Kevin McCarthy Finally Shows Boldness

 

To be clear, I am not a big fan of Kevin McCarthy, who is currently the House Minority Leader. Whenever I see him interviewed, he expresses himself with enthusiasm, but I’m not quite convinced that he means it. Maybe that’s my problem and not his.

But it appears that there’s a good chance he may be the next Speaker of the House, although that outcome is not set in stone. So, while McCarthy declares he will remove three Democratic committee members from House committees (which is not as easy as you’d think), he’s not a shoo-in for the Speaker position. All in all, Rep. McCarthy may be out over his skis. Let me say upfront, however, that I still hope he does win the Speaker’s job, and that he outrages some Democrats by removing their members from committees.

Let’s look at the position of Speaker first. The following convoluted description explains why he might not win the Speaker role:

McCarthy won the GOP nomination by a 188-31 vote, putting more Republicans against the party leader than he could afford to lose during a full House vote.

This could prove disastrous for the House minority leader while he courts GOP lawmakers for their support, as some Republicans have been outspoken that they won’t support his speaker bid. That list includes Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ), who challenged McCarthy for the speaker nomination last week.

‘I’m not voting for Kevin McCarthy,’ Gaetz said on the Charlie Kirk Show last week. ‘And I am certain that there is a critical mass of people who hold my precise view. And so the sooner we can sort of dispense with the notion that Kevin is going to be speaker, then we can get to the important work.’

However, McCarthy could skirt by without garnering the lucky number of 218.

To win the speakership, McCarthy only needs to win a majority of the votes from lawmakers on the floor. However, House rules show that if GOP lawmakers who do not support McCarthy’s bid simply vote ‘present,’ the final number needed to win the majority is lowered — giving him a better chance to win.

That way, House Republicans can choose not to support McCarthy while not jeopardizing his chance at becoming speaker.

But not all lawmakers will make it easy for him, with some Republicans vowing to vote for another candidate in an effort to sink McCarthy’s chances. Gaetz, for example, has said he will vote for another candidate, although it’s not clear who might mount a bid against McCarthy.

These are the kinds of infighting that the Republicans cannot afford; they appear petty and bitter. Frankly, I would like to see someone stronger and bolder in that position, but when the Republicans’ vote was taken for the Speaker position, he was clearly favored; the time to select someone else has passed.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that these machinations for the Speaker position are overcome and McCarthy can act on his promises to remove Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee. He can’t remove Omar without a full vote of the House. But of course, Omar is outraged at his announcement in response to her anti-Semitic remarks:

‘McCarthy’s effort to repeatedly single me out for scorn and hatred — including threatening to strip me from my committee — does nothing to address the issues our constituents deal with,’ Omar said in a statement.

‘What it does is gin up fear and hate against Somali-Americans and anyone who shares my identity, and further divide us along racial and ethnic lines,’ she added. ‘It is a continuation of a sustained campaign against Muslim and African voices, people his party have been trying to ban since Donald Trump first ran for office.’

Maybe Omar should have thought about the consequences of her comments before she spoke them. And, of course, her remarks are intended to smear others rather than for her to accept responsibility.

It would take too much space to list all the abuses, lies, and leaks that Adam Schiff promoted, in particular, the blatant lies he created for the Russian hoax. But if you’d like to review most of his unethical, unprofessional, and revolting activity, you can read it here.

And finally, there is Eric Swalwell, who allowed himself to be duped by, and become involved with, a suspected spy from China. Military representatives have said that he should have been kicked off the Intel Committee for the threat he posed to national security. I agree.

*     *     *    *

So, let me bring all these points together. The Republicans in Congress have been, to be generous, less than bold in acting against Democrats. They have not stood against more spending, or stood effectively for accountability, and they continue to fight with each other, therefore dividing the power of the GOP.

It is time for a change, big time. Here are the outcomes I hope to see:

  • Get McCarthy into the Speaker role, at this point, and move forward. To spend time trying to get someone else in this position is foolish.
  • Push his bold agenda, including the removal of Omar, Swalwell, and Schiff. If he backs down, push harder.
  • Be discriminating in deciding the most important investigations to pursue first. Establish criteria for what would be most valuable, most powerful, and that could have a major impact. For example, to get 51 former intelligence officers to explain why they seemed to discount the Hunter Biden laptop is a fool’s errand.
  • Don’t try to do everything in a month. Instead, try to create an agenda and schedule.
  • Find other areas to push against the Democrats to let them know there is a new party in power.
  • Find more people that the House can hold accountable for their unconscionable actions. Study the committees for other members who may have abused their positions or acted unethically.
  • Pass legislation immediately that will help ease inflation, such as drilling for oil and natural gas; find a way to make it happen.

