group of 435 strong-willed personalities guarantees conflict, and it has always been a tumultuous body. But some behavior crosses the line — and when it does, there has to be consequences.
Gaetz obviously hates House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — and that’s fine. If Gaetz were simply a loudmouthed junior member who attacked McCarthy every day, that would be fine, too. He would just be isolated with a small group of lawmakers who can’t figure out how to get things done. They’d huddle together seeking warmth and reassurance from their fellow incompetents.
But Gaetz has gone beyond regular drama. He is destroying the House GOP’s ability to govern and draw a sharp contrast with the policy disasters of the Biden administration.
...
Unlike Gaetz, though, when I rebelled, I represented the majority view of the caucus at the time.
Gaetz’s motion to remove McCarthy should have been swiftly defeated, but it wasn’t; he should still be expelled from the House Republican Conference. House Republicans have far more important things to do than entertain one member’s ego.
There have already been some laughably predictable takes - like this one at the the Daily Beast titled 'Democrats Blew a Huge Political Win By Not Saving Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker'. There is a thread on Xitter where everyone is essentially mocking him. I expect there will be some real winners tomorrow.
What we saw in Australia and the UK though is every new right wing PM and associated leadership contest completely drowned out the opposition party in the media. That helped the right wing party because instead of having a talking head from their party and from the opposition party you had two talking heads from their party on the news.
In their system the PM is like the US speaker. The monarch has no power anymore but can in theory fire the prime minister and call an election.
Last edited by waitingtoconnect on Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 11:19 pm
There have already been some laughably predictable takes - like this one at the the Daily Beast titled 'Democrats Blew a Huge Political Win By Not Saving Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker'. There is a thread on Xitter where everyone is essentially mocking him. I expect there will be some real winners tomorrow.
When your party has the controlling votes you don't get to blame the other party for the vote not going your way. The pick for the next speaker will either come down to the majority of the republicans working with the Dems and giving up concessions to them in order to get an actually effective speaker. Or it will come down to the majority of the Republicans giving concessions to the Geatz 8 again and placing themselves back in the same box they were in prior to firing McCarthy. Either way the Dems save face. So I'm not surprised that none of the Dems voted against removal.
Unlike Gaetz, though, when I rebelled, I represented the majority view of the caucus at the time.
Gaetz’s motion to remove McCarthy should have been swiftly defeated, but it wasn’t; he should still be expelled from the House Republican Conference. House Republicans have far more important things to do than entertain one member’s ego.
Too funny. When I did it, I represented the caucus. When Gaetz did it, he had enough support to remove the speaker. Totally different.
Yeah, funny how he tries to pre-empt criticism with that comment because he knows it’s coming.
I think the starker difference is that Gaetz seems to be pretty much hated by his fellow party members outside the select handful of deplorables, and STILL pulled this off.
IIRC Gingrich was kind of a GOP Elvis at the time. Could be very wrong on that…memory faulty.
Gingrich and Gaetz are cut out of the same cloth in many ways. Gingrich wasn't Elvis by any means, he was a bomb thrower who many on the right tolerated up until he lost many of them seats in the late 90s after he shutdown the government multiple times. They then reprimanded him and rode him on a rail out of Congress.
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 1:51 am
Now that the role of Speaker of the House for the GOP now includes kissing Matt Gaetz's ass as a job requirement, I expect we'll get what we deserve.
Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
The thing of it is, I honestly don't see why that would be a job requirement. I admit I only have an amateur view of game theory, but it seems to me the Speakership is a lose-lose proposition. Either you appease the hardliners and get nothing passed or you work with the Democrats. Either way you are heavily reviled and it seems to me either way you will lose the Speakership and perhaps lose the next election.
However, there is the meta-game which is, how will this affect the rest of the GOP. If the new Speaker tries to appease the hard-liners and gets nothing passed there is a good chance the GOP will lose the House - basically all the seats where there is moderate GOP bias. Whereas if they try to work with the Democrats they could make the argument that they tried to make Government work. So why not say "Fuck it" and work with the Democrats? Am I drawing the wrong conclusion from game theory?
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 9:13 am
He wasn’t kind of thought of as their ‘loudmouthed champion’?
Before his shenanigans caused them to lose their seats of course.
He certainly led a faction that eventually grew big enough to elect him Speaker but I think the word tolerate is right. He delivered seats in '94 by championing the contract with America so it's likely people kissed his ass to the usual extent. However, they turned on him very quickly after only 4 years of his nonsense. In essence, he had power but little popularity in the caucus. When he didn't have power they discarded him.
raydude wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 9:14 am So why not say "Fuck it" and work with the Democrats? Am I drawing the wrong conclusion from game theory?
I think this is probably not right because the model of the game is incomplete. For example, a key factor not in the model is ideological alignment. On the political spectrum the Republicans are almost all far right with a handful of hard right members. There are only a handful of moderates and frankly they also verge on hard right.
Meanwhile, the Democrats range from far left to center right. Almost all Republican and Democratic policy positions are far off from each other. There is little middle ground. The "problem solvers" is (was?) a proxy for that group and they barely worked with each other. There is unfortunately no bridge between these two sides.