We finally have some power to let the people know that we are in charge and we can actually improve their lives, turn the country around and make exciting things happen.

Let’s do it!

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 65 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    And yet, here you are, preaching weakness and mercy in the face of people out to destroy America utterly.

    No, I’m speaking of integrity. Acting like scumbags doesn’t help us.

    I guess we have to disagree. 

    I don’t see treating the Democrats as they have treated the Republicans as a lack of integrity. 

     

    • #31
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Pelosi got a lot of grief for refusing to put election disputers on the House Select Committee on the January 6th Committee. If McCarthy does this, are you willing to say that Pelosi was right in refusing to seat those Republicans?

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    She was wrong and McCarthy would be wrong if he did it.

    Oh come off it!

    The Democrats are only going to stop when their are consequences for their behaviors.

    It is like saying “Now, just because the Japanese did a sneak attack and the insist on to the last man fighting that will kill half a million more Americans, we should not use those nasty, nasty nukes.”

     

    Huh? I don’t understand the Japanese reference. I’m just saying he shouldn’t act like a spiteful child and if he has reason to form a committee, Dems should be on it, too.

    How

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Pelosi got a lot of grief for refusing to put election disputers on the House Select Committee on the January 6th Committee. If McCarthy does this, are you willing to say that Pelosi was right in refusing to seat those Republicans?

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    How can unseating Omar, Swillwell and Shiff be anything but a good thing? McCarthy is not going to choose who the Democrats put on any committee ( like Pelosi did ). Pelosi chose her own republicans ( which to me meant they were democrats )? Removing people is different than choosing the replacements.

    Absolutely. Surely there are more Democrats who have been compromised by foreign intelligence services or who find evidence only they can perceive. 

    Okay, it might be more difficult to locate a raving anti-Semite who has been married to a sibling. That’s kind of special.

    • #32
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The Democrats have to be taught a lesson. Otherwise, when they are in power they will push more. Have you failed to notice, Susan, that it is always Democrats who transgress boundaries? Have you ever seen them pull back and say “Well, it would be improper to do this?”

    Of course not. 

    And yet, here you are, preaching weakness and mercy in the face of people out to destroy America utterly. 

    Well, I guess I see your points differently. I don’t think the Dems will learn anything from our “lessons”; they could care less. I think we need to do all we can to hold them accountable, finally. Transgressing boundaries, taking revenge, provides only temporary satisfaction. I can’t speak for Repubs, but acting scummy towards someone no matter how much of a jerk that person is, doesn’t make me feel good. 

    So I don’t see my suggestions as “preaching weakness and mercy.” I think we need to step up against Dems, show our power every chance we get, and never forgive their outrageous violations and lies. We need to stop kowtowing. In fact, when we take action that will make them angry, I would have no problem telling them precisely why we are doing it. That’s called integrity and accountability.

    • #33
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I can’t speak for Repubs, but acting scummy towards someone no matter how much of a jerk that person is, doesn’t make me feel good. 

    So I don’t see my suggestions as “preaching weakness and mercy.” I think we need to step up against Dems, show our power every chance we get, and never forgive their outrageous violations and lies. We need to stop kowtowing. In fact, when we take action that will make them angry, I would have no problem telling them precisely why we are doing it. That’s called integrity and accountability.

    Some would call that “acting scummy.” ( I wouldn’t, but one person’s scummy is another person’s “tough love.”)

    • #34
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I can’t speak for Repubs, but acting scummy towards someone no matter how much of a jerk that person is, doesn’t make me feel good.

    So I don’t see my suggestions as “preaching weakness and mercy.” I think we need to step up against Dems, show our power every chance we get, and never forgive their outrageous violations and lies. We need to stop kowtowing. In fact, when we take action that will make them angry, I would have no problem telling them precisely why we are doing it. That’s called integrity and accountability.

    Some would call that “acting scummy.” ( I wouldn’t, but one person’s scummy is another person’s “tough love.”)

    Even if it’s wrong to do? I guess it’s hard to tell the difference between right and wrong anymore. . . 

    Otherwise it’s just taking revenge, which I try to avoid doing. . . 

    • #35
  6. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I can’t speak for Repubs, but acting scummy towards someone no matter how much of a jerk that person is, doesn’t make me feel good.

    So I don’t see my suggestions as “preaching weakness and mercy.” I think we need to step up against Dems, show our power every chance we get, and never forgive their outrageous violations and lies. We need to stop kowtowing. In fact, when we take action that will make them angry, I would have no problem telling them precisely why we are doing it. That’s called integrity and accountability.

    Some would call that “acting scummy.” ( I wouldn’t, but one person’s scummy is another person’s “tough love.”)

    Even if it’s wrong to do? I guess it’s hard to tell the difference between right and wrong anymore. . .

    Otherwise it’s just taking revenge, which I try to avoid doing. . .

    Another way to look at it is as warfare of the non-shooting kind, and the other side has no use for restricted or honorable warfare.  Against such an enemy, your choices are be as effective as they are, no matter what it takes — or capitulate.

    I’m tired of us capitulating.  We will never get credit for attacks not made, rules not broken, slurs not hurled, jerks not fired.  As with much these days, I don’t like the way it is, but that is indeed the way it seems to me.

    EDIT:  Were the stakes small, I could see standing on a by-now-unilateral principle for the sake of our own souls.  But the stakes are large.  What father would not tarnish himself for his child’s survival?  (Well, Abraham wouldn’t, but I don’t think that’s where we are, and at any rate, I’m no Abe).

    • #36
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    BDB (View Comment):

    Another way to look at it is as warfare of the non-shooting kind, and the other side has no use for restricted or honorable warfare.  Against such an enemy, your choices are be as effective as they are, no matter what it takes — or capitulate.

    I’m tired of us capitulating.  We will never get credit for attacks not made, rules not broken, slurs not hurled, jerks not fired.  As with much these days, I don’t like the way it is, but that is indeed the way it seems to me.

    EDIT:  Were the stakes small, I could see standing on a by-now-unilateral principle for the sake of our own souls.  But the stakes are large.  What father would not tarnish himself for his child’s survival?  (Well, Abraham wouldn’t, but I don’t think that’s where we are, and at any rate, I’m no Abe).

    So this is an interesting (but difficult) way to look at this situation. Let me pick your brain. They started the war and have ignored or dumped any rules of engagement. So does that mean anything goes, that there are no boundaries? Would it be acceptable to contrive a hoax like the Russian debacle? Would we be prepared to destroy people’s reputations although our accusations might be questionable? If we escalate, doesn’t that mean that they can, too? I’m not sure what escalating would be in these circumstances. (I apologize if my tone sounds shrill–I intend to sound curious?) I don’t think they’ll learn lessons from our vengeful behavior; they’ll just keep doing what they’re doing. If I’m correct, what is the point of being as bad as they are?

    • #37
  8. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Another way to look at it is as warfare of the non-shooting kind, and the other side has no use for restricted or honorable warfare. Against such an enemy, your choices are be as effective as they are, no matter what it takes — or capitulate.

    I’m tired of us capitulating. We will never get credit for attacks not made, rules not broken, slurs not hurled, jerks not fired. As with much these days, I don’t like the way it is, but that is indeed the way it seems to me.

    EDIT: Were the stakes small, I could see standing on a by-now-unilateral principle for the sake of our own souls. But the stakes are large. What father would not tarnish himself for his child’s survival? (Well, Abraham wouldn’t, but I don’t think that’s where we are, and at any rate, I’m no Abe).

    So this is an interesting (but difficult) way to look at this situation. Let me pick your brain. They started the war and have ignored or dumped any rules of engagement. So does that mean anything goes, that there are no boundaries? Would it be acceptable to contrive a hoax like the Russian debacle? Would we be prepared to destroy people’s reputations although our accusations might be questionable? If we escalate, doesn’t that mean that they can, too? I’m not sure what escalating would be in these circumstances. (I apologize if my tone sounds shrill–I intend to sound curious?) I don’t think they’ll learn lessons from our vengeful behavior; they’ll just keep doing what they’re doing. If I’m correct, what is the point of being as bad as they are?