So a Speaker could wish to work with the Democrats but almost every suggestion would cause them to lose support with their own caucus. That was part of the high wire that McCarthy failed to walk. He tried to do the worst of all things which was to say he would support anything and ended up supporting absolutely nothing.
raydude wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 9:14 am So why not say "Fuck it" and work with the Democrats? Am I drawing the wrong conclusion from game theory?
I think this is probably not right because the model of the game is incomplete. For example, a key factor not in the model is ideological alignment. On the political spectrum the Republicans are almost all far right with a handful of hard right members. There are only a handful of moderates and frankly they also verge on hard right.
Meanwhile, the Democrats range from far left to center right. Almost all Republican and Democratic policy positions are far off from each other. There is little middle ground. The "problem solvers" is (was?) a proxy for that group and they barely worked with each other. There is unfortunately no bridge between these two sides.
So a Speaker could wish to work with the Democrats but almost every suggestion would cause them to lose support with their own caucus. That was part of the high wire that McCarthy failed to walk. He tried to do the worst of all things which was to say he would support anything and ended up supporting absolutely nothing.
Yes. The system has moved on from the idea of compromise or true bi-partisan solutions; it's a winner take all environment. I mean, they're calling McCarthy a RINO at this point, after he went out of his way to try and make sure the Democrats weren't needed for anything that needed approval in the House. And even after all the nonsense he's been up to since January, he still wasn't pure enough for ~4% of the GOP members in the House - the ones that voted him out yesterday.
In short, proactive, visible compromise with the Democrats would be political suicide in the current environment. Is it any wonder things are getting worse?
raydude wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 9:14 am So why not say "Fuck it" and work with the Democrats? Am I drawing the wrong conclusion from game theory?
I think this is probably not right because the model of the game is incomplete. For example, a key factor not in the model is ideological alignment. On the political spectrum the Republicans are almost all far right with a handful of hard right members. There are only a handful of moderates and frankly they also verge on hard right.
Meanwhile, the Democrats range from far left to center right. Almost all Republican and Democratic policy positions are far off from each other. There is little middle ground. The "problem solvers" is (was?) a proxy for that group and they barely worked with each other. There is unfortunately no bridge between these two sides.
So a Speaker could wish to work with the Democrats but almost every suggestion would cause them to lose support with their own caucus. That was part of the high wire that McCarthy failed to walk. He tried to do the worst of all things which was to say he would support anything and ended up supporting absolutely nothing.
To put it more plainly, raydude's mistake is that he's coming at it from a position of wanting foremost to make government work rather than wanting foremost to own the libs. There is no desire, whatsoever, from the modern GOP to make government work.
raydude wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 9:14 am So why not say "Fuck it" and work with the Democrats? Am I drawing the wrong conclusion from game theory?
I think this is probably not right because the model of the game is incomplete. For example, a key factor not in the model is ideological alignment. On the political spectrum the Republicans are almost all far right with a handful of hard right members. There are only a handful of moderates and frankly they also verge on hard right.
Meanwhile, the Democrats range from far left to center right. Almost all Republican and Democratic policy positions are far off from each other. There is little middle ground. The "problem solvers" is (was?) a proxy for that group and they barely worked with each other. There is unfortunately no bridge between these two sides.
So a Speaker could wish to work with the Democrats but almost every suggestion would cause them to lose support with their own caucus. That was part of the high wire that McCarthy failed to walk. He tried to do the worst of all things which was to say he would support anything and ended up supporting absolutely nothing.
To put it more plainly, raydude's mistake is that he's coming at it from a position of wanting foremost to make government work rather than wanting foremost to own the libs. There is no desire, whatsoever, from the modern GOP to make government work.
Okay, that's the thing I was missing. If it were me, and I hated the 4% of the people in my group I would say "fuck the 4%", but I guess if I hated the people outside the group more I can see how I maybe could tolerate the 4%.
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 1:51 am
Now that the role of Speaker of the House for the GOP now includes kissing Matt Gaetz's ass as a job requirement, I expect we'll get what we deserve.
Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
What’s the connection. Why mention the SM-S908U1?
Is that significant?
I would go farther and say that there’s more than a handful (both leaders and voters) of people who actively want to smash things…specifically the government. It’s no longer just block and jam the processes…it’s “wreck”.
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 10:29 am
I would go farther and say that there’s more than a handful (both leaders and voters) of people who actively want to smash things…specifically the government. It’s no longer just block and jam the processes…it’s “wreck”.
Lord knows there are at least enough thinking a Federal shut down is a good thing, and I'm sure the subset of wreck it is way too high for my comfort.
Jim Jordan is running. I'd say that wouldn't be ideal.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
Yeah, I'm not sure if you've met the GOP lately, and particularly the *House* GOP, but there aren't a lot of great options. "Will try to keep the government open" is about as good as we can hope for realistically.
Just from a sheer "punchability" factor, I would be hard pressed to decide who gets punched in the face first if presented the option: Gaetz or Jordan. They are both so publicly slimy, they only lack cakling, and twirling little curly moustaches when they talk (mostly yell).