    In reverse order — they’re not going to learn lessons no matter what they do.  They’ll beat us or we’ll beat them.  They’re already escalating, secure in the knowledge that we won’t.  Reputations, absolutely — I’ll take questionable, though I’d like to avoid baseless.  It would be unethical to contrive a Russia hoax, and at any rate, not at all necessary — their scandals are omnipresent, yet ignored everywhere.  And it should not even be possible to pull off a #RussiaHoax, but it is, because the media is an arm of the totalitarian left.  Would be a shame if something awful were to happen to the reputations of CNN, MSNBC, and so forth, but it would not help us.  As folks have observed, you cannot win points against the left by pointing out their hypocrisy — they wallow in it.

    Our unethical warfare will look different from their unethical warfare, as there is a built-in asymmetry — they set fire to our buildings, whereas we only wish to set fire to their arsonists.  Whatever it is, I’m probably all for it.

    ~ continued ~

    • #38
  9. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    I’m certainly all for removing Omar, Schiff, and Swallwell from committees based upon their individually unacceptable behavior.  We’re not pre-judging them based on the positions they hold, unless we accept clear threats to security via those same assignments as merely points of view.  At a MINIMUM, Swallwell and Schiff should be removed from sensitive committees — they can still vote on things and otherwise discharge their “duties” as the elected representatives of whichever poop-hole constituencies sent them.  Omar (I hate to say it) has the best case for remaining, as her miserable anti-American hatred and other bigotry is the closest to a mere position.

    But yeah, off with her head, too.  This torpedo is already in the water — it would be a shame for it to only hit us.

    • #39
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    BDB (View Comment):
    Our unethical warfare will look different from their unethical warfare, as there is a built-in asymmetry — they set fire to our buildings, whereas we only wish to set fire to their arsonists.  Whatever it is, I’m probably all for it.

    Thanks so much for your two-part comment. The comment I copied here is helpful. I think a big question I have to ask myself is ultimately, what am I prepared to have the Reps do to almost literally save the Republic? Whatever actions we take would not be (to me) as a way to seek revenge, but to present a type of punishment. It likely would not dissuade them from the actions they take, but at least they might begin to realize that we are prepared to fight back with vehemence and they can’t just glide through with their ugly deeds.

    Much to contemplate.

    • #40
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    BDB (View Comment):

    I’m certainly all for removing Omar, Schiff, and Swallwell from committees based upon their individually unacceptable behavior. We’re not pre-judging them based on the positions they hold, unless we accept clear threats to security via those same assignments as merely points of view. At a MINIMUM, Swallwell and Schiff should be removed from sensitive committees — they can still vote on things and otherwise discharge their “duties” as the elected representatives of whichever poop-hole constituencies sent them. Omar (I hate to say it) has the best case for remaining, as her miserable anti-American hatred and other bigotry is the closest to a mere position.

    But yeah, off with her head, too. This torpedo is already in the water — it would be a shame for it to only hit us.

    If Swallwell merely had a security clearance, it would be lifted – no question.

    • #41
  12. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    BDB (View Comment):

    I’m certainly all for removing Omar, Schiff, and Swallwell from committees based upon their individually unacceptable behavior. We’re not pre-judging them based on the positions they hold, unless we accept clear threats to security via those same assignments as merely points of view. At a MINIMUM, Swallwell and Schiff should be removed from sensitive committees — they can still vote on things and otherwise discharge their “duties” as the elected representatives of whichever poop-hole constituencies sent them. Omar (I hate to say it) has the best case for remaining, as her miserable anti-American hatred and other bigotry is the closest to a mere position.

    But yeah, off with her head, too. This torpedo is already in the water — it would be a shame for it to only hit us.

    Well said and where I am coming from.

    • #42
  13. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I can’t speak for Repubs, but acting scummy towards someone no matter how much of a jerk that person is, doesn’t make me feel good.

    So I don’t see my suggestions as “preaching weakness and mercy.” I think we need to step up against Dems, show our power every chance we get, and never forgive their outrageous violations and lies. We need to stop kowtowing. In fact, when we take action that will make them angry, I would have no problem telling them precisely why we are doing it. That’s called integrity and accountability.

    Some would call that “acting scummy.” ( I wouldn’t, but one person’s scummy is another person’s “tough love.”)

    Even if it’s wrong to do? I guess it’s hard to tell the difference between right and wrong anymore. . .

    No, I think it is. The difficult line is between being nice and doing good. Sometimes if you want to do good you have to not be nice.

     

    • #43
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):
    No, I think it is. The difficult line is between being nice and doing good. Sometimes if you want to do good you have to not be nice.

    I agree, Drew. I’m not concerned with being nice. I’m concerned with being ethical. Doing the right thing doesn’t have to be nice.

    • #44
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):
    No, I think it is. The difficult line is between being nice and doing good. Sometimes if you want to do good you have to not be nice.

    I agree, Drew. I’m not concerned with being nice. I’m concerned with being ethical. Doing the right thing doesn’t have to be nice.

    An eye for an eye is perfectly ethical.

    • #45
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    McCarthy isn’t going to suddenly exhibit the boldness we require. He’s going to put on a show until he gets elected Speaker, and then he’ll settle in and do nothing, just like before.

    How am I wrong?

    Unless you’re a psychic, you’re not right.

    I’m deeply cynical, which in politics is often the same as being psychic.

    Close, but not directly. Drew, do you really want them spending weeks, maybe months, coming up with someone else? I completely understand your frustration, but that kind of delay would be really unacceptable to me.

    Are you saying that quickly doing nothing is preferable to slowly doing something?

    • #46
  17. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    Our unethical warfare will look different from their unethical warfare, as there is a built-in asymmetry — they set fire to our buildings, whereas we only wish to set fire to their arsonists. Whatever it is, I’m probably all for it.

    Thanks so much for your two-part comment. The comment I copied here is helpful. I think a big question I have to ask myself is ultimately, what am I prepared to have the Reps do to almost literally save the Republic? Whatever actions we take would not be (to me) as a way to seek revenge, but to present a type of punishment. It likely would not dissuade them from the actions they take, but at least they might begin to realize that we are prepared to fight back with vehemence and they can’t just glide through with their ugly deeds.

    Much to contemplate.

    Susan, I think it’s of a piece with your post on the Woke Act. In a different time I probably would have been with you, but that time doesn’t exist anymore, if it ever really did. Removing objectively compromised partisans from those particular positions isn’t even a question of law. If we’re going to turn things around without real ugliness then wielding civic power when we have it is necessary. 

    • #47
  18. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Another way to look at it is as warfare of the non-shooting kind, and the other side has no use for restricted or honorable warfare. Against such an enemy, your choices are be as effective as they are, no matter what it takes — or capitulate.

    I’m tired of us capitulating. We will never get credit for attacks not made, rules not broken, slurs not hurled, jerks not fired. As with much these days, I don’t like the way it is, but that is indeed the way it seems to me.

    EDIT: Were the stakes small, I could see standing on a by-now-unilateral principle for the sake of our own souls. But the stakes are large. What father would not tarnish himself for his child’s survival? (Well, Abraham wouldn’t, but I don’t think that’s where we are, and at any rate, I’m no Abe).

    So this is an interesting (but difficult) way to look at this situation. Let me pick your brain. They started the war and have ignored or dumped any rules of engagement. So does that mean anything goes, that there are no boundaries? Would it be acceptable to contrive a hoax like the Russian debacle? Would we be prepared to destroy people’s reputations although our accusations might be questionable? If we escalate, doesn’t that mean that they can, too? I’m not sure what escalating would be in these circumstances. (I apologize if my tone sounds shrill–I intend to sound curious?) I don’t think they’ll learn lessons from our vengeful behavior; they’ll just keep doing what they’re doing. If I’m correct, what is the point of being as bad as they are?

    It’s possible that once we start acting like Democrats there’s no going back — possibly.

    If winning is only possible by using Democrats’ tactics and we refuse we’ll only lose — near certainty.

    Neither choice is a good one, but only one is acceptable.

    • #48
  19. Quickz Member
    Quickz
    @Quickz

    Good post, interesting conversation.

    This topic of what agenda to take, especially when it comes to “giving them some of their own medicine” like withholding committee assignments, is something I have been thinking of often over the last years. The behavior of the “other side” has been nothing short of norm-breaking, and things not only need, but *should* be done.

    I plan to finish and publish a post tomorrow tentatively entitled “Tit-for-Tat Tactics” that has been in draft for a couple days now. I do hope everyone will stop by and give your thoughts to help me better think about this unfortunate situation.

    • #49
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Quickz (View Comment):

    Good post, interesting conversation.

    This topic of what agenda to take, especially when it comes to “giving them some of their own medicine” like withholding committee assignments, is something I have been thinking of often over the last years. The behavior of the “other side” has been nothing short of norm-breaking, and things not only need, but *should* be done.