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:41 am
Just from a sheer "punchability" factor, I would be hard pressed to decide who gets punched in the face first if presented the option: Gaetz or Jordan. They are both so publicly slimy, they only lack cakling, and twirling little curly moustaches when they talk (mostly yell).
I see Jordan self promoting and lying through his teeth much much much more often. Gaetz is slimy but he's not in my face. Jordan wins (loses) hands down.
After McCarthy’s unseating, several Republican and/or conservative commentators wondered why the Democrats didn’t hand him a lifeline, and the answer to that was: Why should they have? He’d burned them often and pointedly offered no concessions for their cooperation during the motion to vacate. Anyway, they weren’t the ones who had offered the motion to vacate, that had been from the GOP side. They were under no obligation to save McCarthy from the trap he set for himself, nine months ago.
Which apparently came as a surprise to a number of Republicans! Including Gaetz himself, who noted prior to the vote on the motion to vacate that he expected at least some of the Democrats would vote to save McCarthy’s speakership rather than risk the chaos that would follow. This is the problem with the recent conservative trick of offering things up for a vote without the intention or expectation of winning, and then not having a plan for when you do win. Trump’s 2016 presidential run, the Brexit vote in the UK, this bit of chicanery: They were supposed to be useful bits of messaging, not actual things that were meant to happen. But then they did, and those who offered them for voting was caught flat-footed. We see the mess that Brexit and a Trump presidency have gotten us. This new nonsense is smaller, to be sure, but the dynamic is the same. Modern conservatives can’t govern; they can only signal. That’s the only thing they know how to do any more.
Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 2:56 pm
This is a mess. I can’t stand McCarthy but I’m not sure what comes next will be better and it could be a lot worse, as hard as it may be to believe that. There’s a small group that just wants to burn everything down, and they don’t care whether there is a speaker or not. I think they would be fine with no speaker for weeks until there is another shut down.
From my Congressperson:
Also, with a Speaker Pro Tem, there is a Speaker.
Oh, sure, McCarthy is a liar, is awful and can’t be trusted, I don’t deny that. But the fact that Jim Jordan has announced he’s running for speaker just proves my point. Again, I don’t know his thus will never play out, but we could end up much worse off.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Grifman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 12:56 pm
Oh, sure, McCarthy is a liar, is awful and can’t be trusted, I don’t deny that. But the fact that Jim Jordan has announced he’s running for speaker just proves my point. Again, I don’t know his thus will never play out, but we could end up much worse off.
I'm not saying you're incorrect, but do you have any specific scenarios (or have read specific scenarios) where [X] would be named as Speaker and it would be demonstrably worse because they would be able to do [Y]?
The whole issue with the GOP right now is they're imploding. Maybe I'm not reading the room correctly, but I'm having a hard time believing Jim Jordan is the "great uniter" for the party and he'd somehow be able to laser-focus their weaponized idiocy.
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:41 am
Just from a sheer "punchability" factor, I would be hard pressed to decide who gets punched in the face first if presented the option: Gaetz or Jordan. They are both so publicly slimy, they only lack cakling, and twirling little curly moustaches when they talk (mostly yell).
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 1:05 pm
The whole issue with the GOP right now is they're imploding. Maybe I'm not reading the room correctly, but I'm having a hard time believing Jim Jordan is the "great uniter" for the party and he'd somehow be able to laser-focus their weaponized idiocy.
OO likes to talk about boiling frogs, the fear is that the reasonable center right keeps getting pushed away from being reasonable toward Geatz and Nunez and MTG and Boebert and Jordan and Tuberville as do their voters.
I don't know if the fear is grounded in reality or not. I know they pushed to far here and are losing the next generation and could move us from purple toward blue, pissing a whole lot of red off into instability. I see they are pushing too far in WI and OH and I don't know... Never forget the Supreme Court. Never forget how the rule of law will work until we are too old to matter any more because of it. Try not to let others forget either. For now that's all we can do.
Right, I get all that but the core issue is that the GOP is fractured. In order for them to accomplish legislative evil, they would need to be unified -or- have support from the Democrats (which for evil legislation, you'd hope they wouldn't).
Maybe I really am underestimating the extremist House GOP member's ability for forcing the less-extremist members (note: not moderate or centrist; they don't exist) to vote in support of something truly awful just because it's a GOP sponsored plan.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 1:38 pm
Right, I get all that but the core issue is that the GOP is fractured. In order for them to accomplish legislative evil, they would need to be unified -or- have support from the Democrats (which for evil legislation, you'd hope they wouldn't).
Maybe I really am underestimating the extremist House GOP member's ability for forcing the less-extremist members (note: not moderate or centrist; they don't exist) to vote in support of something truly awful just because it's a GOP sponsored plan.
Vote? Hah!
You're thinking within the system and existing norms. As we've seen, the most damge will be done by someone who goes outside in ways heretofore unimaginable. How many times have we heard "unprecedented" in the last 8 or so years? I don't know what it could look like but it could be bad.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