    I plan to finish and publish a post tomorrow tentatively entitled “Tit-for-Tat Tactics” that has been in draft for a couple days now. I do hope everyone will stop by and give your thoughts to help me better think about this unfortunate situation.

    It’s probably worth more discussion, but I suspect that “Tit-for-Tat” or “Turnabout Is Fair Play” or other similar tactics are likely not going to change Democrat behavior, at least not because they will realize how THEY were wrong to start it.  They will, as usual, complain that “the other side” doing what THEY do is somehow “unfair.”  And many people will believe it.

    • #50
  21. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Louis Gohmert for Speaker!

    • #51
  22. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    McCarthy will very likely win the Speaker position, but he should not. A true leader would have taken responsibility for the drubbing at the polls and realized that their leadership and lack of coherent vision hurt the party. But that’s not McCarthy. At this point, making him work to win the Speaker role is about all conservatives who actually want to win can hope for. That perhaps he will learn from this and represent the people who voted for his party as opposed to the usual GOP line of ignoring those who made their victory possible. I’m fairly certain McCarthy won’t do that anyway. 

    And that’s one major problem with the GOP, the lack of any coherent vision from the leadership. Pelosi might have been old, but she was able to articulate a vision that the Dems could understand and rally behind. In this last election the GOP didn’t offer anything other than, “we’re not Democrats” and with historic levels of headwinds against the Dems, they did great keeping the Senate and barely losing a House they barely held. This isn’t a cause for celebration but real concern. If the GOP couldn’t win in these conditions, when will they ever win? Not with McCarthy at the helm, not with McConnell either. It will likely take a drubbing in 24 again for the GOP to finally realize that their message is stale, their leadership divisive and inept, and their mechanics out of date. Then again, why would they learn anything in 24, they (the GOP establishment) got thumped in 16 by Trump, then got thumped by the Dems in 18, 20, and 22…what makes us think that they will ever learn?  They got slapped upside the head in 16 as a wake up call when a reality TV star won the nomination because the voter’s wanted anyone but who the GOP was offering, and they took as the lesson that they should undermine him and make him go away, and especially don’t figure out why the voter’s wanted anyone but who they offered. 

    • #52
  23. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I must say that many of you have got me to thinking about McCarthy and the future. I’m really torn. I am so sick of our current situation, but I’m not convinced that someone else in his position (like Gaetz or Biggs) would do a better job. But I’m identifying with your adamancy for getting him out. Politics is such awful stuff! 

    • #53
  24. Bunsen Coolidge
    Bunsen
    @Bunsen

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I can’t speak for Repubs, but acting scummy towards someone no matter how much of a jerk that person is, doesn’t make me feel good.

    So I don’t see my suggestions as “preaching weakness and mercy.” I think we need to step up against Dems, show our power every chance we get, and never forgive their outrageous violations and lies. We need to stop kowtowing. In fact, when we take action that will make them angry, I would have no problem telling them precisely why we are doing it. That’s called integrity and accountability.

    Some would call that “acting scummy.” ( I wouldn’t, but one person’s scummy is another person’s “tough love.”)

    Even if it’s wrong to do? I guess it’s hard to tell the difference between right and wrong anymore. . .

    Otherwise it’s just taking revenge, which I try to avoid doing. . .

    Susan- too many of us (conservatives) are afflicted with terminal niceness.  We don’t want to inflict any sort of pain on our fellow citizens.  But we must if we are to move forward.   I don’t care what people call it, if we are speaking Truth In Love, that is what God asks us to do but is also extremely hard for us sinners to do.   We should always speak Truth and we should always try to do in a way (In Love) that helps the recipient hopefully realize the error of their ways and ask for forgiveness/repent*.  If they choose not to, that’s on them. 

    Bottom line – I don’t think anyone should ever feel “good” dishing out tough love/truth in love/etc. but if we want to move forward as a people it has to be done.   If we start feeling good about it, then it will slide to revenge, etc.  We MUST do everything we can to punish bad actions while holding fast to integrity and accountability.

    *I am under no illusions that the Democrats will feel they deserve these actions!  

    • #54
  25. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I must say that many of you have got me to thinking about McCarthy and the future. I’m really torn. I am so sick of our current situation, but I’m not convinced that someone else in his position (like Gaetz or Biggs) would do a better job. But I’m identifying with your adamancy for getting him out. Politics is such awful stuff!

    The last time McCarthy was up for speaker he did something boneheaded and had to withdraw. That lead to Speaker Ryan which I though was going to be awesome and proved to be much less so as he torpedoed the first two years of Trump’s administration. 

    I’m not sure who would be better than McCarthy, but I’d at least like him to admit that he blew a golden opportunity. 

    • #55
  26. Jhan Coolidge
    Jhan
    @JanHanson

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    McCarthy isn’t going to suddenly exhibit the boldness we require. He’s going to put on a show until he gets elected Speaker, and then he’ll settle in and do nothing, just like before.

    How am I wrong?

    You are right.

    • #56
  27. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    I see a lot of “republican bashing” in this thread based on the presumption that republicans never fight back or use the same underhanded tactics that democrats employ.   While I would agree that is often the case, has everybody forgotten that republicans eagerly jumped right in when democrat Senate leader Harry Reid changed the rules requiring 60 votes to end any piece of legislation?  Republicans (under Mitch McConnel, don’t start sending me hate mail!) immediately responded by pushing through all of Trump’s judicial nominees at high speed after they took the Senate.  They even upped the ante by applying it to Supreme Court nominees, which Harry Reid and  the democrats never figured on.  That resulted in the most important long-term victory for conservatism in my lifetime – a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, plus the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.

    • #57
  28. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I must say that many of you have got me to thinking about McCarthy and the future. I’m really torn. I am so sick of our current situation, but I’m not convinced that someone else in his position (like Gaetz or Biggs) would do a better job. But I’m identifying with your adamancy for getting him out. Politics is such awful stuff!

    The last time McCarthy was up for speaker he did something boneheaded and had to withdraw. That lead to Speaker Ryan which I though was going to be awesome and proved to be much less so as he torpedoed the first two years of Trump’s administration.

    I’m not sure who would be better than McCarthy, but I’d at least like him to admit that he blew a golden opportunity.

    I’ll admit that I don’t pay attention to McCarthy’s career very much at all, and I don’t even know what his actual  powers are, but how is it that he was responsible for the less than robust republican showing at the  polls two weeks ago?

    • #58
  29. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I must say that many of you have got me to thinking about McCarthy and the future. I’m really torn. I am so sick of our current situation, but I’m not convinced that someone else in his position (like Gaetz or Biggs) would do a better job. But I’m identifying with your adamancy for getting him out. Politics is such awful stuff!

    The last time McCarthy was up for speaker he did something boneheaded and had to withdraw. That lead to Speaker Ryan which I though was going to be awesome and proved to be much less so as he torpedoed the first two years of Trump’s administration.

    I’m not sure who would be better than McCarthy, but I’d at least like him to admit that he blew a golden opportunity.

    I’ll admit that I don’t pay attention to McCarthy’s career very much at all, and I don’t even know what his actual powers are, but how is it that he was responsible for the less than robust republican showing at the polls two weeks ago?

    He is the current leader ofnthe GOP in the House. He authored the strategy that the GOP used in this election. He recruited candidates and he attempted to author a platform of policies that the GOP was going to push. No one heard about it because it was an abysmal failure that failed to capture the imagination of the voter’s and didn’t appeal to them. 

    It’s not necessarily fair, but after 20, many people said that we aren’t going to have fair elections again and the GOP ignored that at the national level. Sometimes national level politicians have to engage at a local level. One example of this was Tom Delay who recognized that Texas’ voting base had shifted but its congressional delegation was still overwhelmingly Democrat. To win the redistricting fight, he raised money and spent it to get Republicans elected to the State legislature and so, when the census numbers came out Texas went from a majority D delegation (17 D, 13 R in 2000) to a majority R delegation after the 2004 election (21R, 11D after the 2004 election).  This was because he worked hard to win elections at the local level and then ensured that they were ready to withstand the Democrats fleeing the State (twice) to prevent a quorum in the Senate. That blue print would be used later in Wisconsin with similar results, the Democrats fleeing the state. 

    McCarthy isn’t a terrible guy, but his approach led to an historic loss. Since I haven’t heard him take responsibility for that loss, or even call it the drubbing it was, I’m not sanguine about him doing anything different, which means more losses. 

    • #59
  30. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):
    McCarthy Frank Luntz isn’t a terrible guy, but his approach led to an historic loss the desired outcome.

    FIFY.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.